|Keld Simonsen||Denmark; Host Chair|
|David Blackwood||Canada; HoD|
|Ron Elliot||Germany; HoD|
|Nobuo Saito||Japan; HoD|
|Herman Weegenaar||Netherlands; HoD|
|David Cannon||U.K.; HoD|
|Martin Kirk||U.K.; X/Open Liaison|
|Roger Martin||U.S.; HoD|
|Lowell Johnson||U.S.; Secretary|
|Don Cragun||Invited Expert|
|Frank Prindel||Invited Expert|
Barry also announced that PASC would no longer distribute paper for free. They will distribute free electronic documents to all HoD, and IDI will provide user-ids and passwords for that purpose.
An Action Item was given to all National Bodies to respond to IDI to indicate interest and supply an address for the HoD interested in receiving access to the PASC site.
Keld Simonsen asked if only PDF formatted documents would be used. Barry said that ASCII would be used when appropriate, otherwise PDF, but never HTML. Keld also asked what size paper the PDF files produce: Barry said standard American 8.5 x 11 inches. However, Jay Ashford said it would produce whatever size was submitted to IDI. Barry added that paper copies would cost $.25 per page.
6.1 Forwarding Single UNIX Spec to ISOItem 2.7 (Rapporteur Group Reports) was removed since the only remaining group was covered in agenda 3.0, and 4.4.1 (Open Systems Positioning Discussion) was removed because it was a residue of the Orlando meeting. A number of additional document numbers were added to several of the agenda items, and the agenda was adopted at 2:05.
6.2 TC304 Response to SC22 - Common Work Plan with CEN/TC304
page 14, in 4.2.4 it should be WG22 instead of WG20.
page 16, in 4.3 replace the misspelled tolls with the more correct Utilities.
page 23, in 6.1 change the responsibility from the U.K. to the X/Open liaison.
page 24, in 7.2 change May to October.
page 24, the first 2 and last 2 references to WG13 on this page should be WG15.
page 24, in 7.2 the resolution numbered 94-313 should be numbered 95-313.
page 26, in 7.2 the resolution numbered 92-326 should be numbered 95-326.
9510-02 U.S. - report back when DAM1 and the associated technical corrigendum are merged as a single document. (reformed from 9505-31 on the project editor). - done. This will be printed soon and will have the designation 9945-1:1996.
9510-03 U.K. - give feedback on whether or not there is continued interest in the comprehensive test methods NP. (reformed from 9505-32 on the convener). - Closed (overcome by events). However, they recommend "EWOS Technical Guide on OSE Profile Conformance Testing" document be passed to the appropriate people in IEEE (PASC) to ensure it does not break anything. A new AI was given to the U.S. to pass 2003r back to the EWOS/ EG-CT Expert Group (Dave Raynor).
9510-04 Convener - remind the EWOS liaison of what of is expected of a liaison of WG15. (reformed from 9505-38 on the EWOS liaison). - done.
9510-05 Convener - contact all the liaisons to let them know that they are expected to send at least one written report per year. Also request a written report for the May, 1996 meeting from everyone who was not at the October, 1995 meeting, or did not submit a report to that meeting. - done. Jim Isaak contacted the liaisons and received several reports.
9510-06 Member Bodies - submit issues on synchronization in writing or to the reflector by April 8, 1996. No additional issues will be considered under the synchronization agenda item at the May, 1996 meeting. - Closed.
Denmark - generated report N630
U.K. - generated report N631
France - comments in document N646
Japan, Germany, U.S., Netherlands, Canada - no issues
9510-07 Convener - report back to SC22 the name of the person responsible for the URL and web master for WG15. - done.
9510-08 Member Bodies - provide URLs and other information they would like posted to the WG15 web page. - open.
Canada, France, U.K., U.S., Denmark, Germany - have supplied URLs
Japan, Netherlands - will contribute URL's in the future.
9510-09 Convener - circulate by e-mail a proposal for electronic decision making proposals to be discussed at the May 1996 meeting. - done. N649 will be discussed in agenda item 4.7.
9510-10 Member Bodies - review the full N595 document and the liaison report N607 and submit written contributions to be used to form the WG15 response to SC22 for a common plan of work within CEN/TC304. - closed (discussed in agenda 6.2).
U.K. - detailed response in document N644
Denmark - comments in N661, also N607 from Keld as liaison
Canada - comments in N663
Japan - comments in N655
US - response in N643
Germany, Netherlands - no comments
9510-11 Member Bodies - review N596 and provide written comments or extensions for the May, 1996 meeting. - Open.
Denmark, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, U.K., U.S. - no comments
Canada, France - no response yet
9510-12 Member Bodies and X/Open Liaison - review N622 in the context of providing an ISO specification in alignment with the Single Unix Specification and come to the May, 1996 meeting with a preferred tactical method to achieve this (if appropriate). - Closed (will be discussed in agenda item 6.1).
9510-13 RIN - close as many of the issues on their issues list as possible before the May, 1996 WG15 meeting and distribute the issues list to the WG15 members. A May WG15 agenda item will be created to review the RIN issues list. - closed (see N660 and agenda item 3.1).
