RE: [802SEC] ISO versions of 802 standards
Tony and Vic,
Once again, and as stated AT THE meeting, I see that with the public
sucess of the 802.11 family I do not see a need for an alterantive ISO
version, it has obtain its own unuque identity within the IEEE family. But
it was voted by the membership to proceed to this point, AND I HAVE TO act
per the will of the body.
That all said, debate at the EC meeting did lead me to "(BACK)" your view
point of a November plenary motion "to make it 802 policy not to submit
802 standards to ISO in the future". BUT I WILL PUT THAT TO MY MEMBERS.
> Tony and All,
> A number of comments on your e-mail (I was not at the SEC meeting, so I
> be out-of-order)
> In my time it was important for 802.11's success to be recognized as an
> standard (e.g. it was important in some countries to be able to refer to
> 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
> recognized without an ISO stamp.
> You state that it would be confusing to have to versions of the standard.
> fact there would be only one version that bears 2 designations. Only in
> small areas where we could not agree on a clause, would we add a remark
> the clause would only be valid for either the IEEE standard or the
> International standard.
> 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.
> 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
> FAX: +31 30 609 7556
> e-mail: email@example.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 12:20 AM
> To: email@example.com
> 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
> - Keeping the documents "in sync" is problematic at best, and arguably
> - 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
> - 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
> 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.
Stuart J. Kerry