2. SPEEDING UP THE STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Standards Coordination Conference Don Deutsch, Vice President Standards Strategy & Architecture Oracle Corporation 10 July 2002

3. SETTING THE STAGE  QUESTION – How is the IT standards community dealing with the need for speed in standards development?  CONTEXT – De Jure (formal) standards process  Domestic US: ANSI/INCITS  International: ISO/IEC JTC 1 – SQL database language  PERSPECTIVE – Not a Standards Development Organization (SDO) – Process participant/Technical committee chair

4. USING A DE JURE FORUM  PROS – Open/Level playing field – Low cost of entry – Due process – Recognized results  ANSI/INCITS  ISO/IEC JTC 1 – Life-cycle process  Maintenance  Interpretations – Record of Success (e.g. SQL)  CONS – Too open – Money is no problem – Too bureaucratic  Slow  Want to retain control – De jure brand not necessary – Want “standard” ASAP and will “turn over” to formal body when done – Major failures (e.g., OSI)

5. INCITS: ANSI ACCREDITED SDO Three Paths to IT Standards 1. Technical Committee Development Technical experts collaborate within groups dedicated to one or more projects to develop an American National Standard. 2. Entry into the International Standards Arena I NCITS experts form U.S. delegations to the international committees developing IT standards 3. "Fast Track" Externally Developed Standards I NCITS accepts candidate standards that were developed by external bodies for adoption as American National Standards. Mix and Match Depending on Situation/Needs

6. INCITS TECHNICAL COMMITTEE PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS  Eliminated or reduced times for – Ballots – Internal process reviews  Parallel Processing  TC Officer Empowerment – TC can establish new project – TC Chair can create sub-group – TC Chair can appoint sub-group chair  Reduced Number of Steps from 19 to 8  Best Case to ANS: Reduced from 22 to 9 Months

7. INCITS: TECHNICAL COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS  Traditional Multi-step Process – 1: Project Proposal Approval – 2: Public Notification – 3: Technical Development – 4: Public Review(s) – 5: Management Review -------------------------------- – 6: INCITS Approval – 7: ANSI Approval – 8: Publication

8. INCITS FAST TRACK PROCESS  1: Fast Track Submission – Proposal – Memorandum of Understanding – INCITS vote to accept  2: Public Review of Specification -------------------------------------------  3: INCITS Approval Ballot  4: ANSI Approval  5: Publication

9. INCITS/H2 Database Committee  SQL is the Lingua Franca for Database Access  SQL Database Language Standards – 1986 – 1989 – 1992 – Various Addenda + New Parts 1993-1998 – SQL 1999 – Working toward SQL 2003  Parallel (and different) Multi-step Processes Used Within ANSI/INCITS & ISO/IEC JTC 1

10. SQLJ: Using Java™ & SQL Together  SQLJ-Part 0: Embedding SQL Statements in Java™ – Just one more language binding (e.g., Fortran, C) – Multi-step development process – Approved as Part 10 of SQL standard in 1998  Vendor Consensus Re: Need for New Capabilities – SQLJ-Part 1: SQL Routines Using Java™ – SQLJ-Part 2: SQL Types Defined Using Java™  Decision to Progress via INCITS Fast Track – All vendors were/would be implementing SOON – Single specifications preferred to vendor specific interfaces

11. Timeline for SQLJ-Part 1: SQL Routines using the Java™ Programming Language  September 25, 1998 - Submission to INCITS of Proposal for both Parts 1 & 2  April 1999 - SQLJ-Part 1specification submitted (7 months late)  April 2, 1999 - INCITS meeting vote to accept for processing  April 23 - June 7, 1999 - 45-day Public Review (1 comment received and responded to by SQLJ)  July 7, 1999 - INCITS Management Review and document preparation for final publication  August 11 - September 10, 1999 - INCITS 30-Day Ballot  September 1999 - Approval and Publication as an American National Standard

12. SQLJ-Part 1: Retrospective Evaluation Good/Bad/Ugly  Good – Industry consensus – INCITS H2 willing to accept maintenance  Bad – Process had to wait (7 Months) for specification developers  Ugly – Comment came from specification developer Approved/Published ANSI Standard - 12 Months from initiation, 5 months from specification submission

13. Timeline for SQLJ-Part 2: SQL Types Defined Using the Java™ Programming Language  September 25, 1998 - Submission to INCITS of Proposal for both Parts 1 & 2  April 1999 - SQLJ-Part 1specification submitted (7 months late) ----------------------------------------------------------------  July 9, 2000 - SQLJ Part 2 specification submitted  August 11- September 25, 2000 - 45-day Public Review  September 27 - October 27, 2000 - INCITS 30-Day Ballot  November 1 - Approval as an American National Standard  November 22 – Available for Sale (Published)

14. SQLJ-Part 2: Retrospective Evaluation Fast Track is Better the Second Time Around  Continued the Good – Industry Consensus – H2 in loop and willing to maintain  Eliminated Ugly – No comments from specification developers  Better Understanding of Process by – Specification developers – Technical committee (H2) 5 Months from specification submission to Approved/Published ANSI Standard

15. INCITS FAST TRACK FOR SQLJ: SUMMARY  Fast Track Works: – Industry Consensus – Complete Specification – TC Willing to Maintain – Demand/Marketplace Pull  ANSI/INCITS Standard BEFORE Submit to ISO/IEC  Loose Coupling with TC: – Facilitates concentrated work by small group – Opens process to those with focused interest  Model for Future Focused Efforts

16. MY UNSOLICITED RESPONSES TO SYMPOSIUM QUESTIONS  Does the IT industry face special challenges that impair its ability to compete domestically or internationally? – Short product cycles – Need to maintain world-wide industry leadership  Should the IT industry shift more towards using consortia-developed standard? – It’s NOT a question of should; the industry IS using a spectrum of standards development mechanisms increasingly including consortia, joint-development agreements, etc. as well as formal SDOs

17. MY UNSOLICITED RESPONSES TO SYMPOSIUM QUESTIONS (Continued)  Does the recognition of consortia-developed standards present difficulties for businesses outside IT-related fields? – Possibly, YES. Consortia may NOT include ALL interested parties from both within and outside IT.  How is the IT standards community dealing with the need for speed in standards development? –See my presentation & those from other accredited SDOs  How are Federal agencies using IT standards? –They MAY be using but they are LESS active/visible in consortia and standards development forums

18. MY UNSOLICITED RESPONSES TO SYMPOSIUM QUESTIONS (Continued) What will it take to get the Standards Developer Organizations and consortia to work together? Demand pull – from technology users and providers “We have met the enemy and he is us!” Walt Kelly, Comic Strip POGO