Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802SEC] IEEE-SA CAG considering sponsoring competing standards to IEEE 802




That was exactly how I read it.

Regards,
Tony

At 00:47 13/02/2004, Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) wrote:

>If Roger's assessment is correct, I share his concerns.
>
>Carl
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 6:53 PM
> > To: bob.grow@intel.com
> > Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] IEEE-SA CAG considering sponsoring
> > competing standards to IEEE 802
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > It seems to me that, with this CAG sponsorship process, the IEEE-SA
> > is once again trying to find a way to "monetize" the value in its
> > reputation by trading it off for revenue. It sounds to me like this
> > process is well-designed to achieve this goal.
> >
> > Let me see if I understand the process correctly. I'd like to
> > hypothesize a situation just slightly different from yours:
> >
> > *802.X is considering a PAR for a faster PHY. All options on how to
> > achieve it are open.
> > *Company Y goes to the CAG for a PAR to make a faster 802.X PHY,
> > specifying Company Y's technology.
> > *The CAG sends 802 its PAR for review.
> > *802.X can choose only one of these two options:
> >   (a) Pass the PAR back to the CAG to create the standard.
> >   (b) Adopt the PAR, accepting its narrow nature and
> > entity-only balloting.
> >
> > As as understand what you've said, 802.X has no other options. Do I
> > have this right? If so, then I think the CAG sponsorship process
> > could very quickly spell the doom of 802. There is going to be a
> > strong incentive for companies to play this game.
> >
> > If I have this right, then I suggest a stronger statement.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> >
> > At 13:05 +0000 04/02/12, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> > >Bob -
> > >
> > >I share your concerns.
> > >
> > >I would be happy to second your motion when you are ready to make it.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Tony
> > >
> > >At 02:36 12/02/2004, Grow, Bob wrote:
> > >
> > >>Colleagues:
> > >>
> > >>Some recent activities on Ethernet have raised concerns again about
> > >>the IEEE-SA competing against itself by spawning competing
> > >>standards activities through different organizations.  Many of you
> > >>will remember when an ISTO affiliated consortium was formed that
> > >>IEEE 802.16 perceived as direct but non-interoperable competition
> > >>to IEEE 802.16.  This time, an Ethernet related activity has been
> > >>discussed as an IEEE-SA Corporate Advisory Group (CAG) sponsored
> > >>standards development project.  Please note that at this time,
> > >>nothing formal has happened, but initial discussions raise some
> > >>more general questions in the prevue of the Executive Committee.
> > >>
> > >>As background, I provide my understanding of the relevant parts of
> > >>CAG operation from "Operating Procedures for The Corporate Advisory
> > >>Group as a Standards Development Sponsor", "Maximizing Your IEEE-SA
> > >>Corporate Membership" and discussions with CAG leadership and IEEE
> > >>staff.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>1.  The "CAG is a committee of the IEEE-SA Board of Governors
> > >>(BoG), constituted to provide operational and strategic planning
> > >>advice on matters affecting the interests of the IEEE-SA corporate
> > >>and organizational members."  In some ways, the CAG is similar to
> > >>the LMSC EC in that it is a supervisory body representing its
> > >>members.  The CAG represents IEEE-SA Corporate Members, only a
> > >>subset of which have representatives with seats on the CAG.
> > >>2.  The CAG has 10 seats with 6 currently filled.  There are 46
> > >>entities listed as IEEE-SA Corporate Members on the web site (last
> > >>modified September 2003).
> > >>3.  The CAG can function as a sponsor for IEEE standards projects
> > >>(as can other societies within IEEE, like our sponsor the IEEE
> > >>Computer Society).
> > >>4.  Before sponsoring a standards development project, the CAG
> > >>must give existing societies 45 days to consider being the sponsor
