Mick,
I agree that a corrigendum would be the fastest way to fix this issue. It wouldn’t be the first time it was necessary. We had to issue one quickly after CISPR 32 Edition 1 was published as the IEC CO made some changes after the FDIS was voted that rendered the new standard useless. The corrigendum fixed their editing problem. One must always check the new standards carefully to make sure that they are what was voted. “Trust, but verify.” Ghery S. Pettit From: Mick Maytum <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2019 4:23 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Dated and undated references John's comment "e.g. in the rare case where a dated reference standard is found to be seriously defective." reminded me of an IEC 62368-1:2018 problem caused by a dated reference. The current IEC 61643-331:2017 is wrong in that an earlier draft document, instead of the IEC Editors draft was sent for publication. Heads rolled in SC 37B as a result and SC 37B is working of a replacement IEC 61643-331. This mishap made the IEC 62368-1:2018 reference "from 8.1.1 of IEC 61643-331, Figure 4." is a misdirection as 8.1.1 doesn't exist in IEC 61643-331:2017. The correct reference for IEC 61643-331:2017 is "from 8.2.2 of IEC 61643-331, Figure 4." Thinking about what John said, it seems to me the quickest way of fixing the IEC 62368-1:2018 reference, without invoking TC 108, would be for SC 37B to issue a clause 8 corrigendum. Regards Mick Maytum. ------ Original Message ------ From: "John Woodgate" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: 20/04/2019 08:41:51 Subject: [PSES] Dated and undated references, was: Re: [PSES] Question re: Measuring a signal in a noisy environment I changed the Subject, because my comments on the extract below are much more general. The heading of Clause 2 (usually the Normative references clause in the past and now always so) in IEC/EN standards has changed over the years. and since I see IEC standards being cited without the 60 000 addition to the number that took place in 1998, I guess that the changes haven't registered with some people. This list isn't exhaustive but it illustrates the subject. Long ago: Mostly undated references with an invitation to 'explore the use of the latest edition'. A few years ago: IEC restricted the use of dated references to cases where a particular clause was cited in the text. Although other dated references were allowed, IEC editors discouraged that. Latest: As a result of a legal ruling in Europe, the Commission requires all references in ENs that are to be notified in the OJ under a Directive or Regulation to be dated, and IEC committees are mostly accepting that, as they want their standards to be adopted by CENELEC. There always has been a lot of misunderstanding on this subject. Undated references: The essential assumption is that all future editions will be as equally applicable as the current edition is. There can be NO guarantee of that, so the committee responsible for the standard that includes the reference should (but hardly ever does) review each new edition of undated standards to check that they are still applicable. Dated references: In this case, the user of the referencing standard knows exactly which edition of the referred standard to apply, but can misguidedly assume that the latest edition should be applied. The committee responsible for the standard that includes the reference should (but hardly ever does) review each new edition of dated standards to check that they are still applicable, and if so, amend the referencing standard at the earliest reasonable opportunity. It's obviously unreasonable to issue an amendment when each new edition is published. Normal maintenance time-scales are sufficient, although there could be exceptions, e.g. in the rare case where a dated reference standard is found to be seriously defective. Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2019-04-19 23:42, Ghery Pettit wrote: We had a problem in the past where CISPR 24 (Edition 1) called out (dated reference) an older version of IEC 61000-4-4 than the latest version. No problem except that the test setup for table top equipment was different. I audited a lab to put them on the Intel approved EMC lab list and caught the error. And they had IEC 61000-4-4 on their Scope of Accreditation. Got that problem (now not a problem with CISPR 24 Edition 2 or CISPR 35) fixed. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Mike Cantwell <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > David Heald <[email protected]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Mike Cantwell <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > David Heald <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
