Negative Approval of the Revision of the IEEE
Project 488.1/D1.2
Steele, Robin
Hewlett Packard Co.
815 14th Street SW
M/S CU 328
Loveland, CO 80537
*488.1/D1.2 REV*
Record # 52830
I am voting with a negative response because of the following reasons: (comments that will cause the negative voter to change my vote to ‘approve’ are indicated in italics)
1. Limited Need for Higher Speed
The existing IEEE 488.1 standard is a very stable
standard and is being widely used by many vendors and users
around the world (IEEE 488.1 and IEC 60625-1). Many hundreds of
thousands of instruments and controllers have been developed to
this standard over the many years that the standard has existed.
The vast majority of customers are satisfied with the performance
of IEEE 488.1 and do not require higher performance. Do we need
to change the standard to support higher speed operation for a
limited number of users? Who is driving the need for a higher
speed standard?
Action Required to Change Vote: "Validate the compelling need to improve the existing IEEE 488."
2. Divergence from the IEC
Historically, the IEEE 488.1 and IEC 60625-1 have always
worked together to ensure that these two standards are in
agreement. The WG3, the working group of the IEC responsible for
IEC 60625-1, has expressed numerous concerns over the proposed
IEEE 488.1/D1.2 Revision and will not match those changes in IEC
60625-1. It would be highly beneficial to continue to have the
United States Standard be the same as the International Standard.
A divergence could cause users to have difficulty, if they
purchased a product that followed a United States standard, but
was incompatible with an international standard that it was
historically equivalent to.
Action Required to Change Vote: "Ensure that both the IEEE 488.1 standard and the IEC 60625-1 standard continue to be in agreement."
3. Consideration for other High Speed Alternatives
The existing 488.1/D1.2 revision revises the original 488.1
document to include many new state diagrams to implement high
speed transmission. This solution is very complicated and the
same goal could be accomplished using alternatives that are much
simpler to implement. An example of this is the proposal
submitted by the German National Committee (DKE) which was
submitted to the IEEE for consideration. It appears that other
alternatives were not considered for this standard.
Action Required to Change Vote: "1. Please explain what other alternatives were considered, if any. 2. If alternatives were not considered, then evaluate other alternatives, and modify 488.1 as appropriate. 3. If other alternatives were considered, provide a satisfactory explanation of why they are not present in 488.1, especially since some of the alternatives appear simpler to implement."
4. Complexity
The current proposal implements high speed alternatives by
adding a large number of new state machines. This complex
implementation has been "tested" in multiple vendors
implementation but they were all based on a single vendor’s
implementation of a custom ASIC. Given the complexity of the
implementation it is highly probably that many vendors will not
be able to successfully duplicate the required behavior. This
would lead to incompatibility issues. Because of this
incompatibility risk and the limited need for high speed, it
would be better to eliminate this section of the standard or use
a simpler to use alternative.
Action Required to Change Vote: "(a) REMOVE complex
state diagrams related to high speed implementation (specifically
the interface functions CF, SHE, AHE) OR
(b) REPLACE the complex changes related to high speed
implementation with a simpler alternative (better technical
solution)"
5. National Instrument’s Patent
National Instruments Corporation has been granted United
State Patent #US5315706 issued on May 24, 1994 titled "High
speed IEEE 488 bus interface system and method" to inventors:
Thomson, Andrew C,;Odom, Brian K.; Butler, C. Paul; Jablin,
Michael G.; Nowlin, Jr., William C.; Canik, Robert W. The IEEE
488.1/D1.2 revision appears to make extensive use of patented
material. My understanding of the IEEE patent policy is that
patented material can be included in standards provided patents
have unrestricted licensing and fair economic licensing
conditions. Inquires to the IEEE, regarding patent status have
been directed to the IEEE legal department, which has failed to
respond to inquires. What patents are involved with this proposal
and do the licensing terms abide by IEEE policy?
Action Required to Change Vote: "1. Add text to the
standard that lists what Patents are involved in this proposal
and applicable licensing terms that are consistent with IEEE
policy. This would be similar to the wording in Paragraph 6, Page
iii in the introduction to the standard that describes Hewlett-Packard's
patent on the three-wire handshake."
The following are procedural questions:
Specification Revisions Process
My understanding is that the working group distributed draft
revision 1.3. The balloted specification is revision 1.2. The
balloted revision appears to have addressed some of the prior
comments, however, which people in the working group reviewed the
drafts and which people made changes? I was not informed of the
current progress since the last sponsor ballot, until I received
the new proposed ballot.
Action Requested: "Document what process was used to make revisions. Ensure that the process followed was correct and that a majority of the working group had a chance to have input."
Results of Previous Sponsor Ballot
I have not received the results of the previous sponsor
ballot.
Action Requested: "Publicly communicate results of previous sponsor ballot"