RE: need help on 802 standard naming conventions
Let's add to Nov December. Roger, could you bring in proposal? Obviously the
starting words are:
How about:
IEEE Standard for Broadband Wireless Access: Part x, ...??
Jim Carlo(jcarlo@ti.com) Cellular:1-214-693-1776 Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274
TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
Chair, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 Telecom and Info Exchange Between Systems
Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]On
Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 5:07 PM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: need help on 802 standard naming conventions
Can someone help me understand the 802 naming convention for standards?
802.3, 802.5, 802.9, and 802.11 follow this format:
"Information technology--Telecommunications and information exchange
between systems--Local and metropolitan area networks--Specific
requirements--Part 3: Carrier sense multiple access with collision
detection (CSMA/CD) access method and physical layer specifications"
where only the part beginning "Part 3" changes for the other standards.
On the other hand, 802.1F is simply "IEEE Standard for Local and
Metropolitan Area Networks: Common Definitions and Procedures for
IEEE 802 Management Information" and 802.10 is just "IEEE Standards
for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks : Interoperable LAN/MAN
Security (SILS)."
In the case of 802.16.1, the Working Group approved simply "Air
Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems," but, at the
least minute, some SEC people said that wasn't acceptable and that we
needed to adopt the 802 convention. We ended up with
"Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between Systems -
LAN/MAN Specific Requirements - Air Interface for Fixed Broadband
Wireless Access Systems." I don't know who gave us the information,
but it doesn't quite follow any format.
Given my choice, I'd go back to the simple "Air Interface for Fixed
Broadband Wireless Access Systems." If we make a PAR change, I'd like
to revisit the title.
Can someone explain what the long title does anyway? I suspect it is
to fit some kind of ANSI or ISO/IEC convention. Since 802.16 is not
planning any overlap with ANSI, ISO, or IEC, I think that we should
be free of those constraints.
Roger