9510-14 U.S. - review the following documents relating to the 1003.2b issues: N583, N586, N598, N602, N604, N605, N606; and reply by the next WG15 meeting. Done - N640 was the U.S. response (see agenda 3.2.1).
9510-15 U.S. - invite Don Cragun, or other shell and utilities expert, to the May 1996 WG15 meeting (or the first few days there-of) to supply expertise for the RIN issues. - Done, it was noted that Don was here in the room.
9510-16 U.S. - investigate the ready availability of the text in electronic form for the most complete merged copy of 1003.1 and integrated amendments and corrigenda, and transfer the text to Denmark if it is available. - open, first step done, waiting for transfer of the merged doc (see N643).
9510-17 U.S. and Convener - work with ITTF to resolve the naming inconsistency with the test method standards and report back to the May, 1996 WG15 meeting. Closed - N642 is the U.S. response, but there was nothing for WG15 to do at this point
9510-18 X/Open liaison - investigate the possibility of submitting the appropriate PAS for additional APIs to cover the areas reported in N614 (in response to N561) and report back at the May 1996 WG15 meeting. - Closed (see the discussion of 6.1 for the single unix spec). It was noted that X/Open does not have control over everything (eg zip, lhr, etc).
9510-19 U.S. - investigate the possibility of pursuing the additional APIs (as reported in N614 in response to N561) as a new PAR in PASC and report back at the May 1996 WG15 meeting. - Closed. The U.S. response in N643.
9510-20 Project Editor - schedule a tentative editing meeting for 1387.2 for approximately September 10-15, 1995. (from 9505-20) - closed. No editing meeting was held because no comments were received.
9510-21 Project Editor - conduct an editing meeting for 1387.2 and forward the results to the SC22 Secretariat and the WG15 Convener. (from 9505-21) - Open, but delete the part about an editing meeting. The JTC1 document number is #15068-2.
9510-22 U.S. - provide the existing LIS work to people identified by the Danish national body. (from 9505-23) - Done (by Paul Rabin).
9510-23 Denmark - report at the May, 1996 WG15 meeting what the state of their LIS work is, and what they expect to be able to accomplish. (from 9505-24) - Open, since they have not received all the docs yet (see AI 16). N661 contains their report. Discussed further in agenda 5.1.
9510-24 Convener - reply to CCTA letter, indicating that things are progressing, mentioning successes, X/Open, etc. (from 9505-34) - done. See N638 attached to the Conveners Report.
9510-25 Project Editor - request ITTF to assign part number 0 to IEEE 1372 LIS for JTC1 numbering (open action items 9310-64, 9405-28, 9410-07). (from 9505-42) - Open. Assigned to the WG15 Convener since there is no specific editor for 1372.
9510-26 Project Editor - provide a pictorial view of how standards are managed and combined for WG15 mailing prior to the May 1996 meeting (open action item 9405-34, 9410-09). (from 9505-43) - Done. This was distributed electronically and in hard copy as doc N666.
9510-27 U.S. - invite a technical expert on profiles to the May 1996 meeting to handle the guided tour of a POSIX OSE profile and to also explain how options are defined, selected, tested, etc. (RGCPA 9505-05) - Done. Frank Prindle gave this presentation (see agenda 5.02.1).
9510-28 U.K. - report on the status of the Framework for User Requirements (DISC) and distribute the document before the next meeting. (RGCPA 9505-06) - Closed. See the U.K. report N644 for the response. A BSI copyrighted document was produced in 1992 and may be a little out of date.
9510-29 U.S. - distribute an options selection chart for POSIX profiles. (RGCPA 9505-08) -Closed. This information is contained in annexes in 9945-2 and 9945-1, but only in the new version.
9510-30 Willem Wakker (as the liaison to SGFS) - deliver the SGFS document SD1 by paper or e-mail before the May 1996 WG15 meeting. (RGCPA AI 9505-10) - Closed. William Wakker said this was done about a year or two ago and should have been closed.
9510-31 Convener - send a message to the RGCPA reflector telling them that this is the last message and inviting them to join their Member Bodies distribution for WG15. (RGCPA 9505-11) -Done.
9510-32 U.S. - provide a draft Taxonomy Change Proposal for the POSIX OSE profiles for review and comment by WG15 prior to their May, 1996 meeting. (RGCPA AI 9505-13) - Closed. N643 contains the U.S. response, but the numbers should be PSE 50P, PSE 51P, PSE 52P, and PSE 53P.
9510-33 Member Bodies - identify appropriate users (of profiles) and seek feedback from them in the R&C process on how the profiles meet (or do not meet) their needs. (from RGCPA issue #2) - Closed.
Denmark, U.K., Canada, Netherlands, Japan, and Germany reported they could find no appropriate users. The U.S. has identified a couple of users and asked for feedback. When and if feedback is received, it will be forwarded to WG15.
9510-34 Convener - write a cover letter to National Bodies to consider the general issue of subsetting base standards from within profiles during their review of 1003.13. (from RGCPA issue #6) - Open. Jim has not yet received the document.
9510-35 Convener - notify WG13 that we have terminated the position of liaison to their group due to the continued inability to find a volunteer. (R 95-312) - Done.
