<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2654.89">
<TITLE>RE: Implementors Guide not normative?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Would it make sense for the IETF to apply its process to take an integrated document through to RFC? Then it would be clear that H.248v2 is truly an up-version with new features.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Terry L Anderson [<A HREF="mailto:tla@LUCENT.COM">mailto:tla@LUCENT.COM</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 2:07 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re: Implementors Guide not normative?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>True! Since most of us thought it always was. But it might be better to fix</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>our process properly.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Q.14/16 folks seem to use "Amendments". T.38 for example, has Ammendments 1,2,3</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>& 4 approved. These contain additional Annexes as well as modifications to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>T.38, often using language little different from our IG. Perhaps, our IG could</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>be simply converted into an Amendment periodically and approved. (Actually it</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>would need to be split into separate amendments for each recommendation). These</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>would need to follow AAP rules for approval rather than simply being approved at</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>a SG meeting. Amendments are supposes to be limited to no more often than every</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>two years (like new versions), but there is an exception for minor purely</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>editorial changes or corrections due to an "oversight", so I think we would have</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>no restrictions on the changes we have been putting into IGs.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>A.11 states that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>"Minor modifications may be covered by publishing amendments or corrigenda</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>rather than reissuing the complete Recommendation."</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I cannot find a defined difference between "amendments" and "corrigenda".</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Paul Long wrote:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> Terry,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Or we could just maintain the status quo by all agreeing with a wink ;-)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> that IGs _are_ normative regardless of what Resolution 1 says.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Paul Long</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ipDialog, Inc.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> From: Terry L Anderson [<A HREF="mailto:tla@lucent.com">mailto:tla@lucent.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 10:11 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> To: Paul Long</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Cc: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Subject: Re: Implementors Guide not normative?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Recommendation A.3 is no longer in affect (status: withdrawn) but Resolution</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> 1 of the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> new Study Period WTSA-2000,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Resolution 1 - Rules of procedure of the ITU Telecommunication</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Standardization</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Sector (ITU-T)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> has similar definitions (with a little less detail of process).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> 9.7 Correction of defects</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> When a study group identifies the need for implementors to be made aware of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> defects</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> (e.g. typographical errors, editorial errors, ambiguities, omissions or</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> inconsistencies and technical errors) in a Recommendation, one mechanism</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> that may be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> employed is an Implementors' Guide. This Guide is an historical document</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> recording all</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> identified defects and their status of correction, from their identification</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> to final</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> resolution, and would be issued in the study group's COM series of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> documents.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Implementors' Guides shall be approved by the study group and made available</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> to the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> public.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> It is still clear that IGs simply record to correction process and are not</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> themselves</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> normative corrections.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I agree with Paul that we need to issue a Corrigendum or a new version with</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> the IG's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> corrections before they become normative. We should do this as quickly as</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> legally</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> possible, which I believe is to prepare something for which "consent" can be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> approved</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> at SG16 in Feb 2002 and then approved by AAP a few weeks later. It seems to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> me the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> large number of changes accumulated to date suggest that a V2 would be alot</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> easier to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> use (I believe a Corrigendum would still be published as differences).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Perhaps we</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> should then have a strategy of issuing Corrigenda periodically for V2 rather</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> than only</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> IGs.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> [snip]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ------------------------------------------------------------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Terry L Anderson <A HREF="mailto:tla@lucent.com">mailto:tla@lucent.com</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Tel:908.582.7013 Fax:908.582.6729</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Lucent Technologies/INS/Voice Over IP Access Networks</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Rm 2B-121, 600 Mountain Av, Murray Hill, NJ 07974</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> <A HREF="http://its.lucent.com/~tla" TARGET="_blank">http://its.lucent.com/~tla</A> (Lucent internal) <A HREF="http://www.gti.net/tla" TARGET="_blank">http://www.gti.net/tla</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> listserv@mailbag.intel.com</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>------------------------------------------------------------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Terry L Anderson <A HREF="mailto:tla@lucent.com">mailto:tla@lucent.com</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Tel:908.582.7013 Fax:908.582.6729</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Lucent Technologies/INS/Voice Over IP Access Networks</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Rm 2B-121, 600 Mountain Av, Murray Hill, NJ 07974</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><A HREF="http://its.lucent.com/~tla" TARGET="_blank">http://its.lucent.com/~tla</A> (Lucent internal) <A HREF="http://www.gti.net/tla" TARGET="_blank">http://www.gti.net/tla</A></FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>