Geoff,
Thanks for the explanation. It
is helpful to understand the state diagram for a working group J
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 9:17
AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC]
Questions on Disanding 802.4
Mat-
By the system set up by Don Loughry long ago, there is a system of several
states for an 802 Working Group:
- Study Group
(pre-PAR, activity approved by the EC, seat at EC but no vote)
- Active (Group
has PAR and/or active standards, meets at least every Plenary,
Chair
is a voting member of the EC)
- Hibernation
(Group has active standards but no open PARs or active Study Groups,
WG
does not regularly meet at Plenaries
Chair
is aged out of voting at EC (This is a change from the original)
"List
of Experts" is maintained via a reflector.
Chair
and experts reactivate when revision.)
- Disbanded
(Standards have all been "Withdrawn". WG no longer exists,
No
representative at the EC.
Standards
only exist in withdrawn state.
No
requirements for maintenance or revision.)
The system as currently constituted has not been adjusted for the recent changes
at the SA for "Stabilized Standards", a system where standards no
longer have any maintenance requirements from the Sponsor but remain active.
When put in place, it was felt that the above was a reasonable system.
Are you saying otherwise?
Are you proposing to change it?
Ifso, what do you propose?
Geoff
At 08:08 PM 8/5/2004 -0700, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
Paul,
It sounds like everything is
handled informally since no standard actually exists right now. What
benefit does a hibernating WG provide to the current situation? It's
primary function in my mind it to provide a core of experts to field questions
on a standard. If it does not perform that function, then what is the
point of keeping it around? I'm sympathetic to that fact that there still
seems to be a user base, but the user base is not using the WG facility.
So it does not seem to fill a purpose. Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Mat
Matthew Sherman, PhD
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email:
matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Eastman [mailto:paul@rfnetworks.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004
1:37 PM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org;
paul.nikolich@ATT.NET
Subject: Re: Questions on Disanding
802.4
Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>Dear Paul,
>
>I'm trying to determine how to
vote on this issue. I was hoping you can help me with some questions.
>
>1) Can you provide a list
of the "core of experts" that this group maintains to resolve
technical issues regarding 802.4 standards?
>
Since our standard was withdrawn in
2001 and our representation in the
EC was terminated, I did not deem
it necessary to continue active
polling of the "core of
expertise". Should it be necessary, I could
probably resurrect 50% or more of
the "core of expertise" on very short
notice.
>2) When was the last time
a formal inquiry or request for interpretation was made of this group?
>
The 802.4 standard was very well
written. The last action of the 802.4
group was to suggest that its
802.4L study group reform as 802.11.
There were no problems,
resolved or otherwise, with the standard
published jointly as ISO/IEC 8802-4
(ANSI/IEEE Std. 802.4) Token Passing
Bus 1990
>3) How often do you
receive informal inquiries concerning 802.4?
>
I personally have continued to
receive a couple of inquiries a year,
mostly from academic sources.
In the latest inquiry we even
investigated and gave a rough order
of magnitude quote on the
resurrection of both MAC and PHY
layers for a Department of Homeland
Security application.
>4) Off hand, can you
identify any specific users of the technology? How big (in terms of number
of nodes) do you estimate the total current deployment is?
>
There is still a number of places
where the carrier band version of
802.4 is being used. Most of
the equipment is being shipped into Japan
through Marubun, an importing
company, and to various companies in
India. There is even some
product being sold to Moore Products, a
Seimens company located in
Pennsylvania. Specifically, Hitachi,
Furukawa Electric, Yokagawa and
possibly Toyota are Japanese companies
with active systems
>5) What is the likelihood
of any new nodes being added?
>
The answers to item 4 indicate
where additional nodes are still being added.
>6) Is anyone actually
building equipment, as opposed to just using equipment that is still around?
>
Relcom, Maris Graube's company
(Maris was the first chair of the 802
EC), is still manufacturing many
nodes per year for the carrierband PHY.
My company, RF Networks, is
still capable but not manufacturing nodes
for the broadband PHY.
>Thanks in advance for any answers
you can provide. Finally, in the quote Paul Nikolich provided, what did
you mean by "old standards should have the right to protect their
legacy"? I'm not sure understand what you mean by this.
>
A lot of work was done to produce
an extremely stable standard, both MAC
and PHY. Should some future
work decide to do some work using a token
bus architecture, I would hope that
wheels would not be reinvented and
that the pioneers of the work would
get some acknowledgment.
>Best Regards,
>
>Mat
>
>
>
>
>
>Matthew Sherman, PhD
>Senior Member Technical Staff
>BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>email:
matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
==================================================
Paul Eastman
RF Networks, Inc.
10201 N. 21st Avenue, Unit 9
Phoenix, AZ 85021
(602) 861-3652
Fax: (602) 861-0251
"Worrying about what's
right is always more
important than
worrying about who's right."
==================================================
----------
This email is sent from the 802
Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.