9510-36 U.S. - forward the appropriate draft of ISO/IEC 9945-2 Amendment 2 (JTC1.22.21.02.03, IEEE 1003.2d, Batch Utilities) to the SC22 Secretariat for DAM balloting. (R 95-314) -Done.
9510-37 Convener - forward the disposition of comments N587r for ISO/IEC 9945-2 Amendment 2 -Batch Utilities to the SC22 secretariat. (R 95-314) - Done.
9510-38 U.S. - forward the appropriate draft of ISO/IEC 14515-1 (IEEE Std 2003.1, Test Methods for 9945-1:1990) to the SC22 secretariat for DIS ballot. (R 95-315) - Done. It is currently in SC22 DIS ballot.
9510-39 Convener - forward the disposition of comments N615 for ISO/IEC 14515-1 (Test Methods for 9945-1:1990) to the SC22 secretariat. (R 95-315) - Done.
9510-40 Convener - call and conduct an editing meeting to create approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for 9945-1 Technical Corrigenda 1 (IEEE 1003.1i). (R 95-316) - Done. However, there was no editing meeting because there were no comments.
9510-41 U.S. - forward the appropriate draft of IEEE 1003.1g as ISO/IEC 9945-1 Amendment for Protocol Independent Interfaces (JTC1 22.21.01.03.03) to the SC22 secretariat for PDAM registration and ballot. (R 95-317) - Open. The appropriate draft was not ready to send.
9510-42 U.S. - forward draft 11 of IEEE 1003.2b as ISO/IEC 9945-2 Amendment for Additional Utilities (JTC1 22.41) to the SC22 secretariat for PDAM registration only. (R 95-318) -Done.
9510-43 P15068-2 Project Editor - call and conduct an editing meeting to create approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for IEEE 1387.2 Software Administration (JTC1 22.21.03.04). (R 95-319) - Closed. However, there was no editing meeting because there were no comments.
9510-44 U.S. - forward the appropriate draft of IEEE 1387.3 User and Group Account Administration (JTC1 22.21.03.05) to the SC22 secretariat for concurrent CD registration and ballot. (R 95-318) - Done.
9510-45 P15068-3 Project Editor - call and conduct an editing meeting to create approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for 15068-3 User and Group Account Administration. (R 95-321) - Done. Martin Kirk reported there were no substantiative comments and the 2 editorial comments were circulated appropriately.
9510-46 U.S. - forward the appropriate draft of IEEE 2003.2 as ISO/IEC 14515-2 (Test Methods for ISO/IEC 9945-2:1992) to the SC22 secretariat for concurrent CD Registration and Ballot. (R 95-322) - Done. The ballot has already begun.
9510-47 U.S. - forward the appropriate draft of IEEE 1003.1a as ISO/IEC 9945-1 Amendment for System Interface Extensions (JTC1.22.39) to the SC22 secretariat for PDAM registration only. (R 95-323) - Open. The PASC balloting was not yet done so it was not appropriate to forward yet.
9510-48 Convener - call and conduct an editing meeting to create approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for DTR ISO/IEC 14252 (JTC1.22.38, IEEE 1003.0, Guide to the POSIX OSE). (R 95-324) - Done. There were no substantive comments.
9510-49 Convener - call and conduct an editing meeting to create approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments resulting from DIS ballot of ISO/IEC 14515-1 (IEEE 2003.1 Test Methods for ISO/IEC 9945-1:1990). (R 95-325) - Done. There were no substantive comments.
9510-50 Convener - request SC22 to terminate subdivision projects JTC1 22.21.03.02 (Administered Systems: Batch Services) and JTC1.22.21.01.04 (C Language Bindings: Batch API Administration Amendment). (R 95-326) - Open. Jim said this will be done at the SC22 meeting in September.
An Action Item was given to Keld to capture the discussion on national profiles (from the Orlando meeting) to update the issues list.
There were no new issues at this time.
1) N633 suggested that assessment plans be requested from each of it's SC's about how to implement a conformity policy.
2) N634 - which was the updated JTC1 conformity policy. Jim suggested we refer this to the U.S. for assessment by the conformity assessments experts in the U.S. (ie PASC, and anyone else interested. Jim noted that OSI people may say that there was no difference between conformity assessment and interoperability assessment.
An Action Item was given to the member bodies to review N633 and N634 and report back to WG15 via e-mail with comments and suggestions by August 1, 1996. A separate Action Item was also placed on the convener to consolidate these national body comments and report them to SC22.
3) N562 (which had not been distributed to WG15) was their draft policy concerning the distribution of ISO documents electronically for the presentation of standards.
The topics covered were who should get documents, who should be charged, and how to control access to the files (like password protection, etc.). It was very clear that there must be a single master, distributed in a format that cannot be edited. The minutes that attribute comments from participating experts must also be controlled information, including the names of the people who attended.
Keld Simonsen claimed that this paper was old and had been overcome by events. It was considered at the March 1996 meeting in Sydney Australia, but Keld said they had softened their rules since then so that drafts and other documents can be publicly available. However, after the DIS stage, they can no longer be publicly available. Keld had the actual resolutions from JTC1 and had them copied and distributed before the end of the meeting.
