Posting for a non list member.. >>> "Victor L. Boersma" <vboer...@compuserve.com> 03/29 5:54 PM >>> Message text written by INTERNET:t...@world.std.com >I have to agree that there shouldn't be another US (UL) standard for network equipment when the equipment can be incorporated into UL1950. UL1950 can be revised to clarify the network equipment requirements, perhaps as a "deviation" or an "appendix" (annex), or just rewording the existing sections to make it easier to follow.<
The reason why we went the UL1950 route was to be able to join the IECEE Schemes, where it is a prerequisite that the nation use the governing IEC Publication with a minimum of deviations. We had a bit if a difficult time with the IEC and are supposed to show how we are "DECREASING" the number of deviations, not increasing them. We had a difficult time to convince the data processing industry to embrace customer premises equipment. We never could get an international agreement to incorporate Central Office equipment. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe that we will get support from the main stakeholders in UL1950, to increase the number of deviations to accomodate Central Office equipment. Therefore, incorporating such requirements in a UL1459/CSA 225 product makes most sense. Even if we could get support in North America to propose modifications to IEC 60950 to accomodate CO equipment, we are talking about a process that will take years. I am afraid I start sounding like all the other would-be historians in making these comments and my white hair and arthritic knees don't help the image. Nevertheless, a bit of history helps in understanding some of these things. Regards, Vic Boersma --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
