RE: need help on 802 standard naming conventions
Roger,
That extra stuff comes from the JTC-1 version of the title.
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:marks@boulder.nist.gov]
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 9:53 AM
To: Geoff Thompson
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: need help on 802 standard naming conventions
Geoff:
I like the format you described and would be happy to use it.
However, the title of IEEE Std 802.3, 1998 Edition, as copied off the
PDF, is actually:
>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
This includes a bunch of stuff you didn't mention and that I could do
without:
>Information technology-
>Telecommunications and information exchange between systems-
>Specific requirements-
Where did this language come from, and who needs it?
Roger
>Jim-
>
>It is not obvious that the "starting words are..."
>
>In theory, 802 Standards are part of a family of standards. That is
>why they are not given a new number but continue under 802 ergo:
>
>IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks
>Part3 -
>Carrier Sense Multiple Access with
>Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) access method
>and physical layer specifications
>
>is the name of the Ethernet Standard and the base name for which
>amendments are written and into which they get integrated.
>
>i.e.: "IEEE Standard for" (<- Common to all IEEE Standards)
> "Local and Metropolitan Area Networks" (<- This is IEEE 802)
> "Part3 -...(CSMA/CD)..." (<- This is the "dot 3" part )
> "Amendment for whatever..."
>
>Geoff
>
>
>At 05:39 PM 10/5/00 -0500, Jim Carlo wrote:
>
>>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