RE: [802SEC] ISO versions of 802 standards
You are absolutely right that the fast-track procedure without a PAR for a
new version is NOT the way to go forward.
Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
3431 JZ Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 1, + 2 during daylight saving time)
FAX: +31 30 609 7556
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 5:31 PM
To: Hayes, Vic (Vic)
Subject: 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
>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
>recognized without an ISO stamp.
>You state that it would be confusing to have to versions of the standard.
>fact there would be only one version that bears 2 designations. Only in
>small areas where we could not agree on a clause, would we add a remark
>the clause would only be valid for either the IEEE standard or the
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.
>Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
>3431 JZ Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
>Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 1, + 2 during daylight saving time)
>FAX: +31 30 609 7556
>From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:email@example.com]
>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.