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

Re: [802SEC] ISO versions of 802 standards


I believe that the strength of your assertions is marginal, to wit:

At 11:20 PM 7/25/2003 +0100, Tony Jeffree wrote:

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;

I believe that this has been solved, at least for 802.3 by the following:
        - The combination of ISO Fast Track approval of IEEE approved standards
                - AND -
          the commitment of SC 6 to not attempt to change our documents at that late stage in
          return for a standing offer of "International Participation" status.
        - The front matter in the front of all editions of the standard that elaborates the ISO status
          and tells where an updated version of that status is kept (on the 802.3 web-site).

- 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;

I believe that this is a business decision for the Standards Association, although I am sure that they would appreciate our input.

- Keeping the documents "in sync" is problematic at best, and arguably impossible;

I don't believe that is necessary under the 802.3 system.
What we provide is assurance that 802.3 standards ARE international standards per ISO/IEC:
        - Established 802.3 Standards ARE ISO/IEC Standards under 8802-3
        - There are no differences between approved portions of 8802-3 and their 802.3 equivalents
        - Portions of 802.3 that are not yet ISO approved will be approved in a timely manner per the 2 bullets above.
          (Note, this is contrary to what is being done in 802.11, whose policy I do not support)

- The process generates complications and extra work for the Editors and the IEEE staff;

There is no question that this is true. Again, I think whether or not this is worthwhile is a business decision of the SA. Their current thinking seems to be that wish to expand joint branding.

- The relevance of ISO as a source of networking standards is highly questionable;

This is the one that I have the most sympathy for. If we could get them to just decommit their way out of the business and defer to us then I certainly would not stand in their way. Might work for SC6. Will not work for SC25 as long as Von Pattay is the driving force there.

- As both ISO and IEEE will end up selling the document, there is the potential for loss of IEEE revenue.

Again, a business decision for the SA, although I do believe that we have a vested interest in terms of the standards sales revenue's impact on the Get IEEE 802(tm) program.

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.

I would note that it is my belief that a vote in support of this from 802.3 would be out of order as our P&P say:
"The 802.3 WG is chartered to maintain and revise the 802.3 standard, develop new standards in a reasonable
time frame within the scope of the P802 LMSC, forward these standards to ISO/IEC JTC1..."
Therefore we would have to vote a change in our P&P before we could go there.


Best regards,