An Action Item was given to the U.S. to make all the working drafts available as per the new JTC1 policy.
An Action Item was given to the National Bodies to report to convener if they have volunteers for representing SC22 in the GII working group.
There were no actions on WG15 from the SC22 resolutions.
An Action Item was given to Keld to distribute this information electronically.
WG5 Fortran 90
EWOS Conformance Testing
We have been looking for someone to fill these positions for a year and not found anyone, so Roger Martin requested that they be dropped. Jim Isaak will report to SC22 that we are dropping these liaisons, and if they complain, he will request that they supply some names. Roger also asked Jim to supply the complete list of liaisons for inclusions in the minutes, which follow:
Liaisons from WG15 to:
WG5 (Fortran) OpenLiaisons to WG15 from:
WG9 (Ada) Ted Baker (U.S.)
WG11 (cross lang) Paul Rabin (U.S.)
WG14 (C) Keld Simonsen (Denmark)
WG20 (I18N) Keld Simonsen (Denmark)
WG21 (C++) Nobuo Saito (Japan)
WG22 (PCTE) Keld Simonsen (Denmark)
SC21 SWG/CA Jerry Powell (U.S.)
EWOS (CT & Profiles) Open
SGFS Willem Wakker (Netherlands)
CEN TC304 Keld Simonsen (Denmark)Dave Cannon said that EWOS was having a massive reorganization, but they will have conformance testing continue in some form or another.
WG11 (cross lang) Willem Wakker (Netherlands)
WG14 (C) Keld Simonsen (Denmark)
WG20 (I18N) Keld Simonsen (Denmark)
WG22 (PCTE) Keld Simonsen (Denmark)
EWOS EGCT Dave Raynor (U.K.)
Martin Kirk - System Administration: Print AdministrationThere are three areas of work for which there are no editors:
Jay Ashford - System Administration: User Administration
However, they are NOT official until after the September SC22 meeting.
The following names were also recommended to be forwarded to SC22 for approval:
Stephe Walli - 9945-1 and 9945-2
Barry Hedquist - 13210 and 14515 test methods
Keld Simonsen - LIS (9945-0 is the proposed number)
Ada, OSE Guide, and National Languages and ProfilesAn Action Item was given to the member bodies to recommend editors in each of these areas.
Defect reports that call for actual changes must be balloted as technical corrigenda. Jim said that this part has worked properly.
"Record of Response" is the name used when the defect reports do not generate changes. These are basically our IEEE PASC interpretations, but we just have not reported them officially.
An Action Item was given to the U.S. to find out from PASC what happened to the defect reports (aka the interpretations). The U.K. suggested we ask the U.S. to submit the interpretations reports for consideration as defect reports and invite the PASC Functional Chair for Interpretations to the next WG15 meeting to discuss the IEEE interpretations process and how we should handle defect reports.
The recommendation was that we employ UTF-8 as the encoding mechanism. Don Cragun said there was no impact on 9945-2 because the .2 group had already made the necessary changes to PAX, the only utility believed to be affected.
It was agreed to put the recommendations in N568 on the web and include them in the national profile work PAR being currently being created by Japan and Denmark (agenda item 5.8).
Oppose Denmark - opposedAn action was suggested (but rejected) to bring the closed issues back to the PASC group to ensure they were viable. Stephe Walli said we had already done this so we should not have to do it again: some recommendations were accepted and some were not, either because they were currently unfeasible, or they would reduce consensus. Dave Cannon suggested we should accept the RIN closed items, but look at the PASC responses and decide what we want to do if the PASC response does not agree with the RIN suggestions.
Approve Germany, Canada, U.K., U.S., Japan, Netherlands
Issue 0) Extended Identifiers in 1003.2b - closed
PASC rejected this. Steve Walli spoke against this and claimed it was both technically and commercially unfeasible. Don Cragun said a lexical analyzer would have to built 'on the fly' when a user would supply a new locale. Walli and Don both said this is technically impossible. If there is an implementor who knows how to do this, they have not come forward yet.Issue 1) localedef iswctype() - closed
WG15 accepts that the U.S. does not think this is a solvable problem, so the issue remains closed. Keld said he will continue to seek solutions. An Action Item was given to the member bodies to look for a solution tho this implementation problem and report back.
1003.2b already includes support for this.Issue 2) localedef user-specified collation weight names - open
It was claimed that including this would reduce consensus. However, there is an awk() script that accomplishes the same thing that will be included in the rationale of 1003.2b.Issue 3) localedef "substitute" - closed
Don Cragun said the awk script does everything required (by the Japanese) without modifying the standard.
Professor Saito wanted to go back and discuss it with other Japanese technical experts.
An Action Item was given to Japan and Denmark to provide comments on the PASC proposal contained in document # N640r.
