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

Re: [802SEC] +++ 10-day ECM – Early Close +++ IEEE 802.3 liaison letter to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4


Given the tone of the conversation, what is wrong here?
The documents under discussion should be precisely defined in ISO/IEC terms unless they refer to amendments that have not yet been submitted for ballot. e.g:
    ISO/IEC 8802-3 2??? (For whatever the last fully approved version)
    DIS 8802-3 or whatever the correct designation is for whatever is in ballot
    Amendment whatever (but I don't think we are sending any for balloting anymore.
        Are we still sending them "for information"?)

But what we are responding to should not have happened at all if there is ANYONE in the sending group that is a Dot3 voter. This should have all been handled by direct communication between group members.

Our liaison response should emphasize the value of direct communication between the appropriate delegates. If the group still needs to ask something of Dot3 then our delegate should gladly assist them in formulation an accurate liaison.

Geoff Thompson
Former 802.3 delegate to ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 WG3
Former 802 delegate to ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6

On Friday, September 15, 2023, 03:00:07 PM PDT, Roger Marks <> wrote:


Please change my vote to Disapprove.

After discovering and reviewing the document that is the subject of the letter, I don’t support the tone of the response. That document says:

14.3 Liaison to IEEE 802 Group
This document needs further improvement from other experts especially from IEEE 802.3 group. Since IEEE 802 Group has representatives in AG 4, they are aware of this proposal once it is posted to the AG 4 document repository. There is no need to prepare a separate liaison letter to IEEE 802 Group. It is recommended that when this proposal is arranged for review at AG 4 meeting, a reminder is sent to IEEE 802 Group representative to invite their attention and participation. Comments are invited to address but not limited to the following issues:
•Are there any factual errors in this document?
•What information should be included but missing from the document?
•Who can provide answers to the questions raised but not resolved in this document?
•Should this document be jointly developed?
•Should the final report be published as a Technical Report for public access?

It appears that these questions were asked in good faith. I believe that a proper response should acknowledge the questions and provide considered answers, or state that we have no opinion on some. On the issue of errors, I’d prefer a more constructive response such as “We appreciate your request for a review for identification of errors. Here are some issues we identified:…” Also, we shouldn’t say "there are references to IEEE 802.3 Ethernet PHYs that don’t exist such as 50GBASE-T.” This is saying that there are a plurality of incorrect PHYs listed but we are giving only one example. Why are we withholding the names of the others?


On Sep 14, 2023, 6:41 PM -0600, Law, David <>, wrote:
Dear LMSC members,

The 'Process: how does a WG send a liaison to SC6?' on slide 4 of 'IEEE 802 Process for Interactions with ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 & 7' <> says 'The WG and then the IEEE 802 EC must approve liaisons to SC6'.

Based on this, and further to my email on Tuesday 12 September 2023 <>, the IEEE 802.3 Working Group approved the draft liaison letter from IEEE 802.3 to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 available at <> at its interim meeting today, Thursday 14 September 2023.

As a result, I would like to proceed to an IEEE 802 LMSC electronic ballot. Paul has delegated the conduct of the IEEE 802 EC electronic ballot on the following motion to me. To ensure I can send this letter to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 as soon as possible before their 13 October 2023 meeting, I'm announcing the possibility of an 'early close' to this ballot (see below).

Best regards,


Approve <> as a communication from IEEE 802.3 to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4, granting the IEEE 802.3 Working Group chair (or his delegate) editorial license.

This approval is under LMSC OM "Procedure for coordination with other standards bodies".

Move: David Law
Second: George Zimmerman

Start of ballot: Thursday 15 September 2023
Close of ballot: Friday 29 September 2023 AoE (23:59 UTC-12)

IEEE 802.3 Working Group vote: Y:66 N:0 A:0

Early close: As required in subclause 4.1.2 'Voting rules' of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Operations Manual, this is notice that to ensure I can send this letter to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 as soon as possible before their 13 October 2023 meeting, this ballot may close early once sufficient responses are received to clearly decide a matter. Sufficient responses to clearly decide this matter will be based on the required majority for a motion under subclause 7.1.1 'Actions requiring approval by a majority vote' item (g), 'Other motions brought to the floor by members (when deemed in order by the Standards Committee Chair)' of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Policies and Procedures.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: