Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802SEC] ISO versions of 802 standards

At 03:57 28/07/2003 -0400, Hayes, Vic (Vic) wrote:
>Tony and All,
>A number of comments on your e-mail (I was not at the SEC meeting, so I may
>be out-of-order)
>In my time it was important for 802.11's success to be recognized as an ISO
>standard (e.g. it was important in some countries to be able to refer to an
>ISO standard in order to adopt a local standard). The WG needed to be
>diligent in synchronizing their work with the ISO rules.
>Nowadays, I agree that IEEE 802.11 standards are sufficiently accepted to be
>recognized without an ISO stamp.
>You state that it would be confusing to have to versions of the standard. In
>fact there would be only one version that bears 2 designations. Only in some
>small areas where we could not agree on a clause, would we add a remark that
>the clause would only be valid for either the IEEE standard or the
>International standard.

Vic -

One of the things that prompted me to make these comments is that 802.11 
are currently proposing to fast-track *some* (not all) of the currently 
approved 802.11 standard. This will definitely result in two versions of 
the standard - the IEEE version will have 2 (?) amendments that are not 
present in the ISO version.

>However, the most important item is the willingness  of a person to be the
>ISO editor, his preparedness to travel to the ISO meetings and to strictly
>coordinate with the IEEE staff to indeed obtain a new version.

Absolutely. This comes under my comments about complications and extra work.


>Vic Hayes
>Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
>Zadelstede 1-10
>3431 JZ  Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
>Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 1, + 2 during daylight saving time)
>FAX: +31 30 609 7556
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Jeffree []
>Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 12:20 AM
>Subject: [802SEC] ISO versions of 802 standards
>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;
>- 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
>- Keeping the documents "in sync" is problematic at best, and arguably
>- The process generates complications and extra work for the Editors and
>the IEEE staff;
>- The relevance of ISO as a source of networking standards is highly
>- As both ISO and IEEE will end up selling the document, there is the
>potential for loss of IEEE revenue.
>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 WGs.