Implementors Guide not normative?
Terry L Anderson
tla at LUCENT.COM
Wed Oct 10 14:06:45 EDT 2001
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:
> 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 at lucent.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 10:11 AM
> To: Paul Long
> Cc: ITU-SG16 at 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 Recommendation A.3 is no longer in affect (status: withdrawn) but Resolution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
> 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
> (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 This Guide is an historical document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
> Implementors' Guides shall be approved by the study group and made available
> to the
> It is still clear that IGs simply record to correction process and are not
> 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
> possible, which I believe is to prepare something for which "consent" can be
> 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
> Terry L Anderson mailto:tla at 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 at mailbag.intel.com
Terry L Anderson mailto:tla at lucent.com
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 454 bytes
Desc: Card for Terry L Anderson
More information about the sg16-avd