REVIEW COMMITTEE (REVCOM)
Approved Meeting Minutes
24 March 2010
9:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.
Piscataway, NJ, USA
|Peter Balma||Clint Chaplin||Bill Ash|
|Victor Berman||Malcolm Clarke [part-time via phone]||Kathryn Bennett|
|Ted Burse||Paul Eastman||Christina Boyce|
|Wael Diab||Bob Grow||Kim Breitfelder|
|Paul Houzé||Rich Hulett||Matt Ceglia|
|Bruce Kraemer||Mark Klerer||Trisha Gerdon|
|David Law, Chair||Steve Mills||Judy Gorman|
|Oleg Logvinov||Jim Moore||Jodi Haasz|
|Narayanan Ramachandran||Glenn Parsons||Mary Ellen Hanntz|
|Gary Robinson||Ron Petersen||Karen Kenney|
|Curtis Siller||Claire Topp [legal counsel]||Soo Kim|
|Don Wright||Mike Kipness|
|Members Absent:||Don Messina|
|Masayuki Ariyoshi||Lorraine Patsco|
|Phil Barber||Moira Patterson, Administrator|
|Sam Sciacca||Lisa Perry|
|Geoff Thompson||Penny Stanton|
1 CALL TO ORDER
Chair Law called the meeting to order at 9.00 a.m. There was a round of introductions by all present.
2 REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There was a motion to approve the agenda. The motion was unanimously approved.
3 APPROVAL OF THE 8 December 2009 RevCom MINUTES
There was a motion to approve the 8 December 2009 RevCom Minutes. The motion was unanimously approved.
4 ProCom LIAISON REPORT
David Law, ProCom member, delivered the report. [Please see the ProCom meeting minutes for further information.]
5 RevCom MEMBER ORIENTATION
Chair Law mentioned that a new member orientation had taken place by phone a few weeks earlier. He opened the floor to questions and discussion for a few minutes.
6 CONDITIONAL APPROVAL REPORT
The report was given as an information item.
P1149.7/D1.24 (C/TT & BOG/CAG) Standard for Reduced-Pin and Enhanced-Functionality Test Access Port and Boundary Scan Architecture
Conditions met: 14 December 2009
7 5-YEAR LIST FOLLOW-UP
There was some discussion on the standards that had received an extension until March 2010 at the last meeting, and one recommendation was updated. A motion to approve the recommendations on the updated list was made. The motion was unanimously approved. [Please see the RevCom Recommendations for a complete list.]
8 PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
[All votes unanimous unless otherwise indicated.]
P605a/D3 (PE/SUB) Guide for Bus Design in Air Insulated Substations - Amendment 1
P627/D3c (PE/NPE) Standard for Qualification of Equipment Used in Nuclear Facilities
P802.1Qau/D2.5 (C/LM) Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks - Amendment: Congestion Notification
P802.17c/D2.1 (C/LM) Information Technology - Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between Systems - Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Specific Requirements - Part 17: Resilient Packet Ring (RPR) Access Method and Physical Layer Specifications - Amendment 2: Protected Inter-Ring Connection
P802.20.2/D2.0 (C/LM) Standard for Conformance to IEEE P802.20 Systems Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement (PICS) Proforma
P802.20.3/D2.2 (C/LM) Standard for Minimum Performance Characteristics of IEEE P802.20 Terminals and Base Stations/Access Nodes
P1451.7/D1.3 (IM/ST) Standard for a Smart Transducer Interface for Sensors and Actuators - Transducers to Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Systems Communication Protocols and Transducer Electronic Data Sheet Formats
P1616a/D4 (VT/LT) Standard for Motor Vehicle Event Data Recorders (MVEDRs) - Amendment 1: Motor Vehicle Event Data Recorder Connector Lockout Apparatus (MVEDRCLA)
P11073-30400/D12 (EMB/11073) Standard for Health Informatics - Point-of-care Medical Device Communication - Interface Profile - Cabled Ethernet
There was a motion to recommend conditional approval conditional on satisfactory legal review.
Before a motion on P11073-30400 was made, Claire Topp stated that it would be useful to have a Sponsor representative participate in the discussion of this project, to address some legal review questions. As the Sponsor representative was not yet available, there was a motion to lay this item on the table. The motion was unanimously approved.