N640 stated that we are waiting to see the ballot resolution of draft 12, but it was claimed that draft 12 will not have any changes in this area. A resolution was needed to authorize the editor to hold a disposition of comments meeting for PDAM registration ballot (which was draft 11).Issue 4) localedef "reorder after" - closed
The Danish objection will be listed as an unresolved objection when 1003.2b draft 12 comes out. The 1003.2 WG solution is to include an awk script to accomplish this in the rationale.Issue 5) Removal of NUL Special Handling - closed
Part of this was included in 1003.2b because it had to be kept to allow the POSIX locale to be a superset of the C locale. Keld Simonsen said this was acceptable to Denmark.Issue 6) Full support for State-Dependent character sets - closed
The status of the AI in the RIN issues list stated that the issue was closed if no further input was received by this meeting, and it was not. Japan is satisfied to close it now. If there is new input (as result of a PDAM) when can go back to it then.Issue 7) charmap-based charset conversion - closed
The PASC working group added iconv to 1003.2b which is believed to satisfy this problem.Issue 8) "file" user-specified recognition algorithm - closed
This has been accepted and implemented.Issue 9) "pax" extended character set support - closed
This has been accepted and implemented.Issue 10) C MSE widechar support - closed
Comments were received from Japan, Denmark, and the U.S. Keld Simonsen said the problem would not be closed if POSIX referenced the revised C Standard because further specifications are needed. He said the real issue was that the same character must be specified for printing, display, etc. the same way in all locales.Issue 11) Invariant ISO 646 support - closed
There was disagreement whether this would be best solved in the locale or charmap. Don Cragun gave a long explanation of why the charmap solution works. The working group believes the proper place to define the width of characters is in charmap.
Don Cragun agreed that draft 12 of 1003.2b will have this issue resolved one way or another so WG15 considered this issue closed for now.
The U.S. commented at length on this is in N640. Don Cragun stated that this change would make regular expressions more ambiguous, and worse than that, the change would invalidate all current regular expressions. The 1003.2 working group declined to make this change. Don also sent e-mail seeking regular expression experts that would show up if they worked on this, but he got no responses. WG15 invites technical contributions which indicate this problem is soluble, but for now it is assumed to be insoluble.Issue 12) charsymb / CHARIDS - closed
1003.2b will include this in draft 12.Issue 13) regexps - closed
WG15 believes this request cannot be accommodated.Issue 14) Canadian Collation Weight Minimum Levels - closed
This was done in 1003.2b, draft 12 which will support 7 levels.Issue 15) Japanese proposal for LC_TYPE extension - open
N657 was an expert contribution from Denmark. However, Don Cragun clarified that N664 was not a U.S. position, but a response from the working group since the request was submitted directly to them. Keld said they have been asking for this for a long time. They want some sort of fall back if they can not convert directly from one character set to another.Issue 16) Character concepts in POSIX - closed
Dave Cannon asked how LC_TRANS relates to LC_CTYPE, and was told it was all part of the same problem.
Don asked if this requires just character-to-character translation, or character to string, which is a much larger problem and would require a whole new section to locales.
Keld said there are now approximately 150 charmaps. They have implemented other table formats that specify matrix transforms from one charmap to another, but have not done this for localdef.
Barry Needham thought this was research for emerging technology, but Keld claimed there were many products that contain these things. An Action Item was given to Keld to supply a table of information about the research and products that support the functionality of LC_TRANS extension to the 1003.2 working group by June 15.
Don requested a response to N664 from Keld. If he did, and attended the July PASC meeting, the 1003.2 group would spend a day discussing it. So another Action Item was given to Keld to provide responses to the issues raised in N664 and submit to the 1003.2 working group by July 1 for consideration at the July PASC meeting in Nashua, NH.
The 1003.2 working group believes they do not any text left that have confused byte and character. Japan and Denmark agreed this has been cleaned up. This issue was apparently the result of a very old draft that has been cleaned up.Issue 17) Range expression dependency - open
Don Cragun admitted that 1003.2 was ambiguous and that 1003.2b will not be able to fix the problem. This is a very difficult issue so we need to get the right people together in a room to solve this problem. Don said there are two fairly simple solutions, but they are mutually exclusive and there is support for both sides.
9510-01 CEN Cultural Registry
Keld Simonsen reported that WG20 believed that it made more sense to do this in WG20. We basically agreed that the cultural registry should be in WG20, but we had to be careful to retain control over how we reference it.9510-02 Adoption of SD3
The U.S. recommendation was that the issues relating to the CEN cultural registry be handled in WG20, and the issue of how POSIX interfaces to that standard is responsibility of WG15 as a whole.
This was already done and adopted.9510-03 Adoption of Terms of Reference & Program of Work
This was deferred to agenda item 3.5.9510-04 Assignment of Work to RIN
This was deferred to agenda item 3.5.
A straw vote was taken: should this work be carried out in IEEE?
For: U.S., U.K., Canada, Germany, Japan, Netherlands.There was considerable discussion about who needed to meet to progress this work and how often and where they should meet. Jim Isaak suggested that this work be carried on as much as possible via e-mail. Keld Simonsen maintained they had to meet eye-to-eye most of the time in order to get this work done.
Professor Saito said there were several volunteers from Japan, and Keld said there was at least one from Denmark, who he said could be both the document editor and the project editor. The U.S. did not make any specific commitments for volunteers, but it was expected that many of the 1003.1 and 1003.2 people would be very interested in this project (although their international travel may be limited).
