Hi - > From: "Bruce Lilly" <blilly@xxxxxxxxx> > To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 10:49 AM > Subject: Re: Why old-standards (Re: List of Old Standards to be retired) ... > 1. annual review of hundreds or thousands of standards in an > organization comprised primarily of volunteers is not > practical. IEEE had, in the mid-90s, a 5-year review > policy (as I understand it, tied to an ANSI cycle tied > to an ISO cycle), and was rather far behind in its efforts > to review (and reaffirm, supersede, or obsolete) old > standards (some which were still deemed useful had > vacuum-tube circuit diagrams as examples of implementation). > The effort required by the review period needs to be > consistent with the availability of qualified and motivated > worker bees that will perform the review. ... Obviously, YMMV. In INCITS T3, the periodic review of ISO standards didn't require too much effort. The ISO periodic review simply required answering a very short list of mostly yes-no questions, like "Is this standard in use in industry," concluded with a retain/revise/withdraw recommendation. With the exception of the withdrawal of ASN.1 in favor of what many of us no-so-jokingly called ASN.2, it worked fairly well, at least in the areas where I was active. However, I think it's a mistake to compare this effort to the ISO periodic review. Procedurally, this is much more comparable to the rules for progressing from CD / FCD to DIS (and eventually to IS). Randy _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf