Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!infinet!rhorn
From: rhorn@infinet.UUCP (Rob Horn)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Feynman on standardization
Summary: Douglass Ross on standards
Message-ID: <1537@infinet.UUCP>
Date: 17 May 89 02:03:54 GMT
References: <1989May7.232428.14416@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: rhorn@infinet.UUCP (Rob Horn)
Organization: Infinet, Inc.  North Andover, MA
Lines: 41

In article <1989May7.232428.14416@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>For some reason this made me think of a number of current standardization
>efforts, notably ISO networking, X.400 and sons, and the X/NeWS standards
>war.  I can't imagine what the connection could be... :-) :-) :-)

Equally apropo, from _Homilies for Humble Standards_, Douglas Ross,
CACM, V19, No 11, Nov 1976:

1. {\em Pro}posed standards can be very beneficial; {\em Im}posed
standards will be a disaster.

2. Standards are not only meaningless, they are actually {\em
dangerous}, if their proper use cannot be understood by those affected
by them.

3. The most important part of a standard is its {\em applicability
clause}, which exactly specifies when {\em not} to use it.

4. Standard{\em ized} methods can become standard methods only when
accepted in use.

5. Standards exist only to {\em serve the needs} of a {\em
non}standard world.  Standards cannot create a standard world.

6. {\em Compatibility} is more achievable than {\em conformability},
and is usually all that is needed.

% from later in the article, not listed as a homily

Humble standards --- those which do not attempt to impose or create
impossible, unacceptable, or impractical levels of standardization ---
are achievable.

The entire original article is well worth repeated reading.  A dozen
years have not improved the general state of standardization efforts
at all.
-- 
				Rob  Horn
	UUCP:	...harvard!adelie!infinet!rhorn
		...ulowell!infinet!rhorn, ..decvax!infinet!rhorn
	Snail:	Infinet,  40 High St., North Andover, MA