It was then proposed to use electronic methods as much as possible for this work, then at least 2 meetings per year; one with WG15 and one with IEEE. No real disagreement. It was pointed out that many of these issues are low level project management, and that they can talk directly to the PASC sponsor about PAR issues without going through WG15 or the U.S. national body as some people thought.
Jim said it was very important to get a person named as project editor for this as soon as possible (it appeared this may be Keld). Barry Needham volunteered to help Japan put the PAR together.
A question was raised about what they would use as the base document, so an Action Item was given to Japan to provide the source document to use as a base document for this project.
Keld Simonsen maintained we should allow more time for RIN since there were more detailed technical discussions that need to take place and that it was more costly in man days used by the whole group than only 6 or 7 people taking time in RIN.
It was admitted that there may be more issues in the future, but that WG15 now has the expertise to deal with them more quickly, and without the multiple group overhead. It was agreed that we should still have a liaison to WG20. Dave Cannon said the U.K. supported the U.S. position and noted that the original purpose of RIN was to investigate the impact of internationalization issues on our work.
A formal vote was taken to disband the RIN:
For: U.S., U.K., Germany, Canada, NetherlandsJim Isaak suggested that since the open RIN issues went to the WG15 issues list, the closed items be separated into a separate WG15 document for historical purposes. Dave Cannon will update the items based on todays discussion and create that document. It was noted that he would be the keeper of the issues at the next meeting anyway (since he would be the next host).
Jim also noted that nothing done on Friday could cause WG15 actions or resolutions since it was not an official WG15 meeting. It was agreed that an internationalization ad hoc group can deal with certain specific topics after the close of the official WG15 meeting.
Topics for discussion in this ad-hoc meeting:
Review of the Netherlands profileOpen topics from the RIN Terms of Reference table (attached to N660):
In-depth discussion of the Guide for National Profiles
Collection of national profiles - will become a WG15 standing agenda itemAn Action Item was given to Keld as lead rapporteur, to review the RIN current work to make sure there is nothing left over.
Report on the WG20 framework PDTR - becomes a part of the liaison report from WG20 (or actions arising from reports)
Review & Comment on 11017 - also becomes part of the liaison report from WG20 (or actions arising from reports).
An Action Item was given to all members bodies to provide comments to the convener on documents N633 and N634 regarding conformity assessment plans and interoperability before August 1 for input to the SC22 meeting. SC22 had asked about some of our docs that have reached the 3 year CD window (SC22 N2145):
JTC1 22.21.01.01 POSIX System Interfaces: LIS
These materials have been provided to Denmark for development work.JTC1 22.21.01.03.01 Addendum to ISO 9945-1: TFA
We have authorization this for concurrent registration and ballot. It was supposed to do a recirculation within IEEE but it has not arrived yet. An Action Item was given to the U.S. to provide the expected date for TFA to go to concurrent Registration and Ballot.JTC1 22.21.01.03.03 Addendum to ISO 9945-1: PII
CD Registration and Ballot was authorized in October 1995, but it was not clear when this will be ready.JTC1 22.21.03.03 POSIX System Administration: Print Services
This was going to IEEE recirculation in a few weeks and they expected the results would be ready for concurrent Registration and Ballot by the end of 1996.JTC1 22.21.04.02 POSIX Ada Binding: Part 2 - Realtime
They expect fasttrack should occur by the end of 1996. It should be approved at the June IEEE Standards Board meeting.JTC1 22.39 POSIX System API Amendment
This will go into recirculation before the July meeting and they anticipate that this will be the one that gets 75% approval. The end of 1996 is expected for it to go to Registration (since that is the only thing that has been asked for so far). Both WG15 and SC22 have seen this already for R&C.A resolution was proposed to forward 1003.1a for both Registration and Ballot. Another resolution was requested to extend the time of the above projects. Jim Isaak was not sure we needed this, but it would not hurt, so we agreed to make the resolution.
Ron Elliot asked what the CEN position was on all of these things. Do they have a problem with all these amendments, especially with respect to taking ISO standards to change them into European standards? This used to be the addition of another number to the title page, but now they have some new procedures, which is somehow much more difficult.
An Action Item was given to convener to investigate the ISO procedures for limits on the number of amendments and how this relates on how they are accepted by regional bodies (like CEN). This may also be an action on Keld for CEN.
Dave Cannon noted that every time this issue come up, IST5 (the English equivalent of SC22) recommends that CEN should not 'process' ISO standards, but should just rubber stamp them.
An Action Item was given to the Convener to contact each national body to verify their participation status in WG15 and obtain / verify e-mail addresses for each.
Jim Isaak said he will check with SC22 about what we can do to people who still do not respond. The obvious thing would be delete them as p-members, but that may not be allowed.
There was a very long discussion of the time periods that should be allowed for electronic balloting. Germany pointed out that 30 days would be a problem for Europeans in the summer holiday season, since many people often leave for 30 days at one time, so it was suggested there be an announcement mechanism prior to the start of the ballot.
