Re: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 17SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC position statement regarding the SC6 review of 8802-1
G'day Andrew -
Comments below:
At 13:45 09/09/2006, Andrew Myles (amyles) wrote:
>Until the IEEE-SA goal of universal recognition as an "international"
>standards body is reached at some future time, a mechanism is required
>to defend 802.x standards in issues similar to the WAPI dispute in 2004.
>Note that one part of the successful argument against the mandating of
>WAPI in China in 2004 was that we could claim IEEE 802.11 was an
>"international" standard based on its ISO/IEC 8802-11 standardisation.
I have a real problem with this. I can accept that there might, just
possibly, be a theoretical need to slap particular labels on things in
different markets, but to date, I don't believe that there has been
demonstrated any *practical* need to do so in the markets we serve. In the
past, whenever the benefits of the ISO label have been discussed (in my
hearing, at least), the justification has seemed to me to be based on
"chicken soup" philosophy - it may not cure the malady but "it can't hoit".
The reality is that we created a problem (generating ISO versions of our
standards and therefore creating a forum in which they *could* be put under
this kind of attack), and now we are fighting a rearguard action to remove
the problem.
If there had never been an 8802-11 standard, then the WAPI issue would not
have arisen, as the only way to create a WAPI standard in ISO would have
been to re-create the whole of the 802.11 standard in violation of 802
copyright, which I believe ISO would not have countenanced. So, the
proponents of WAPI would have had to come to 802 if they wanted WAPI to be
part of the .11 standard, and, just like any other group of people that
wanted to bring new ideas into 802 groups, their ideas would have been
discussed on their merits.
>The 8802-1 agreement, if properly written, will provide an insurance
>policy against further WAPI-like issues. Like all insurance policies, we
>can decide not to make a claim but it is there just in case. Hopefully,
>a well written 8802-1 agreement will also allow us to avoid spending the
>millions of dollars that was required to defend 802.11 against WAPI in
>2004 and 2006. An agreement that only leads to "endorsement" is not
>enough. An agreement that leads to standardisation by ISO/IEC of
>(selected) IEEE 802.x standard will allow IEEE the flexibility to take
>this step when desired/required. Of course issues like IPR, copyright
>and maintenance responsibility need to be sorted out too.
I'm sorry...this sounds to me like the guy that just shot himself in the
foot deciding to invent a set of bullet-proof boots, rather than simply
deciding not to point the gun at his foot and pull the trigger.
I believe the right long-term insurance policy against future WAPI-like
issues is to make sure that there is only one forum in which they get
discussed, and that is 802. The route from here to there is for those of us
in 802 that still launder our standards through SC6 to STOP DOING IT. There
is no demonstrable benefit that I am aware of (if there is, then lets see
the numbers, guys, and not just more "chicken soup"), and regardless of the
quality of agreements that may be put in place, having multiple fora in
which topics get discussed, balloted and approved leads to management
problems and added effort to get the job done, which in the face of the
kind of workload that we currently have in 802, we can ill afford.
Yes, there may be a need to fix the short-term problem that 802.11 has, and
that 802.3 and 802.?? (are there any others that have ISO/IEC versions of
their standards?) potentially could have, but lets recognize that this
really is just a tactical exercise, and focus on the long term problem of
how we extract our standards from ISO/IEC, and how we improve the standing
of 802 as an international body.
Regards,
Tony
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.