RE: [802SEC] ISO versions of 802 standards
You don't have to follow the will of your group for every bad idea that
It is your job to:
1) Make it very clear to them what things are bad ideas and why.
2) Convert the concepts of their wishes into good ideas that are
within the rules.
After further consideration on this issue, I believe that it will have to
be my input to the USNB to vote DISAPPROVE on the fast Track Ballot on
802.11 in its current form.
It might even be that the British NB might decline to forward a less than
complete version of the standard to ISO. It is, after all, a big favor that
they are granting us by doing all of this.
At 08:40 AM 7/28/2003 -0700, Stuart J. Kerry wrote:
>Tony and Vic,
>Once again, and as stated AT THE meeting, I see that with the public
>sucess of the 802.11 family I do not see a need for an alterantive ISO
>version, it has obtain its own unuque identity within the IEEE family. But
>it was voted by the membership to proceed to this point, AND I HAVE TO act
>per the will of the body.
>That all said, debate at the EC meeting did lead me to "(BACK)" your view
>point of a November plenary motion "to make it 802 policy not to submit
>802 standards to ISO in the future". BUT I WILL PUT THAT TO MY MEMBERS.
> > 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.
> > 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.
> > Regards
> > ---------------
> > 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
> > e-mail: email@example.com
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 12:20 AM
> > To: email@example.com
> > 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
> > brand;
> > - Keeping the documents "in sync" is problematic at best, and arguably
> > impossible;
> > - 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
> > questionable;
> > - 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.
> > Regards,
> > Tony
>Stuart J. Kerry