After the following picture was drawn on a white board, there were several suggestions for the time intervals involved:
notice ballot | A | B | extensions +---------+---------+---------------------- | +----------------------+----------- | C | extensionsJim proposed: A = 30 days, B = 30 days, C = 60 days
It was noted that paper ballots in the past took 60 or 90 days and that issues to be balloted would normally be things that would have been resolutions at a meeting. It was suggested that reminders or Dunning letters be sent to non-respondents. Zeno intervals were suggested for these reminders: another reminder sent after half the remaining time was left.
Japan suggested a straight 45 day ballot period with a possible 15 day extension. Denmark proposed this as a resolution and there were no objections.
The necessary documents would be distributed before hand, then the vote done electronically. Jim noted that this process would not be used to vote on drafts, that only 'small' documents would be sent out this way, and that the proposed file format would be flat ASCII text. It was assumed that the Convener would conduct these ballots, but Jim noted that any National Body could conduct a straw poll.
An Action Item was given to the Convener to inform SC22 of the procedures for electronic balloting within WG15.
Then there was a lengthy discussion of the more general issue of electronic document distribution. Jim noted that things are moving quickly in this area, but that drafts for IS and DIS distribution must be controlled (ie not publicly available on the web).
An Action Item was given to Keld to set up a restricted access web server for our use to put up drafts or other controlled access documents.
Keld would like to mount documents out on the web page for access by members and proposed we put up as many documents as possible. This led to another discussion of what formats to use.
It was claimed that JTC1 has NOT approved PDF or HTML and it was pointed out that strict conformance to HTML2 causes problems with tables. Several people suggested that we use flat ASCII, which Keld said was the JTC1 default standard. However, several others felt strongly that flat ASCII was not adequate. Since there was no consensus, for the time being we will probably use whatever formats are currently available for the documents we mount.
Barry Needham explained the arrangement with the IEEE. Before ballot, we will be able to distribute drafts automatically to all HoD's. After IEEE balloting begins, the drafts will only be available on the PASC server on a protected basis.
Since France was absent, Roger Martin read the French comment: they want ASCII formatted electronic distribution, with paper back up (see N646). Barry Needham reiterated that they will be charged for paper.
The main issue was the request that the international community gets drafts earlier in the process. Keld Simonsen said that he did not see any draft of 1003.2b (which is a very inportant standard to Denmark and others) between draft 4 and draft 10. Keld said he has to have input when there is still some decision making happening. He claimed that when they get it to vote on, it is basically a done deal and they do not get to really change much of the content in the draft.
Roger Martin gave the standard rebuttal that the IEEE does not want to send out embarrassing immature documents. He also said that this would be an additional burden on all the member bodies, who would then have to be more involved with the development process.
The logical extension would be to start balloting with draft 1 or 2, when the important decisions are made as to what material will be covered in the standard. This is obviously silly. What they really want is to participate in the development process, so why don't they just come and participate in the development process?
Keld said it is too difficult for him to participate in IEEE. He also said he is representing the Danish National Body, not just himself or DS or who ever is paying him, and he wants to have a bigger vote than just as an individual. He said he is prohibited by DS from actually participating in IEEE.
Ron Elliot basically agreed with most of Keld's points. He quit 1003.6 because it was too expensive (in time and travel) to participate. He also said that participating without attending the meeting is not really viable, both because they can not follow what is going on, and becasue they can not make their own case in as strong as manner as other people who are at the meeting.
Don Cragun was concerned that the ISO people complain they do not have a chance to comment, but we in IEEE almost never get any comments from ISO from drafts sent to WG15 for Review and Comment. Keld responded that the R&C drafts do not "get the same exposure" in Denmark and Japan as the CD Registration and Ballot drafts.
Keld also said their comments (when they make them) are ignored and they should be given more weight than a simple individual member. The PASC Chair interrupted here to say that our Working Groups should be responding to every comment, either to accept or reject with a valid reason. If they are not, he wants to know about it, and said he will fix that problem.
Now we entered into a very very long debate about when the ballots should
take place in ISO. Keld suggested they should have a CD registration 'ballot'
before the CD ballot. The following drawing was produced during a break
to help visualize this.
+----------+ +- -+ CD CD | ... | DIS Regist Ballot +- -+ | ballot ------+-------------+-----------+------- disposition disposition | no changes of comments of comments allowedThere was a discussion of what can be changed at the various ISO ballot levels:
Several people were concerned about having multiple drafts going though the CD ballot process. It will be too much work and it would cause less notice to be taken of each one. Jim Isaak noted that we do not know when the 75% approval would occur, so we have to treat all IEEE ballots (after the first one) as CD ballots.DIS - no changes other than trivial editorial
CD ballot - substantiative changes allowed
. . . - multiple CD ballots allowed
CD registration - substantiative changes allowed
The following picture was drawn and revised several times before we were through.
+--------+ +----------+ +---------+ |IEEE 1st| | IEEE n.th| |last IEEE| |ballot D|----|ballot Dft|- - - - -| ballot |Draft +----+---+ +----------+ +----+----+ | | +----+----+ +----------+ +----+----+ +---------+ | ISO CD |---| first CD | | CD |-----| DIS | |registrat| | ballot |- - - - -| Ballot | | ballot | +---------+ +----------+ +---------+ +---------+
PDAM Reg. PDAM ballot . . . PDAM ballot DAM ballotJim suggested that the U.S. always vote no on the CD Registration so that we would always have one more round to fix it. Roger pointed out explicitly that if the IEEE and ISO ballots do not comment on some section during the first (or any other) ballot, then there can be no comments on that section on a later recirculation.
