True! Since most of us thought it always was. But it might be better to fix our process properly.
Q.14/16 folks seem to use "Amendments". T.38 for example, has Ammendments 1,2,3 & 4 approved. These contain additional Annexes as well as modifications to T.38, often using language little different from our IG. Perhaps, our IG could be simply converted into an Amendment periodically and approved. (Actually it would need to be split into separate amendments for each recommendation). These would need to follow AAP rules for approval rather than simply being approved at a SG meeting. Amendments are supposes to be limited to no more often than every two years (like new versions), but there is an exception for minor purely editorial changes or corrections due to an "oversight", so I think we would have no restrictions on the changes we have been putting into IGs.
A.11 states that "Minor modifications may be covered by publishing amendments or corrigenda rather than reissuing the complete Recommendation."
I cannot find a defined difference between "amendments" and "corrigenda".
Paul Long wrote:
Terry,
Or we could just maintain the status quo by all agreeing with a wink ;-) that IGs _are_ normative regardless of what Resolution 1 says.
Paul Long ipDialog, Inc.
-----Original Message----- From: Terry L Anderson [mailto:tla@lucent.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 10:11 AM To: Paul Long Cc: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: Implementors Guide not normative?
Recommendation A.3 is no longer in affect (status: withdrawn) but Resolution 1 of the new Study Period WTSA-2000, Resolution 1 Rules of procedure of the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has similar definitions (with a little less detail of process).
9.7 Correction of defects When a study group identifies the need for implementors to be made aware of defects (e.g. typographical errors, editorial errors, ambiguities, omissions or inconsistencies and technical errors) in a Recommendation, one mechanism that may be employed is an Implementors' Guide. This Guide is an historical document recording all identified defects and their status of correction, from their identification to final resolution, and would be issued in the study group's COM series of documents. Implementors' Guides shall be approved by the study group and made available to the public.
It is still clear that IGs simply record to correction process and are not themselves normative corrections.
I agree with Paul that we need to issue a Corrigendum or a new version with the IG's corrections before they become normative. We should do this as quickly as legally possible, which I believe is to prepare something for which "consent" can be approved at SG16 in Feb 2002 and then approved by AAP a few weeks later. It seems to me the large number of changes accumulated to date suggest that a V2 would be alot easier to use (I believe a Corrigendum would still be published as differences). Perhaps we should then have a strategy of issuing Corrigenda periodically for V2 rather than only IGs.
[snip]
--
Terry L Anderson mailto:tla@lucent.com Tel:908.582.7013 Fax:908.582.6729 Lucent Technologies/INS/Voice Over IP Access Networks Rm 2B-121, 600 Mountain Av, Murray Hill, NJ 07974 http://its.lucent.com/~tla (Lucent internal) http://www.gti.net/tla
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
--
------------------------------------------------------------ Terry L Anderson mailto:tla@lucent.com Tel:908.582.7013 Fax:908.582.6729 Lucent Technologies/INS/Voice Over IP Access Networks Rm 2B-121, 600 Mountain Av, Murray Hill, NJ 07974 http://its.lucent.com/~tla (Lucent internal) http://www.gti.net/tla