Subject: Re: About referenced documents...

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 11:22:12 +0100

Randy Presuhn wrote:

  [Tom Yu wrote]
>> My understanding is that the Open Group / SUS standards are supposed
>> to be technically and textually identical to the IEEE 1003.x
>> standards, or at least, a strict superset thereof.  If someone has
>> evidence to the contrary, I would like to know about it.

> ...
 
> Speculating...
 
> A strict subset might be palatable.  A superset (strict or not)
> probably would not, since that would entail requirements beyond
> those in the intended specification. 

IMO an author should reference what (s)he's actually read, 
guessing what an "official" (but commercial) document says
is risky.  

 Frank

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:59:21 -0400

>>>>> "Frank" == Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]> writes:

Frank> IMO an author should reference what (s)he's actually read, 
Frank> guessing what an "official" (but commercial) document says
Frank> is risky.  

What should be our standard of proof for determining whether a
standards document that claims to be technically identical to another
standards document actually is identical?  This question has some
relevance to the work of the IETF, because some standards bodies
produce joint standards which become available under different terms:
one standards body will charge money for their copies of a joint
standard, while another standards body will make their copies of the
same standard available free of charge.

For example, a number of character-set related standards for which
ISO/IEC charges money are available for free from ECMA.  In the case
of IEEE 1003.1, the Open Group states that the Base Specifications of
the Single UNIX Specification Version 3, ISO/IEC 9945:2003, and IEEE
1003.1 are the same document:

    http://www.unix.org/version3/iso_std.html

I see no compelling reason to dispute this statement made by one of
the copyright holders.  I might be able to locate a PDF copy of IEEE
1003.1 to verify this claim.  (I doubt I would want to obtain the
physical bulk of a dead-tree version of the document.)

Is it wrong to note in a document's References section that a set of
standards are technically identical?  It will obviously increase the
size of references if an author does this.  If you also believe that
we should require authors to distinguish between the dead-tree version
of a standard and the online copy of the standard, References sections
could get really unwieldy.

---Tom

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 11:16:42 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Tom Yu" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:59 AM
> Subject: Re: About referenced documents...
...
...

This was the practice in ISO / ITU work back in the days of JTC1/SC21,
where there were many standards that were either common text or
technically aligned.

Randy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:05:50 +1300

> where there were many standards that were either common text or

I'm sure the best solution will vary from case to case - the test is
surely whether telling implementors to read a non-official version
will cause interoperability problems.

    Brian

---

From: Chris Grigg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:23:40 -0700

At 1.42p +1300 2007.11.01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>On 2007-11-01 12:08, lconroy wrote:
>>Hi Tom, folks,
>>  Many thanks for that. This is exactly what I wanted to know.
>>I understand that this is a distraction from the wider IPR crusade,
>>but I wonder if people should consider ensuring that our standards
>>refer to just this kind of open document (e.g. refer to SUS/opengroup
>>standards rather than the original POSIX/IEEE standards).
>
>But what if the freely available document is slightly out of date
>or slightly different compared to the official one? That isn't a sound
>basis for a normative reference. In such a case, I would consider
>a normative reference to the official (paid) standard and an informative
>reference to the free one, with a warning.
>
>    Brian

This is a valid approach, especially if there is an expectation to 
benefit from any future progression of the referenced document, and 
especially if there are likely to be frequent updates to it.  At a 
minimum this can include subsequent minor correction revisions (bug 
fixes, editorial clarifications, etc.).  Or the referenced document 
may describe some architecture explicitly expected to grow or evolve 
over time.  In both cases, any 3rd party org that is republishing the 
referenced document may have trouble keeping their version up to 
date.  Unambiguously referencing an unambiguous version number helps, 
but when there are frequent changes the problem is architectural, and 
the best solution seems to be to always reference the source, not any 
re-published versions, at least as the primary reference.

So, if secondary references to re-published versions are to be used, 
a strong warning is appropriate. Ideally, re-published versions of 
documents would also always include strong warnings to check the 
source for any newer versions before using.

	-- Chris G.

// -------------------------------------------------------------------------
//  Chris Grigg
//  Head of Standards, Beatnik, Inc.
//  Chair, Technical Standards Board, MIDI Manufacturers Association
//  Chair, Mobile Working Group, MIDI Manufacturers Association
// -------------------------------------------------------------------------
//  Beatnik: Enhanced Audio Solutions for Mobile Devices

---

From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:56:58 -0400

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Yu <[email-masked]> writes:

Tom> I might be able to locate a PDF copy of IEEE 1003.1 to verify
Tom> this claim.  (I doubt I would want to obtain the physical bulk of
Tom> a dead-tree version of the document.)

I have looked at a copy of the official IEEE PDF of 1003.1-2004 and
confirmed that its copyright is jointly owned by the IEEE with The
Open Group, and that it states that the standard is simultaneously
IEEE 1003.1, ISO/IEC 9945, and the core of the Single UNIX
Specification, Version 3.