Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] FW: Use of "should" in an informative annex

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

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Stephens, Adrian P <Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

Please see below…

This relates to CID 2401 reviewed yesterday.

Michelle does not support my position.   So, I shall do a volte face.

We should, IMHO, resolve this comment by changing the heading, as “recommended practice” has a

special meaning in IEEE-SA parlance.   We might consider replacing “it is recommended that” with “should”

and use the active voice, e.g. “It is recommended that pigs fly” becomes “Pigs should fly”.

Best Regards,

Adrian P STEPHENS

Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)

Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

From: Michelle Turner [mailto:m.d.turner@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 12 March 2014 18:08
To: Stephens, Adrian P
Cc: Kim Breitfelder
Subject: Re: Use of "should" in an informative annex

Hi Adrian

It's fine to have "should" in an informative annex. I would, however, not use the words "Recommended Practice" in the heading as that is a document type. Rather, I recommend (ha!) something like, "Recommendation for implementation of..." We can discuss more next week. See you in Beijing :-)

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Stephens, Adrian P <Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello Michelle,

Can you help me with a question – potentially reaching out to your fellow editors for a consensus.

In 802.11, we have an informative annex that contains “should” statements (and “recommended practice” in the heading).

Is this valid?

One viewpoint is that anything that affects an implementation is normative,   because that is the whole

purpose of a standard. So this is an inconsistency.

Another viewpoint is that a “should” doesn’t require anything, because it’s not a “shall” – whether

the manufacturer follow it or not is up to them.

What is your position?

Best Regards,

Adrian P STEPHENS

Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)

Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

--

Michelle Turner
Managing Editor, Technical Community Content Publishing

IEEE Standards Association
e-mail: m.d.turner@xxxxxxxx
PH: +1 732 562 3825; FAX: +1 732 562 1571

_______________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.
SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________

IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.