RE: [802SEC] ISO versions of 802 standards
Thanks Tony,
You are absolutely right that the fast-track procedure without a PAR for a
new version is NOT the way to go forward.
Regards
---------------
Vic Hayes
Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
Zadelstede 1-10
3431 JZ Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 1, + 2 during daylight saving time)
FAX: +31 30 609 7556
e-mail: vichayes@agere.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 5:31 PM
To: Hayes, Vic (Vic)
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] ISO versions of 802 standards
At 03:57 28/07/2003 -0400, Hayes, Vic (Vic) wrote:
>Tony and All,
>
>A number of comments on your e-mail (I was not at the SEC meeting, so I may
>be out-of-order)
>
>In my time it was important for 802.11's success to be recognized as an ISO
>standard (e.g. it was important in some countries to be able to refer to an
>ISO standard in order to adopt a local standard). The WG needed to be
>diligent in synchronizing their work with the ISO rules.
>
>Nowadays, I agree that IEEE 802.11 standards are sufficiently accepted to
be
>recognized without an ISO stamp.
>
>You state that it would be confusing to have to versions of the standard.
In
>fact there would be only one version that bears 2 designations. Only in
some
>small areas where we could not agree on a clause, would we add a remark
that
>the clause would only be valid for either the IEEE standard or the
>International standard.
Vic -
One of the things that prompted me to make these comments is that 802.11
are currently proposing to fast-track *some* (not all) of the currently
approved 802.11 standard. This will definitely result in two versions of
the standard - the IEEE version will have 2 (?) amendments that are not
present in the ISO version.
>However, the most important item is the willingness of a person to be the
>ISO editor, his preparedness to travel to the ISO meetings and to strictly
>coordinate with the IEEE staff to indeed obtain a new version.
Absolutely. This comes under my comments about complications and extra work.
Regards,
Tony
>Regards
>
>---------------
>Vic Hayes
>Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
>Zadelstede 1-10
>3431 JZ Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
>Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 1, + 2 during daylight saving time)
>FAX: +31 30 609 7556
>e-mail: vichayes@agere.com
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
>Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 12:20 AM
>To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: [802SEC] ISO versions of 802 standards
>
>
>
>Having just taken part in the discussion in the closing SEC meeting
>regarding submission of 802.11 standards to ISO, I am minded to make a
>motion at the November Plenary session to make it 802 policy not to submit
>802 standards to ISO in the future. There are a number of reasons, most of
>them rehearsed in this afternoon's discussion, why I believe that having
>ISO versions is a bad idea, including:
>
>- Having two versions of the same standard leads to considerable confusion
>in the marketplace;
>
>- IEEE already has a significant profile as an organization that produces
>standards (under their own brand) that are Internationally recognized, so
>the process is of marginal utility and simply serves to dilute the IEEE
>brand;
>
>- Keeping the documents "in sync" is problematic at best, and arguably
>impossible;
>
>- The process generates complications and extra work for the Editors and
>the IEEE staff;
>
>- The relevance of ISO as a source of networking standards is highly
>questionable;
>
>- As both ISO and IEEE will end up selling the document, there is the
>potential for loss of IEEE revenue.
>
>I think it is time that we reviewed our position on this issue. I will make
>a motion at the Friday SEC meeting in November, and will remind you of my
>intent to do this at the Monday SEC so that there will be an opportunity
>for feedback on this from the WGs.
>
>
>Regards,
>Tony
Regards,
Tony