Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!pacbell!att!cbnewsc!lgm
From: lgm@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (lawrence.g.mayka)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: "Correct" IS UNDEFINED!
Keywords: proof, correctness, theory, balderdash
Message-ID: <13301@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Date: 5 Feb 90 04:28:40 GMT
References: <17271@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Reply-To: lgm@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (lawrence.g.mayka,ihp,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 26

In article <17271@duke.cs.duke.edu> crm@romeo.UUCP (Charlie Martin) writes:
>I don't think I understand this.  I recognize that new features, not
>extensions to new peripherals or additions of things like nail-up
>connections to existing switches, nmay not have firm requirements at the
>time they are proposed.  But do they not have to meet standards set
>through Bellcore before they can be integrated into the network.  It was

The Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) may or may not wait
for a Bellcore standard before purchasing new features, depending
on factors such as market demand.  Keep in mind that Bellcore is
owned by the RBOCs and exists to serve them, not the other way
around.  A Bellcore standard is a technical recommendation to the
RBOCs, not an imposed requirement.

The international switching system market is even less
regimented.  International telecommunications standards focus
primarily on interconnectibility, not feature offerings.  Each
country's PTT often has its distinctive notion of what services
its subscribers need and want.


	Lawrence G. Mayka
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	lgm@ihlpf.att.com

Standard disclaimer.