John:
I don’t see how a test house can “impose” compliance.
I thought all they could do was perform testing, and by looking at the results
of the testing, declare compliance.
You also ask “how can a company know that the result is reliable?”
Isn’t that the entire justification for
I think there is a fundamental trap that it is very easy to fall into,
especially if the committee hasn't adopted (and enforced) a standardized
format for filenames.
*If you change a document, you must change the filename, not only in
itself but also if it appears (as it should) at the top of
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.
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
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
5 matches
Mail list logo
