1 / 32

IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks ™

Report on optimizing the comment and ballot resolution process in IEEE 802.15 working group, proposing new tools and databases for efficiency.

kduffy
Télécharger la présentation

IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks ™

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks™ Balloting Tools and Comment DB Report January 2001 Monterey, CA USA Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  2. Contents • Summary • Overview • Problem • Research • Solution • Backup • More Backup Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  3. Summary • TG1 reviewed the LB process and we believe the cycle time can be reduced by introducing a more efficient “post” LB phase Comment database to manage the LB votes, comments, and resolution as well as all the myriad of reports • TG1 will continue to review the “Pre” LB and LB phases to see if additional cycle time can be reduced e.g., new Balloting Tool, etc. Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  4. Balloting Tools and Comment DBOverview • Problem • The 802.15 LB Comment Resolution Phase seems to take to long and appears to be cumbersome. TG1 wants to review the process and reduce the cycle time where possible. • Research • TG1 reviewed various IEEE (802.3, 802.16, and IEEE-SA Balloting Center) and Non-IEEE Working Group and Sponsor Balloting Tools and Comment DB approaches. • Solution • TG1 will use a new Comment DB for the next LB and we may introduce a new Balloting Tool(s) for the Voter too. Q How does 802.3 manage their ballot to draft? One (1) DB per Ballot or something else? A One DB per ballot/draft. i.e. a database for a set of comments and their resolution against a particular draft. Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  5. Create LB Distribution Package Ballot MS Word document or E-Mail reply Comment Form MS Word document or MS Excel document Draft Adobe Acrobat document Instructions Adobe Acrobat document etc. Distribute LB Package to WG Membership Membership reviews package and returns vote and comments if any. Problem: 802.15 WG Letter Ballot Typical Distribution Package Letter Ballot IEEE 802.11 Legacy Balloting Tools Comment Form WG Member Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  6. Working Group Prepare & announce LB tally and results Task Group Review LB tally and prepare detailed analysis Prepare LB Comment tally and prepare detailed analysis Form TG Resolution Group Resolve Comments Prepare LB/D(x) Summary reports Problem: 802.15 WG Letter Ballot Typical LB Tally & Resolution Letter Ballot Tally & Analysis Comment Tally & Analysis Letter Ballot/ Draft Summary Report TG Worker Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  7. Research: A Typical LB Gantt Chart and where to focus on reducing cycle time Fixed Variable • Enhancing the Distribution Package with a so called “Balloting Tool” e.g., MS Word, FileMaker runtime version, etc. could provide a better output from the LB Period or Voter response • Introducing a Comment Database e.g., MS Access, FileMaker, etc. with the Voter ballot responses could provide reduction in cycle times for: • LB Analysis & Report – RDBMS could calculate and report • LB Comment Analysis & Report – RDBMS could calculate and report • TG Comment Resolution – RDBMS could provide the Resolution Team as well as the Draft Editing Team with an integrated tool that clearly communicates the WG commentary on the draft. Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  8. Research: Any LB Results format may be used provided the following information is included: • A. Date of Ballot • B. Member name • C. Member affiliation (e.g., company, agency, institution) or status (e.g., consultant, retired) • D. Member classification or relationship to the area addressed by the standard (user, producer, general interest, or others as appropriate, such as academia or government; this is the member's relationship to the activity, not his employer's relationship.) The IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual stipulates that "Except for the general interest category, no group (classification) may constitute 50% or more of the balloting group membership." • E. Confirmation of Standards Association Membership (IEEE or Affiliate number) • F. Ballot Information • The IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual stipulates that 75% of the ballots mailed shall have been returned (only 50% required for withdrawal of a standard). A minimum of 75% of those voting shall approve the draft in order to submit the ballot results to the IEEE-SA Standards Board. As with the Sponsor Balloting Phase the WG can use any LB reporting format but TG1 suggests the 802.15 use the minimum reporting information to be better prepared for the Sponsor Balloting Phase. Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  9. Research: Any LB Results format may be used provided the following info is included: (cont) • The following is an example of how to properly calculate returned ballots from eligible voters: • Draft: 5.3 Date Closed: 18 June 1998 • Ballots Sent 100 • Ballots Returned: • Affirmatives 60 • Negatives 13 • Abstentions 15 • Total 88 • No Response 12 • Total Ballots 100 • Percent Returned (60 + 13 + 15) / 100 = 88% • Percent Affirmative 60 / (60 + 13) = 82% • Percent Abstentions 15 / 88 = 17% • List of All Voters and their response The results of LB6 were reported to the Task Group 1 based on the format above. Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  10. Solution: TG1 is creating a Comment DB to assist in post LB7 processing • Goal • Have a Master DB to capture the LB7 Votes, Comments, and possibly the actual Draft 8.0. • Software being considered • MS Access 2000 – Michael Camp • In process will be ready in Feb01 • FileMaker 5.0v3 – Ian Gifford • In process will be ready in Feb01; thanks to source from 802.3 • QuickBase – Ian Gifford • In process could be ready in Mar01. Reviewing an on-line vs. off-line process. There are other DBs e.g., 2D Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  11. IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks™ Backup Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  12. IEEE (source files archived) 802.3ae (GeoffT) 10GigBallot.ZIP [10GigBallot-a Solution.EXE, plus 20 DLLs] 10GigBallot.txt 802.3z (HowardF, etc.) D5.0.mdb db.txt 802.16 (RogerM) 80216-00_22.doc r4MAC_Comments.mdb r4PHY_Comments.mdb IEEE-SA (TBC) 2D, XML, etc. Non-IEEE QuickBase Free WWW based DB https://www.quickbase.com Village Software Pay for use Consultancy to create a Balloting Tool, Comment DB, etc. http://www.villagesoftware.com All the files researched are here:http://ieee802.org/15/private/Ballot-Tools/Research/ Access to the /private/ sub directory can be achieved – please contact the author or WG Chair for password access. Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  13. Summary of findings - 802.3ae • 802.3ae provides two Balloting Tools e.g., ASCII and DB • 10GigBallot.txt • This balloting tool is provided for those that do not want to use the runtime tool. • 10GigBallot-a Solution.EXE • This balloting tool is a DB created via FileMaker Pro and the FileMaker Developer; it is a runtime version of Geoff Thompson’s own tool. Great Balloting Tool but in addition to requiring a DB it requires 17 DLLs and when zipped it is 2.2MB. • In speaking with Roger Marks not all the DLLs are distributed and if the Voter does not use MSIEv5 e.g., NN, Opera, etc. then additional DLLs are required. Not confirmed. • 802.3ae uses a Comment DB based on MS Access and/or FileMaker to accept the Balloting Tool *.CSV outputs We also received a clone Attendance DB from 802.3 [802-3AttDB-Clone.fp5] for trial; the legacy 802.15 Member DB was written in 1997 MS Access but is not supported. Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  14. Summary of findings - 802.3z • 802.3z provides two Balloting Tools e.g., Online and ASCII • “It was a wonderful tool but had what I considered to be a major drawback. It accepted comments from a web page (preferred) or a file submitted as text or an e-mail body. The text mode depended on rigid adherence to an ASCII template for the comments to get vacuumed into the master database. The web page method was a pain if you had lots of comments. It only worked on-line. The ASCII method worked well off-line but was problematical in pulling things into the master database.” GeoffT • 802.3z uses a Comment DB based on MS Access [D5.0.mdb] to accept the Balloting Tool online outputs We submitted a request for info; we are still waiting for a response from Colin Mick. Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  15. Summary of findings - 802.16 • 802.16 uses a single MS Word “form” Balloting Tool • 80216-00_22.doc • This balloting tool works very well but has some drawbacks e.g., if ““ or ,” are used a script has to be used to remove inline characters that confuse the *.CSV import • Occasional Voter errors are encounter when they use the tool • 802.16 uses a uses a Comment DB based on MS Access • r4PHY_Comments.mdb & r4MAC_Comments.mdb • This MS Access DB seemingly appears to be easily ported over to TG1. Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  16. Summary of findings – Sponsor Ballot/The Balloting Center • We are not fully clear on the Sponsor Balloting process – that is one of the reason we are reviewing this process too • The Balloting Center uses an online Balloting Tool • The Balloting Center uses a Comment DB based on 4D • Using a print program from 4D; they either fax or save to HTML and send as a email attachment. • The Balloting Center, Walter Pienciak, is very willing to work with the various WGs and if we supply ordered list of the fields we track, he can work a program up to send us a "something"-delimited file – this allows for better efficientcies on Comment DB import. Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  17. IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks™ More Backup Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  18. Sponsor Ballot Comments "something"-delimited file or e-mail script? • Hi, Ian, • Sorry for the delay in responding: I was out on vacation. • As each ballot/comment is received by the system, the balloter/commenter and the working-group chair receive a copy of the ballot/comment by e-mail. There is a CC option that can be enabled, allowing copies to be sent to others (or to a list) as well. This should allow you to get a quick jump on issues. • Once the ballot starts, you'll see what data is being sent. If, during the balloting period, you can send me an ordered list of the fields you track, I can work a program up to send you a "something"-delimited file at the end of the balloting period with all the comments or ballots included. Or, ideally, whoever maintains the database at your end could write the script that takes the desired info from each e-mail and imports it into the database as the ballot proceeds. • Walter • __ • Walter Pienciak • Manager of Electronic Information, IEEE Standards Association • w.pienciak@ieee.org http://standards.ieee.org/people/w.pienciak/ • +1 303 527 0934 P.O. Box 3780, Boulder, CO 80307-3780 Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  19. ~Jun97 - Idea for standard Mar98 - Find Sponsor Feb99 - Submit PAR Mar99 - Approve PAR Jul99 - Organize working group Sep99 - Develop draft standard Nov99 - Ballot draft standard Mar00 - Approve draft standard Dec00 - Publish approved standard (or sooner) TG1 Summary - Baseline Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  20. Project Approval Develop Draft Standards Ballot Draft IEEE-SA Standards Board Approval Publish Standard Related Programs Resources Overview of IEEE Stds Process Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  21. Identify a Sponsor Request Information Kit Complete PAR Submit to NesCom PAR Complete Reviewed by NesCom Approved? Draft Std Dev. Continues PAR Process Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  22. Chair Appointed by Sponsor PAR Approved Form WG Establish Deadline & Schedule Draft Doc Reviewed Changes? Ballot Draft Process Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  23. WG Balloting Process - old Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  24. Complete Draft Circulate Draft to obtain WG LB approval LB TG Meets to resolve all comments & Written confirmation to change vote New unresolved Nays Yes, WG Confirmation LB No, Technicals? Proceed to Sponsor Ballot WG Balloting Process - new Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  25. Complete WG Draft Circulate Draft to obtain WG approval for Sponsor Ballot SB TG Meets to resolve all comments & Written confirmation to change vote New unresolved Nays Yes, WG Confirmation LB No, Technicals? Proceed to Stds Board Approval Sponsor Balloting Process Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  26. Form the Balloting Group Ballot the doc Obtain 75% Resolve/Rebuttal Nays Maintain Min 75%? Draft Std Approval Process Sponsor Balloting Process (cont) Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  27. Sponsor Forms a Balloting Group • May issue invitation to ballot • Specifies responsibilities of balloters • Requests classifications (P, U, G) • Sponsor approves balance • Only general interest can be 50% or more • Avoid tricks (subdividing a category) • Once balloting begins, the balloting group remains static • IEEE-SA membership is required • Exception: experts and organization representatives, with the approval of Standards Board Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  28. Response and Results of Balloting • Response • Need 75% return • Ballot fails with less than 75% return • Results • Need 75% approval • Attempt to resolve negative ballots • No mandate to resolve all ballots • After consensus (75% approval) is reached, establish 60- or 90-day deadline for resolution of comments • Recirculate revised draft and comments • Prepare report for RevCom • Show evidence of attempts to resolve each negative ballot • Show evidence and results of recirculation Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  29. Complete Submittal Form Received by RevCom Submittal Complete? Approved? Publish Std Draft Approval Process Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  30. How to Complete a Successful RevCom Submission • CONTACT: RevCom Secretary, +1 (732) 562-3806 • Review Committee (RevCom) recommends action to the Standards Board • Submittal must match information on PAR • When is a revised PAR necessary? • Any substantive change, i.e., scope, title, patented material, or change of working group chair • Proof of coordination needed • Explanation for • Change of name of coordinating body • Additional coordination Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  31. Draft Std Approved Final Edit Prepare for Printing Electronic Form? Print Distribute Post-Approval and Publication Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

  32. Post-Approval and Publication • IEEE Project Editor • Does final copy edit of text • Ensures that technical integrity of document is maintained • Formats electronic text into proofs • Committee review • Correction • Publication • Complimentary copies and awards • Some families of standards published as collections Ian Gifford, M/A-COM, Inc.

More Related