TO: Robert Canik, Chairperson of the Working Group for Higher Performance IEEE Std 488.1
FROM: Dave Clemens
DATE: August 20, 1999
RE: IEEE P488.1/D1.2

Dear Robert,

I am concerned that selected issues raised in my negative ballot, and the other negative ballots you sent me, have not been adequately addressed.

In rebuttal point 9 "Concerns that the addition of CF/SHE/AHE functions and the new CF multi-line messages risk compatibility with existing implementations", it was stated that "Addition of CF/SHE/AHE: The working group has verified that compatibility has not been compromised". An expanded explanation of what was done is required. Please describe the procedure that was used to verify that compatibility has not been compromised. Also, provide any minutes from any working group meeting or TC-8 meeting that describe this process.

In rebuttal point 7 "Reliability may be compromised since users must know the total cable length of their systems", it indicated that "all interface and network standards have cable length restrictions thus users are used to taking this into account, also for the existing IEEE 488 standards. This was discussed at the working group meetings,…" Please send me the minutes of the working group. Cable length restrictions are an integral part of maintaining data reliability in the high speed proposal. Did the working group suggest the inclusion of a mechanism to ensure that the cable length is correct? Did the working group address the issue of developing a standardized method for communicating the cable length parameter to the controling I/O software?

In rebuttal point 4 "Divergence from the IEC 625", it was stated that "Multiple examples of asynchronous development of the IEC and IEEE standards have occurred throughout the years without detriment to users". In this specific case the two standards have been in agreement for twenty years. This is a very strong precedent and must not be changed. One other concern is that the IEEE and IEC have often been out of step with each other, however, there has historically been an agreement that the standards will be closely linked. In this situation, the IEC technical subcommittee has voiced concerns over the proposal and would not support it. This conflict must be resolved.

In rebuttal point 3, "Lack of Interoperability Testing", "the draft has been extensively tested through industry use". My major concern is that the proposed standard has been implemented using a single company's proprietary implementation. This does not provide multivendor interoperability testing. It may be that only products developed using the same implementation are compatible. Please send the results of the interoperability testing, which as yet has not been supplied.

I request a meeting of the working group to discuss these concerns in more detail and ensure that they are adequately addressed before this proposal is submitted to IEEE Standards Association.

Best regards,
Dave Clemens
dave_clemens@hp.com