Once the Sponsor representative was available, there was a motion to take the item from the table, and it was unanimously approved. Some questions regarding ballot comment #58 from the initial ballot, caution statements, and communication between technical committees were discussed. There was a motion to recommend conditional approval conditional on satisfactory legal review, and the motion passed unanimously. Wael Diab was assigned as mentor should the condition not be met.
[Malcolm Clarke participated via phone for this item.]
PC95.3.1/D3.18 (SCC39) Recommended Practice for Measurements and Computations of Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields with Respect to Human Exposure to Such Fields, 0 - 100 kHz
P269/D9.2 (COM/TA&OS) Standard Methods for Measuring Transmission Performance of Analog and Digital Telephone Sets, Handsets, and Headsets
P1277/D7 (PE/TR) Standard General Requirements and Test Code for Dry-Type and Oil-Immersed Smoothing Reactors for DC Power Transmission
P1413/D2 (RS/SC) Standard Framework for Reliability Prediction of Hardware
P1516/D5 (C/SI) Standard for Modeling and Simulation (M&S) High Level Architecture (HLA) -- Framework and Rules
P1516.1/D5 (C/SI) Standard for Modeling and Simulation (M&S) High Level Architecture (HLA) -- Federate Interface Specification
P1516.2/D5 (C/SI) Standard for Modeling and Simulation (M&S) High Level Architecture (HLA) -- Object Model Template (OMT) Specification
Recommendation: APPROVE as a co-contingent group
There was a motion to recommend approval as a co-contingent group of P1516, P1516.1, and P1516.2.
P1850/D5 (C/DA) Standard for Property Specification Language (PSL)
PC62.35/D12 (PE/SPDLV) Standard Test Methods for Avalanche Junction Semiconductor Surge-Protective Device Components
There was a motion to approve all reaffirmations that had received no comments during the preliminary comment period: 259-1999 (R2004), 260.1-2004, 352-1987 (R2004), 802.16.2-2004, 1431-2004, 1521-2003, 1568-2003, 11073-30300-2004, C57.144-2004, C62.37-1996 (R2002), and C135.20-1998.
There was a motion to amend to remove C57.144-2004 from the list, as the WG chair is a RevCom member and wanted to recuse himself from the vote on this project. The amendment passed without objection.
The vote on the amended motion was unanimously approved.
259-1999 (R2004) (PE/TR) IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Evaluation of Systems of Insulation for Dry-Type Specialty and General-Purpose Transformers
260.1-2004 (SASB/SCC14) IEEE Standard Letter Symbols for Units of Measurement (SI Units, Customary Inch-Pound Units, and Certain Other Units)
352-1987 (R2004) (PE/NPE) IEEE Guide for General Principles of Reliability Analysis of Nuclear Power Generating Station Safety Systems
802.16.2-2004 (C/LM) IEEE Recommended Practice for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Coexistence of Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems
1228-1994 (R2002) (C/S2ESC) IEEE Standard for Software Safety Plans
1431-2004 (AES/GA) IEEE Standard Specification Format Guide and Test Procedure for Coriolis Vibratory Gyros
1521-2003 (BTS/AVTech) IEEE Standard for Measurement of Video Jitter and Wander
1568-2003 (VT/RT) IEEE Recommended Practice for Electrical Sizing of Nickel-Cadmium Batteries for Rail Passenger Vehicles
1616-2004 (VT/LT) IEEE Standard for Motor Vehicle Event Data Recorders (MVEDRs)
11073-30300-2004 (EMB/11073) Standard for Health Informatics - Point-of-Care Medical Device Communication - Part 30300: Transport Profile - Infrared Wireless
C37.90.2-2004 (PE/PSR) IEEE Standard for Withstand Capability of Relay Systems to Radiated Electromagnetic Interference from Transceivers
C57.144-2004 (PE/TR) IEEE Guide for Metric Conversion of Transformer Standards
Peter Balma recused himself from this vote, as he was the WG Chair.
C62.37-1996 (R2002) (PE/SPDLV) IEEE Standard Test Specification for Thyristor Diode Surge Protective Devices
C135.20-1998 (PE/T&D) IEEE Standard for Zinc-Coated Ferrous Insulator Clevises for Overhead Line Construction
There was a motion to approve both 1320.1-1998 (R2004) and 1320.2-1998 (R2004), as they had received no comments during the preliminary comment period. The motion passed unanimously.
