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

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

Interesting reference.

We might consider “dare to” for “should not” and “had better” for “should”.

</humour>

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: ***** IEEE stds-802-11-tgm List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Rison
Sent: 14 March 2014 09:11
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] FW: Use of "should" in an informative annex

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

> there are no synonyms for “should”.

"ought to"?

English has a rich set of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_modal_verbs

, so we had better find one!

Mark

Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français

Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600

Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601

ROYAUME UNI WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk

From: ***** IEEE stds-802-11-tgm List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stephens, Adrian P
Sent: 14 March 2014 07:07
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] FW: Use of "should" in an informative annex

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

Hello Ed,

I hear what you’re saying. I’m separately asking the IEEE-SA editors to clarify this in the style guide.

We may discover that there is a different position once the issue has been considered by the group

of folks who review this document.

Thinking aloud here, does “should” encompass “may” or not?

If “should” gives a recommendation to do something that is already permitted.

(A STA may do x. If y happens, the STA should do x.), then you could argue that you already have

to encompass in your testing a STA doing x and not doing x.

But if (A STA should do x) is the only mention of the ability of a STA to do x, you could argue that this

is a “superset of may”, and has a test case caused by the “should”.

In this sense we might distinguish normative and informative “shoulds”. If folks agree with this logic,

then we really need two verbs to distinguish them. synonym.com claims there are no synonyms for

“should”.

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: ***** IEEE stds-802-11-tgm List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edward Reuss
Sent: 13 March 2014 17:31
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] FW: Use of "should" in an informative annex

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

Further to Mr. Hunter's point,

> the IEEE Style Manual (2012) rule is "Interspersed normative and informative text is not allowed."

This requirement does not use conformance language "shall", "shall not", "should", "should not", "may", "may not", "must", or "must not". Instead, it uses "is not". This means that technically, as per the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2, "Rules for the structure and drafting of International Standards", this clause in the IEEE Style Manual is informative, and therefore not a normative requirement for an IEEE international standards document. ;-)

Seriously though, we have to be very careful with this because someone has to turn the output of our work into a validation test procedure, whether in the Wi-Fi Alliance or internally within a vendor company. The distinction of normative text versus informative text is critical to this purpose.

If an informative annex needs to make a recommendation, then it's not really informative. An implementor can ignore all informative parts of the standard and still implement a solution that normatively complies to the standard. If the authors wish to encourage a particular method for implementing a feature, for interoperability or performance reasons, then that needs to be stated normatively.

In practical terms, this means the entire annex probably needs to be made normative, or at least broken into sub-parts most of which can be informative, but those parts that specify the recommended procedure be marked as normative. (More work for the editors, to which I apologize, but the Wi-Fi Alliance will thank you in the end).

I hope I don't sound like I'm trying to "teach my own grandmother how to suck an egg", but I see too many drafts come to letter ballot that do not observe these requirements. I try to comment on them, but there are often too many to cite in letter ballot comments within the allocated time.

-- Ed Reuss

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:18 AM, hunter <hunter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

Hi Adrian,

'Should' entails 'may', so 'may' must also be allowable in an informative annex.

And, 'may' entails "it is not the case that it shall not", so 'shall' is equally permissible (though perhaps some accompanying negatives may be required).

Consequently there is no IEEE Standards Association reason to avoid any normative term in an informative annex.

Since the IEEE Style Manual (2012) rule is "Interspersed normative and informative text is not allowed.", then the official permission of normative terms in an informative annex means that in such an annex the normative terms do not constitute normative text. Normative terms may be used in an informative annex, because they can't be normative text.

Peachy; got it.

Thanks for finding this out,

Hunter

By the way, in the American version of Latin derivatives the term "volte-face" (pronounced "volt-face", singularly apropos in an electrical engineering standard) uses a hyphen.

On 3/13/2014 00:12, Stephens, Adrian P 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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B44%20%281793%29%20404825> (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 <tel:%2B44%20%287920%29%20084%20900>
(mobile, UK)

Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 <tel:%2B1%20%28408%29%202397485> (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 <mailto: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.

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.

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 _______________________________________________________________________________