> > >>for the proposed project.  If the sponsor takes on the project,
> > >>balloting must be as entities.
> > >>5.  At least three IEEE-SA Corporate Members must support doing a
> > >>standards project, and the CAG must approve a PAR before forwarding
> > >>to NesCom if it is to be the sponsor.
> > >>6.  The CAG is not required to get a supporting vote of the
> > >>corporate membership, nor even solicit comment from the corporate
> > >>membership about a proposed project.  The support by the requisite
> > >>number of entity members is assumed to be sufficient indication of
> > >>entity interest.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Recent activities in and outside 802.3 will highlight why I feel
> > >>current CAG policies are an important issue for the LMSC Executive
> > >>Committee to consider.  In general, my concern is that the current
> > >>procedures of the CAG can be used to undermine the decision making
> > >>authority of established working groups, and destroy industry
> > >>respect for and support of IEEE-SA as a standards development
> > >>organization.
> > >>
> > >>Because the EC's responsibility is mostly to process, I present the
> > >>following as background information so that you can easily envision
> > >>similar situations within your working groups.  Hopefully we can
> > >>deal with this particular proposal as a case study, and independent
> > >>of the technical merits and liabilities of the proposed work, focus
> > >>on the more general strategic implications.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>1.  In July 2003, a proposal was made to the 10GBASE-T study
> > >>group for multi-rate operation (2.5, 5 and 10 Gb/s).  This was
> > >>discussed on its technical merits as well as within the context of
> > >>the Five Criteria.  After three hours of discussion, the SG
> > >>declined to include an objective for multi-rate operation.  The
> > >>motions to change criteria text to allow multi-rate operation
> > >>generated 23% or less support, and the individual votes on each of
> > >>the Five Criteria passed by 78% or more.
> > >>2.  Also in July 2003 at the closing 802.3 plenary meeting, the
> > >>proponents brought the issue directly to the floor during the study
> > >>group report.  After more than an hour of discussion, and it being
> > >>a late hour, no motion was made on objectives for the emerging
> > >>P802.3an (10GBASE-T) PAR, and a motion to forward the PAR and
> > >>criteria failed Y: 30, N: 16, A: 15.
> > >>3.  In November, efforts to promote 2.5 Gb/s were separate from
> > >>the proposed 10GBASE-T project.  Motions to approve and forward the
> > >>10GBASE-T Five Criteria and PAR passed with little or no opposition.
> > >>4.  Also in November, proponents of 2.5 Gb/s Ethernet held a Call
> > >>for Interest.  It was one of three CFIs held in sequence Tuesday
> > >>evening.  Attendance was about 175 and seemed fairly consistent for
> > >>all of the CFIs.  Two of the CFIs were successful in generating
> > >>support for formation of a study group, but the 2.5 Gb/s CFI was
> > >>not.  The straw poll question presented at the CFI was:
> > >>
> > >>Should IEEE 802.3 form a Study Group to develop a project proposal
> > >>for 2.5 Gbps Ethernet?
> > >>
> > >>Attendees:        Y: 53, N: 64, A: 39
> > >>802.3 Voters:     Y: 20, N: 29, A: 21
> > >>
> > >>5.   Also in November, the proponents brought essentially the same
> > >>question before the 802.3 closing plenary.
> > >>
> > >>Motion:  802.3 WG authorizes the formation of 2.5Gbps Study Group
> > >>
> > >>Y: 17, N: 31, A: 17  Motion Failed
> > >>
> > >>6.   In January 2004, Mr. Nikolich received a request for
> > >>cooperation on a 2.5 Gb/s project from the Chair of the IEEE-SA
> > >>CAG, initiating discussions among CAG leadership, IEEE 802/802.3
> > >>leaders and IEEE Staff.  Mr. Nikolich gave his personal opinion to
> > >>the Chair of the CAG that executing this project through
> > >>sponsorship by the CAG "was not advisable due to conflict with the
> > >>802.3 position", but he also requested more information about the
> > >>CAG and corporate IEEE-SA participation before offering any formal
> > >>response to the request and requested that 802 and 802.3 leadership
> > >>be involved in any discussion by the CAG on this potential project.
