RE: [802SEC] Review of 2003 802 CD-ROM content
On 802.12 - I think we did the IEEE adminsitrative withdrawal, because otherwise there would
have had to be a vote to reaffirm. I think we dealt with the ISO-IEEE synchronization
issue by saying the standard would still be published while ISO/IEC 8802-12 is valid
(which is probably not much longer - 8802-12 has a 1998 date - is the cycle time
for ISO/IEC 6 years? if so, it will be around to 2004).
Where things may have fallen through the cracks is nothing on Get802, IEL or
the IEEE On-Line Standards Catalog indicates that status.
Was 802.7 withdrawn? It is still in the Catalog. I know it was reaffirmed at least
once and it is 1989 so it should have had to be reaffirmed again to be still valid.
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 3:15 PM
Cc: email@example.com; Geoff Thompson; firstname.lastname@example.org;
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Review of 2003 802 CD-ROM content
I'm not sure where we ended up on the withdrawal of 802.12 stuff. I know we
started to do it and then the issue came up that the ISO would still be
valid. Did that stop the withdrawal of the IEEE until the ISO ran out?
I am of the opinion that we should include withdrawn standards and perhaps
even old editions if they have had significant material removed. One of the
major problems we seem to be having these days is that we have to start at
ground zero in terms of teaching what has gone before to the new/current
constituency. Having early material broadly available to our membership
could be valuable.
To this end I would support a separate directory for withdrawn/obsolete.
To this end I would think that 802.7 should be included.
At 03:05 PM 8/29/2002 -0600, email@example.com wrote:
>BTW, I think the withdrawn standards are the 802.4, 802.9 and
>802.12 documents. However, the IEEE 802.12 listing on Get802
>doesn't indicate that it has been withdrawn and both IEEE 802.9
>and IEEE 802.12 appear in the IEEE On-line Standards Catalog
>without any indication that they are withdrawn.
>I'm not sure what the status of 802.6 is. The dates on the standards
>are 1994 and 1995 so it seems that they must have been reaffirmed or
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 1:46 PM
>To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] Review of 2003 802 CD-ROM content
>I thought about sending that question too, but decided not to
>bring it up.
>To the extent that we produce the CD so that 802 standards
>developers will be able to refer to the earlier standards
>to see how a particular problem was handled, to get examples
>of text for various situations, etc., the withdrawn standards
>are still useful for this purpose.
>It might be a good idea, assuming we include the withdrawn
>standards, to make sure it is clear which documents are withdrawn.
>(One way would be to put them under a separate Withdrawn directory.)
>That would prevent some possible mistakes like referencing a
>From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 12:06 PM
>To: Bob O'Hara
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Review of 2003 802 CD-ROM content
>Is it our intention (or not) to include withdrawn (but presumably not
>superceded) standards in this collection?
>I'm actually willing to go either way on this.
>At 03:43 PM 8/28/2002 -0700, Bob O'Hara wrote:
> >Please review the list of documents, below, that are to be included on
> >the 2003 edition of the 802 CD-ROM. If a document is not on the list,
> >it will not appear on the CD-ROM. Please let me know if you have any
> >additions, deletions, or changes. Thanks for your attention to this!
> >2003 802 Standards CD-ROM
> >802 operating rules
> >802.3 Files:
> >8802-5-1998 amd 1
> >802.11 Files:
> >Current MIB text file
> >Current SDL files(?)
> > -Bob
> >Bob O'Hara
> >Black Storm Networks
> >110 Nortech Parkway
> >San Jose, CA 95134-2307
> >Phone: +1 408 941 0500
> >Mobile: +1 408 218 4025
> >Fax: +1 810 277 4718
> >email: email@example.com