Timeline for What defines a standard?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2013 at 2:59 | comment | added | johannes | "Since there is nothing binding about the standard, it is just a guideline document" - this is often true in our field of software engineering, if you look at many other ISO (or similar) standards and such there often are legal requirements to follow those. | |
| Mar 9, 2011 at 21:59 | vote | accept | Dave O. | ||
| Mar 8, 2011 at 15:23 | comment | added | BillThor | I was considering mentioning something like. Violating RFCs is done at your own risk, as they are de-facto standards. That's another part of the standards process, in that compliance often begins well before the standard is accepted. (Is this a chicken and egg kind of situation?) | |
| Mar 8, 2011 at 15:13 | comment | added | Joel Etherton | @BillThor - I'd put forward that most RFCs are actually treated as standards. 802.11 is an RFC, yet companies use it as a measure of "compliance". Again, it boils down to what a common group of individuals (companies) agree will behave as the standard. RFCs are a good place to look at common standard criteria though. IEEE also maintains good standards documents. | |
| Mar 8, 2011 at 15:05 | comment | added | BillThor | Look through the RFCs at ietf.org/rfc.html and you get a feel for what goes into the standards process. Many RFCs are still on the standards track. This site will let you review comments on RFCs as well as obsoleted RFCs. Other standards organizations follow similar processes. | |
| Mar 8, 2011 at 12:32 | history | answered | Joel Etherton | CC BY-SA 2.5 |