> > >>To date, that request has been honored.
> > >>
> > >>1.  Following this communication, a significant amount of
> > >>misinformation began to circulate within the Ethernet community,
> > >>including misrepresentations of Mr. Nikolich's position on the
> > >>proposal, the status of the proposal with the CAG, etc.
> > >>2.  Consequently, a number of email, telephone and conference
> > >>calls resulted in IEEE staff arranging a 27 January call with:
> > >>
> > >>IEEE 802 - 1st Vice Chair, 802.3 Chair, 802.3 Vice Chair, 10GBASE-T
> > >>Chair CAG - Chair and Vice Chair IEEE staff
> > >>President of the IEEE-SA
> > >>In addition to the above information about CAG operation, the
> > >>conference call indicated:
> > >>a)   The CAG leadership was committed to support this
> > proposed project.
> > >>b)   A PAR if proposed would only require approval by the CAG to
> > >>forward to NesCom.
> > >>e)   IEEE 802 participants felt the absence of communication with
> > >>the corporate membership about the advisability of sponsoring a
> > >>project lessens the value proposition for becoming a corporate
> > >>member.  "Why should I recommend my company join IEEE-SA when it
> > >>would not be guaranteed any mechanism for disapproving proposed new
> > >>work?"
> > >>f)    It was expected that a 2.5 Gb/s project would be submitted to
> > >>NesCom for March consideration.  [Though it is believed that this
> > >>will not happen.]
> > >>g)   The CAG leadership would allow the 45-day period for other
> > >>societies to respond to overlap with the NesCom submittal.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>The similarities of this to IEEE 802.16's problems with ISTO are
> > >>obvious to those that were involved.  With ISTO, we argued about
> > >>whether it was appropriate to call their output IEEE standards or
> > >>specifications.  The major difference here is that standard versus
> > >>specification isn't a question with a CAG sponsored project.  A CAG
> > >>sponsored project will be an "IEEE Std xxx" document.
> > >>
> > >>The ability of the CAG to sponsor projects is a worthwhile activity
> > >>for IEEE-SA to support.  Without proper constraint though, it can
> > >>be used to undermine the decisions of 802 and other established
> > >>working groups.  As an example, most of our groups have lively
> > >>discussions about encoding/modulation techniques.  What if one of
> > >>our WGs makes a decision and the proponents of a losing proposal
> > >>recognize they only need two entity "friends" to go get their own
> > >>standard through the CAG.  Consider what this particular case would
> > >>mean as a precedent to IEEE Std 802.11, IEEE Std 802.15, IEEE Std
> > >>802.16, etc.  What if the losing side on a bridging or security
> > >>proposal didn't like the 802.1 decision.
> > >>
> > >>I would like the EC to consider a position statement to the BoG on
> > >>additional considerations for CAG sponsored standards projects.  I
> > >>believe that a motion should state that:
> > >>
> > >>The IEEE LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) is supportive of
> > >>Corporate Advisory Group (CAG) standards activities where existing
> > >>sponsors are disinterested in a proposed activity.  The LMSC is
> > >>strongly opposed to the CAG sponsoring projects where there is
> > >>strong interest in the proposed activity.  The LMSC disagrees with
> > >>any presumption that rejecting a proposed standards activity is
> > >>equivalent to disinterest in the activity.  CAG and IEEE-SA process
> > >>must consider an established working group's position that a
> > >>particular standards project is within its area of work and it that
> > >>it should not be approved.  The LMSC requests that CAG P&P be
> > >>modified to support this method of operation.
> > >>
> > >>To have a position ready for the BOG meeting on February 25-27, I
> > >>will be making a motion similar to that above this week.  In the
> > >>meantime, any wordsmithing suggestions will be appreciated.
> > >>
> > >>Thank you for your attention to this lengthy but important message.
> > >>
> > >>Bob Grow
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Regards,
> > >Tony
> >
> >
> >

Regards,
Tony