Re: [802SEC] FW: Just when you thought you had all this figured out
PLEASE NOTE that P1541 doesn't seem to be the only place where kibis have
managed to infiltrate. I recently responded to the P260.1 revision ballot
with comments to the effect that mebi they should remove the kibis. I
assume that, as this is a revision ballot, it is not trial use.
At 11:40 05/08/2003 -0700, Howard Frazier wrote:
>Please recall that we (802) sent a letter to the IEEE-SA
>Standards Board asking that P1541 (standard for prefixes
>for binary multiples) be approved as a 2 year, Trial Use
>standard, rather than a 5 year standard.
>During the trial period, you have the opportunity to
>comment on the contents of the standard. Your comments
>must be addressed before the standard is elevated to
>full use status. Note that while the trial period ends
>two years after the standard was approved, the cutoff
>date for comments is set in advance of the end of the
>trial period. If substantive comments are submitted
>that require changes to the draft, the sponsor must
>seek a PAR to revise the draft, whereupon it will be
>subjected to the normal development and balloting
>process. Furthermore, since the balloting on SCC14
>standards is now "open" to materially interested
>parties, you will have the opportunity to join the
>balloting group on any revision of P1541.
>I can't seem to find my latest greatest copy of P1541,
>which contains the instructions for submitting comments.
>If any one has a copy of the published standard, please
>post the instructions. For now, I have attached a
>copy of the draft as it was submitted to RevCom.
>On a technical note, I totally agree with Pat's position
>that it is better to use a precise representation of
>a binary number (such as 65 535, or 2^16 - 1 bytes) rather
>than an imprecise and unfamiliar abbreviation (such as
>64 kibibytes), and that this representation must be
>included in the normative portion of the standard. As
>far as I am concerned, the kibis, mebis and gibis should
>be placed in an informative annex, for the amusement
>(or bemusement) of the reader.
>Let me also emphasize that inaction will result in
>P1541 being elevated to a 5 year, Full Use standard,
>whereupon we will simply have to live with it.
>Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) wrote:
>>Beats me ... as the original usenet author said,
>>"Just when you though you had this all figured out." :-)
>>Frankly, I thought the whole "ibi" thing was rather
>>stupid ... but that's just my personal view.
>>>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
>>>Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 1:22 PM
>>>To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
>>>Subject: RE: [802SEC] FW: Just when you thought you had all this figured
>>>So, for the cases where megabyte was used to mean (10^3) * (2^10) bytes,
>>>will this now be a kilokibibyte?
>>>My objection to the IEEE standard on the same topic was that it appeared
>>>to require using the new units over other unambiguous options. In
>>>particular, when we use numbers such as 65,536 or (2^32 - 1) in a
>>>standard, we often mean exactly that number. Expressing it as 64
>>>kibibytes wouldn't express the precision we need (as shown by the number
>>>often being a power of 2 minus 1 because it is represented by a bit field).
>>>The confusion occurs more in the real world than in standards. I haven't
>>>read any standards that left themselves ambigous on number of bytes.
>>>They generally write the number out as above or as a power of 2.
>>>From: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>>>Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 3:03 PM
>>>Subject: [802SEC] FW: Just when you thought you had all this figured out
>>>FYI ... this was posted to one of the usenet ham
>>>newsgroups with the above subject :-)