December 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/1906r0
IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs
Response to IEEE 802.11 Appeal of December 5th, 2006
Date: 2006-12-11
Author(s): Name Company Address Phone email Clint Chaplin SISA 75 W. Plumeria Dr., San Jose, CA 95134 408-544-5815 [email protected]
Abstract This document is the response of the IEEE 802.11 Task Group r chair to an appeal to IEEE 802.11 filed December 5th, 2006 at 14:53.
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.11. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.11.
Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures
Submission page 1 Clint Chaplin, TGr Chair December 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/1906r0
History
On Tuesday, November 14, 2006, during the IEEE 802.11 Task Group r 08:00-10:00 session, document 11-06-1765-00-000r-pmk-r1-key-distribution-security-analysis.ppt was presented by Lily Chen, and was discussed.
The next item of business was the following motion (page 7 of rev 01 of the minutes):
MOTION at 9:13am: Accept the submission contained in document 11-06/1612r2, and instruct the editor to incorporate the changes into the draft. By: Bill Marshall Second: Kapil Sood. Discussion: This motion brings back a known security flaw and brings us back to a place we shouldn’t be. Draft 2.2 was a good draft and the process took a take a step backwards in our progress. If we are going to have a pull or a push model, we need to go back to base assumptions so that we call the question. These push or pull models address the security requirements for TGr. Result: Yes – 23; No – 9; Abstain – 10. Motion fails.
During the IEEE 802.11 Task Group r session of 16:00-18:00 at the same day, the following motion was made (page 13 of rev 01 of the minutes):
MOTION at 4:19pm: Accept the submission contained in document 11-06/1612r2, with changes given in slide #14 of document 11-06/1765r0 and instruct the editor to incorporate the changes into the draft. POINT OF ORDER: The chair rules that it is a different motion because of addition of slide 14. By: Bill Marshall Second: Kapil Sood Discussion: Slide 14 contained the assumptions on the key holders. We are thrashing back and forth on putting this text in and out. After creating submission 11-06/1613r0, it is extremely difficult to replace a key distribution protocol. It’s much easier to add a key distribution protocol starting from what is draft 2.2. This goes back to the content that was included in draft 2.2. What was included in draft 3.0 is not a key distribution protocol. CALL THE QUESTION. Result: Yes – 8; No – 2; Abstain – 2. Motion passes.
I note that as of this time the minutes that are being quoted in this document have not yet been approved. I note that the actual motions that were made (11-06-1746-02-000r-motions-200611.ppt) also included the directive to update the comment resolutions; however that does not affect the appeal or my response.
Response to Appeal
Robert’s Rules of Order, Chapter X: Renewal of Motions; Dilatory and Improper Motions:
Submission page 2 Clint Chaplin, TGr Chair December 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/1906r0
“§38. RENEWAL OF MOTIONS If a motion is made and disposed of without being adopted, and is later allowed to come before the assembly after being made again by any member in essentially the same connection, the motion is said to be renewed . Renewal of motions is limited by the basic principle that an assembly cannot be asked to decide the same, or substantially the same, question twice during one session - except through a motion to reconsider a vote (37) or a motion to rescind an action (35), or in connection with amending something already adopted (see also pp. 72-73). A previously considered motion may become a substantially different question through a significant change in the wording or because of a difference in the time or circumstances in which it is proposed, and such a motion may thus be in order when it could not otherwise be renewed.”
I based my ruling on this section of Robert’s Rules of Order; the motion at 16:19 was in order because it was a substantially different question from the motion at 09:13. The wording of the motion itself is substantially different, and the combination of the two proposals created a different proposal to bring forth to the group. The slide that was added was a statement of technical assumptions that allow the security model of the draft to make sense and deliver a secure protocol, something that I did not think was “extremely minute”, but rather was significant.
The motion was also in order because “a difference in the time or circumstances in which it is proposed” existed. These particular rules of Robert’s Rules of Order are to avoid the same question to be brought up over and over with no hope of a different outcome, thus delaying the group. I ruled that the motion was different and was brought up in different circumstances; the different outcome attests that the motion and/or the circumstances were indeed different.
If my ruling is overruled, the specific remedial action of the appellant is draconian, and can be accomplished in a less disruptive manner by adding in to the most current IEEE 802.11r draft the essential scheme that was removed by the motion that is in dispute. Unwinding all actions to the point of the motion is unnecessary.
Submission page 3 Clint Chaplin, TGr Chair December 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/1906r0
What Criterion Should the Appeals Panel Apply? Donald Eastlake III
A motion which is exactly the same and is offered under the same circumstances, for example attempting to make the identical main motion immediately after it has been voted down, is clearly out of order. Similarly, a motion that is entirely different is, assuming it meets the other rules of order, is appropriate under the agenda, etc., clearly in order. But what we have here is something in between where the chair is called upon to exercise their judgment.
Is the question that the Appeals Panel should decide:
What judgment would the appeals panel members make if they were in the situation which the TGr chair found himself in or Was the judgment made by the TGr chair one that a reasonable person could have made under the circumstances?
The question for the Appeals Panel is clearly the second of these. The purpose of an appeal in a case where judgment is required is not to give the appellant a second shot. Obviously the Appeals Panel members are different people from the one whose judgment is being appealed. In a case near the margin, it is quite possible that an Appeals Panel member would, as best as they can determine, make a different judgment. But, the Appeals Panel should act to avoid constant appeals of every chair decision that involves any judgmental close call, and maybe even those that are not so close. The only question that should be considered is whether a reasonable person could have made the judgment being appealed. If so, it should be upheld. If, on the other hand, the Appeals Panel believes that no reasonable person could have judged things that way, then it should be reversed.
Submission page 4 Clint Chaplin, TGr Chair December 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/1906r0
References:
11-06-1690-01-000r-tgr-meeting-minutes-november-2006-session.doc, TGr Meeting Minutes November 2006 Session, ftp://ftp.802wirelessworld.com/11/06/11-06-1690-01-000r-tgr-meeting-minutes-november- 2006-session.doc
11-06-0812-03-0000-802-11-policy-and-procedures.doc, Policies and Procedures of IEEE Project 802, July 21, 2006, ftp://ftp.802wirelessworld.com/11/06/ 11-06-0812-03-0000-802-11-policy-and- procedures.doc
11-06-1612-02-000r-lb87-cid-1011-et-al.doc, Key distribution – resolution of 23 “general” comments, ftp://ftp.802wirelessworld.com/11/06/11-06-1612-02-000r-lb87-cid-1011-et-al.doc
11-06-1765-00-000r-pmk-r1-key-distribution-security-analysis.ppt, PMK-R1 Distribution – Discussion, ftp://ftp.802wirelessworld.com/11/06/11-06-1765-00-000r-pmk-r1-key-distribution-security-analysis.ppt
11-06-1746-02-000r-motions-200611.ppt, Motions for 2006/11, ftp://ftp.802wirelessworld.com/11/06/11- 06-1746-02-000r-motions-200611.ppt
Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th Edition, 2000
Submission page 5 Clint Chaplin, TGr Chair