Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Straw Poll+++ Editorial
Colleagues,
My observation is that there are some places where WG and TAG need to be distinguished, and other places where we mean just one of the two types of groups. So we should use WG/TAG consistently where we mean both, and use WG or TAG where we mean just that one type of dot group. Trying to use WG for both will only lead to more confusions when we need to distinguish just a WG and not a TAG. So do a one-time global find and replace with WG/TAG for all the places where WG is currently used for both and then we're done with this problem once and for all.
Thanx, Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing IT - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
Cell: (425) 417-1022
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Lynch [mailto:mjlynch@NORTEL.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:00 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Straw Poll+++ Editorial
Matt,
I agree with Steve on this.
From Costa Rica,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@QUALCOMM.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:55
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Straw Poll+++ Editorial
Matt,
I think we should be consistent in the P&P and use either WG or WG/TAG and not use both. I do not have a strong opinion on which we should use. I am okay with using WG everywhere as long as we detail the exceptions for the TAG in one place.
I do feel strongly that ALL of the exceptions for the TAG should be located in one place in the P&P. If they are scattered around the P&P it would make it difficult to find out what the exceptions are without reading the entire P&P.
Regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) [mailto:matthew.sherman@baesystems.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:17 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Straw Poll+++ Editorial
Hi folks,
I want to take a straw poll, but first a reminder:
There will be a teleconference this Thursday (2/19/06) at 12 PM EST to discuss the 'Editorial' P&P revision. I will be on the road again, but will attempt to have a webex up and running. I'll provide details later this week.
Strawpoll:
Should we replace existing occurrences of the term 'WG/TAG' with 'WG'?
Background:
The biggest issue raised on the editorial ballot was the question of using WG as opposed to WG/TAG in the P&P. Sometimes we use WG, and sometimes we use 'WG/TAG'. A couple of folks objected to my suggestion of uniformly using WG rather than sometimes using WG/TAG. The general objection was that ambiguities might creep in.
My problem is that there are already a very large number of uses of 'Working Group' to refer to a WG/TAG in the existing P&P. To 'clean' all that up would be a very large task and I think will greatly clutter the P&P. Some of the subclauses I feel currently suffer from these ambiguities are: 7.1.4.1 (letter e and g) 8.1.1 9.1, 10.1, 14.1.2. Interesting while most of 7.2 uses only WG subcluase 7.2.4.4 use WG/TAG and sometimes just WG. This is not an exhaustive list, just some of the place that might currently be considered ambiguous.
So, I wish to first draw attention to the following line for Subclause 7.3 'LMSC Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs)'
"The TAGs operate under the same rules as the Working Groups, with the following exceptions:"
The text then goes on to identify a bunch of exceptions. It is possible that through time additional exceptions might have been identified elsewhere in the P&P (I'd prefer that we collect them all in 7.3 if others exist). But fundamentally, this subclause says that any rule that applies to a WG (not explicitly called out as an exception in this clause of the P&P) also applies for a TAG. As such, I'd prefer to define things in the P&P as explicitly for a WG and implicitly for a TAG. If there are exceptions, they should really be called out in 7.3. I want to see if I have enough support to pass a ballot on this before I invest the effort in it.
Please review some of the subclauses I've identified for ambiguous use of the terms and comment on my straw poll. If you prefer an alternate resolution please provide it.
Thanks,
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
----------
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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.