1320.1-1998 (R2004) (C/S2ESC) IEEE Standard for Functional Modeling Language - Syntax and Semantics for IDEF0
1320.2-1998 (R2004) (C/S2ESC) IEEE Standard for Conceptual Modeling Language - Syntax and Semantics for IDEF1X97 (IDEFobject)
9 EARLY CONSIDERATION PROCESS
Chair Law noted that no requests for a spring Early Consideration cycle had been received, and therefore none would be scheduled.
10 OLD BUSINESS
10.1 Comment Resolution Status Ad Hoc Update – Law
Chair Law provided background on the ad hoc, which had been formed at the September 2009 meeting, and stated that there had been no activity so far this year to allow new RevCom members to join the group. Peter Balma and Bruce Kraemer joined the ad hoc.
Updated membership: Chair: David Law; Members: Peter Balma, Phil Barber, John Barr, Victor Berman, Ted Burse, Matt Ceglia, Clint Chaplin, Wael Diab, Andy Drozd, Alex Gelman, Mike Kipness, Bruce Kraemer, John Kulick, Jim Moore, Moira Patterson, Dave Ringle, Sam Sciacca, and Howard Wolfman. Materials will be sent to the ad hoc members and another call will be scheduled.
11 NEW BUSINESS
11.1 RevCom Checklist – Law
Chair Law introduced some proposed changes to the RevCom Checklist, to keep the document in line with approved P&Ps and current practices. A few additional changes were proposed during the discussion. [Underline = proposed changes; Underline & Italics = proposed changes added during the discussion]
1. Is the submittal form signed, and is the submitter’s relevant IEEE position title indicated?
2. Do the Purpose and Scope of the submitted draft match the ones in the PAR (does not apply to amendments or corrigenda)? */
a. If the PAR was approved prior to 1 January 2007, the scope and purpose (if included) need to be within the scope and purpose of the PAR.
b. If the PAR was approved on or after 1 January 2007, the scope and purpose (if included)
have to be identical to shall match the PAR’s scope and purpose.
3. Is the Title of the submitted draft within the Scope of the PAR? *
4. Was the ballot valid ( > 75% return and < 30% abstentions)?
5. Was the balloting group balanced (no category > 50%)?
6. Did the ballot pass ( > 75% affirmative)?
7. Is there evidence of consideration of all comments?
8. Do all recirculation ballot packages include the verbatim text of each unresolved negative, the name of the negative voter, and a rebuttal? *
9. Is there evidence that the negative balloter who submitted unrecirculated negative comments was informed of the reason why the comments were not required to be recirculated?
10. Were all members of the balloting group given an opportunity to see all the unresolved negatives and reasons why they could not be resolved?
11. Were all members of the balloting group given an opportunity to change their votes as a result of non-editorial change(s), especially those made to resolve negative ballots? *
12. Was the resolution of any negative ballot based on promise of a future change?
If so, the draft must be recirculated. Stating that comments may be considered in the future
Consideration of a future change is acceptable.
13. Was required coordination with SCC-14 and the Editorial Staff achieved? *
The Sponsor must supply the most recent coordination comments and indicate either acceptance or request a waiver.
Is the submitted draft identical to the balloted draft? Have any post-balloting changes to the draft been promised?*
Only editorial changes are allowed after balloting (with revision bars or list of changes). If any non-editorial changes were
made promised after balloting, the draft must be recirculated. [See RevCom Convention 2.]
15. Are all normative references cited in the body of the draft?*
15. For submittals containing copyrighted material, are copyright releases on file
has confirmation of permission release letters been provided by staff (in the submittal package)? *
* = not applicable for Reaffirmations
** = does not apply to amendments/corrigenda
There was a motion to approve the proposed changes to the Checklist, and it passed without objection.
11.2 Resolved vs. Unresolved Comments Discussion – Parsons
Glenn Parsons led discussion about the use of the terms ‘resolved’ and ‘unresolved’ comments in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual. He stated that the terms are undefined, which could cause confusion about which comments need to be recirculated.
He shared two proposal options:
1) Define “unresolved” and “resolved”
2) Be more explicit on if items can or cannot “resolve” a comment
It was suggested that Glenn take this issue to ProCom. But RevCom took a straw poll to provide input from this committee: eight members preferred option 1), one member preferred option 2).
12 NEXT MEETING
The next RevCom meeting will be Wednesday, 16 June 2010, in Piscataway, NJ, US. The submittal deadline for this meeting is 7 May 2010.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12.10 p.m.