Re: [802SEC] ISO versions of 802 standards
I believe that the strength of your assertions is marginal, to wit:
At 11:20 PM 7/25/2003 +0100, Tony Jeffree wrote:
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;
I believe that this has been solved, at least for 802.3 by the
combination of ISO Fast Track approval of IEEE approved standards
commitment of SC 6 to not attempt to change our documents at that late
return for a standing offer of "International Participation"
front matter in the front of all editions of the standard that elaborates
the ISO status
tells where an updated version of that status is kept (on the 802.3
- 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;
I believe that this is a business decision for the Standards Association,
although I am sure that they would appreciate our input.
- Keeping the documents "in sync" is
problematic at best, and arguably impossible;
I don't believe that is necessary under the 802.3 system.
What we provide is assurance that 802.3 standards ARE international
standards per ISO/IEC:
Established 802.3 Standards ARE ISO/IEC Standards under 8802-3
are no differences between approved portions of 8802-3 and their 802.3
of 802.3 that are not yet ISO approved will be approved in a timely
manner per the 2 bullets above.
(Note, this is contrary to what is being done in 802.11, whose policy I
do not support)
- The process generates complications and
extra work for the Editors and the IEEE staff;
There is no question that this is true. Again, I think whether or not
this is worthwhile is a business decision of the SA. Their current
thinking seems to be that wish to expand joint branding.
- The relevance of ISO as a source of
networking standards is highly questionable;
This is the one that I have the most sympathy for. If we could get them
to just decommit their way out of the business and defer to us then I
certainly would not stand in their way. Might work for SC6. Will not work
for SC25 as long as Von Pattay is the driving force there.
- As both ISO and IEEE will end up selling the
document, there is the potential for loss of IEEE
Again, a business decision for the SA, although I do believe that we have
a vested interest in terms of the standards sales revenue's impact on the
Get IEEE 802(tm) program.
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
I would note that it is my belief that a vote in support of this from
802.3 would be out of order as our P&P say:
Therefore we would have to vote a change in our P&P before we
could go there.
- "The 802.3 WG is chartered to maintain and revise the 802.3
standard, develop new standards in a reasonable
- time frame within the scope of the P802 LMSC, forward these standards
to ISO/IEC JTC1..."