comms standards (Was: What databases have taught me)

"AndrewMackDonna" <newsamd_at_amc.com> wrote in message news:e8c2g1$246$1_at_news.freedom2surf.net...

> (Responding to Topmind as Bob wont hear this - Hear no evil, See no evil,
> speak no evil????)

> Sure they are very precise, but their implementations tend not to be.
> Working in Telecomms I gave up ever finding a vendor who _fully_
> implemented any of the standards. Not to mention the Vendor extensions
> they put in.

> Ignoring that (sore - for me) point, those standards take so long to be
> made and ratified by the committees that they are being left behind by the
> industry.

Some do, some don't.

The ITU is notoriously slow.

ETSI are very fast (for example they got SDH and ATM OAM specs out first, which were then absorbed by the ITU some time later : G.774-*, Q.82x etc) .

The 3GPP churned on UMTS every 3 months - with significant spec changes across the board (thousands of pages of specs) . No one was second-guessing them during 1999-2001.

> Witness the latest Wifi 802.11 N standard - vendors have been shipping
> products with it for the last year, yet it isn't even ratified yet.

This shows a certain degree of ignorance IMHO.

The rush to get the kit out is to *gain market share +/- become a de-facto standard* . And betting on the differences between what they have and what becomes the standard requiring minimal re-development to align.

Coincidentally, in Electronics Weekly (UK) there is an article on why a lot of
good radio design (tech and stds) happens in Europe, and someone notes that the above behaviour appears to often be a USA approach, whereas Europe has more "consensus" in its approach.

Regards,
Steven Perryman Received on Tue Jul 04 2006 - 10:03:53 CEST