From spring+@pitt.edu Wed Dec 21 07:37:05 1994 Received: from pitt.edu by icarus.lis.pitt.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA13097; Wed, 21 Dec 94 07:37:05 EST Received: by pitt.edu id AA17628 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4.5 for spring@lis.pitt.edu); Wed, 21 Dec 1994 07:36:58 -0500 Received: via switchmail; Wed, 21 Dec 1994 07:36:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from teilhard.lis.pitt.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 21 Dec 1994 07:34:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from teilhard.lis.pitt.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 21 Dec 1994 07:34:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from Messages.8.5.N.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.teilhard.lis.pitt.edu.pmax.ul4 via MS.5.6.teilhard.lis.pitt.edu.pmax_ul4; Wed, 21 Dec 1994 07:34:17 -0500 (EST) Resent-Message-Id: <8iy23928XbH0A1nX1X@pitt.edu> Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 07:34:17 -0500 (EST) Resent-From: "Michael B. Spring" If-Type-Unsupported: send Resent-To: spring@lis.pitt.edu Return-Path: Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology X-Sender: amr@linus.isoc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 07:18:29 -0500 To: TIASTDS@aol.com, OKSALA@po3.bb.unisys.com, iisp@dsys.ncsl.nist.gov From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: Terminology and ANSI Message-Id: <9412020715.aa21187@linus.isoc.org> X-IMAPbase: 1249813034 1 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1 Dan, >I also agree with Tony that one size may not fit all, and the ANSI system is >voluntary and those they choose to follow can and those that don't, won't. I think you have touched a key point here. Only it goes beyond a matter of following or not. There has been a kind of implicit assumption that any kind of technology in every markeplace can have the same kinds of standards developed by the same kinds of processes. Somehow putting screw threads in the same bag with computer networking standards seems an unlikely fit (no pun intended). It's struck me that TIA over the years has been particularly effective in developing standards because it's been very pragmatic about identifying those technologies and applications where it can play a role - and those where it cannot. It also has a lot of good people focussed on this "knitting." This has absolutely nothing to do with annointments provided to TIA about being accredited or not. >I just read the other day how GE got hacked over the Internet and don't know >the details of the technical assault, but we try to build security into our >systems that are standardized. Open systems security is a difficult area. The IETF has an entire standards area of working groups devoted to it. There are Computer Emergency Response Teams being established in most major countries and coordinated globally, and the Society has just instituted its IPRA secretariat for a public key certificate hierarchy. Unfortunately the problem goes well beyone just standards. >of minority opinions at the September meeting. If the ideas and direction >are sound, you do not need to be a rocket scientist to discover the right >path. Don't want to bring up a sore point, but that's what a lot of people said about OSI and ISDN as well. I think everyone wants to avoid making the same mistakes again. And one of the best ways to do that is to avoid monopoly standards models and semantics that create children of a lesser god. >Tony, please Email me your Snail Mail address, I want to send you a copy of >TIA's recent Standards and Technology Annual Report (STAR). --tony Tony Rutkowski Executive Director Internet Society Reston VA USA tel: +1 703 648 9888 fax: +1 703 648 9887 http://www.isoc.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~