Re: [802SEC] FW: Just when you thought you had all this figured out
Tony,
You are correct, and I have submitted the same comments on P260.1,
and I also have not seen a response or a recirculation.
SCC14 is on a mission to make kibis the law of the land.
Howard
Tony Jeffree wrote:
> Howard,
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 11:40 05/08/2003 -0700, Howard Frazier wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Howard Frazier
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>> Carl
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: pat_thaler@agilent.com [mailto:pat_thaler@agilent.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 1:22 PM
>>>> To: carlstevenson@agere.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>>> Subject: RE: [802SEC] FW: Just when you thought you had all this
>>>> figured
>>>> out
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Pat
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [mailto:carlstevenson@agere.com]
>>>> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 3:03 PM
>>>> To: 'stds-802-sec@ieee.org'
>>>> 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 :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
>
>