Any substantive changes in such references require processing as a revision. National Standard shall be processed as a revision unless the updated reference is only a reaffirmation of the
National Standard undergoing an update of references to standards necessary to implement the American All nonsubstantiveĬhanges in the main text of the standard shall be explained, or noted, in a foreword. Reaffirmations shall be accomplished without any substantive change to the main text of the standard.
Reaffirmations shall provide an opportunity for public comment.
Standard by an accredited standards developer shall be implemented according to the developer’s ANSIĪccredited procedures. The procedures used for reaffirmation of an American National The due process and consensus requirements defined herein apply to reaffirmations as they do to all approvalĪctions related to American National Standards (ANS). Their documentation ( Documents/Standards Activities/American National Standards/Procedures, Guides, and Forms/2019_ANSI_Essential_Requirements.pdf) states:Ĥ.2.1.2 Reaffirmation of an American National Standard
Lately ISO has been adding both year of issue and an edition number again (good), but not every standard organization applies this at their container level, or provisions to distinguish national deviations. The biggest burden with all these different approaches to what is in essence document control is communication with a third party on what differences between versions, revisions (in all their kinds) are and are not material, and making why a test report/process etc is or is not valid.įor example: our national standards body on occasion accepts a standard's main text as is, adds its 'container sheets' at the beginning and end, sometimes publishes this in a different year (the main characteristic that people use to distinguish revisions) and yet provides the non-national version for a different price as well). Pro's and con's can be stated for either case, and are specific to an organization's needs. Some use review/stability dates for this (often outside of the document, such as ISO), while this way amends/apends the actual document revision identifier (which introduces some referencing problems), and might account for errata/corrigendums without being clear on it (ISO uses a to me inconsistently applied system of amendments and corrigendum, with strange numbering (sometimes starting at 11). I'd be hard pressed to push anyone on putting in more effort then looking at the summary, and simply consider it an indication of the date that the most recent review for suitability has occurred. If it was important in their eyes, it would have been a revision. I don't know about that specific standard, but I've never worried too much about Reaffirmations. If it would have made a difference in decisions you would make, it would (should) have been a revision. TLDR don't worry too much about reaffirmations.