Jim pointed out that there is also the requirement to send a draft to WG15 and SC22 for Review and Comment. The minimum requirement is that an R&C draft be distributed 30 days before the CD registration draft.
Dave Blackwood said he has commented on System Administration drafts, sent them up to the Canadian SC22 representative, but apparently he never sent it on, since Martin Kirk said he has never seen them. Jim observed that this happened during the year that Canada was changing its secretariat in SC22. Comments should also be sent to WG15 so that we can track them. Unofficially, we should also send a courtesy copy to the IEEE Working Group - especially if you want to get timely evaluation and return of the comments.
Then we debated which IEEE ballot (after the first) is the one that should first be sent to CD ballot. Keld suggested we specify a lower %, something like 60%, but this would be difficult becasue you can't tell when that will be either, and that most ballots are either < 50% or > 75% approval.
There was concern from the U.S. that major changes to the synchronization plane would break the current PASC automated process. There was a lot of further discussion of specific cases and process, but we finally got to a point where we could vote on specific proposed changes.
1) Change the sync plan to split CD Registration and Ballot, and to make the first IEEE ballot draft be the one submitted for CD Registration.
Unamious approval2) Change the plan to have the CD ballot be the IEEE draft before the one that reaches 75% approval:
NO - U.K., U.S., Netherlands, Canada, Germany, JapanThere was further discussion about modifying the last proposal to require an earlier, but undefined draft. Jim suggested the following wording for section 3.1.2: "The US will recommend to WG15 for CD ballot, a document draft which includes revisions resulting from a draft circulated to the IEEE for balloting and the CD registration ballot comments".
Yes - Denmark
3) Change the sync plan to request the U.S. to submit an earlier draft for CD Ballot, but not specify exactly which one.
YES - U.K., DenmarkWe agreed to postpone discussing the issue in 3.1.4 on DIS until we know more about the JTC1 requirements.
NO - Netherlands, Canada, Japan, Germany, U.S.
The U.K. asked for a straw vote on the whole of their recommendations (N631).
Unamious approvalThe French recommendations (N646) for changes to 1.1 to incorporate the electronic distribution of drafts, was also voted on.
Unamious approvalJim had updated the sync plan, so we then approved the wording he had changed due to the above discussion and votes. The revised sync plan will be N676. He said he will ask the standards board to approve it instead of the computer society.
Japan said they were pleased that 1003.1 had been published in merged form and requested that the IEEE also publish a merged verion of 1003.2 with the next amendment.
Herman Weeganar pointed out that at the last meeting he asked for subset options for 1003.1, and was told there already were options. Now Frank said there were not, so 1003.13 had to get dispensation to subset it themselves. Herman again asked that subsets be defined for external use.
Keld Simonsen asked Frank to generate a document that lists all the options in POSIX. Jim Isaak said this would be useful to put on the WG15 web page. There was a discussion of the problem of listing the 1003.13 defined options that are not actually defined in 1003.1. Don Cragun remembered that at the Bethesda and Denver PASC meetings the SEC discussed, then assigned 1003.13 to report back the options they defined for (possible) inclusion in a revision of 1003.1.
An Action Item was given to the U.S. to provide a version of this presentation to put on the WG15 web page.
Another Action Item was given to the U.S. to provide a summary of the option annexes in the POSIX standards.
An Action Item was given to Denmark and Japan to work with our SGFS liaison (William Wacker) to figure out how National Profiles could be incorporated into TR-10000.
The U.S. submitted the following draft taxonomy of PASC profiles (see N643) for consideration and use as a basis for the division of work in SC22. WG15 agreed to adopt this taxonomy.
PSE 01-HIP Interactive Systems Environment (1003.0)Note: there was some confusion over the numbering because of a typographical error in draft 7. Draft 8 corrected this error and the numbering above is correct.
PSE 10-HIP Supercomputing Application Environment Profile (1003.10)
PSE 14-HIP Multiprocessor Application Environment Profile (1003.14)
PSE 51-P Minimal Realtime System Profile (1003.13)
PSE 52-P Realtime Controller System Profile (1003.13)
PSE 53-P Dedicated Realtime System Profile (1003.13)
PSE 54-P Multi-Purpose Realtime System Profile (1003.13)
Jim suggested we draft a resolution to forward our taxonomy right now and draft a second resolution to request a division of work. After a short discussion, it was decided that we should only request a division of work for the 1003.10 and 1003.12 profiles. Some People wanted to add 1003.18, but no real progress has been made recently in that project, and we can always ask for another division later.
9945-1 Protocol Independent Interfaces (1003.1g)The main question was if we still wanted to do concurrent CD Registration and Ballot, given that we had just changed our synchronization plan. We reviewed the status of each one and agreed to do all of them together. We have already missed the CD Registration point, and in some cases, may have missed the first CD Ballot point as defined as in the revised synchronization plan.
Transparent File Access (1003.1f)
Realtime Extensions (1003.1d)
System API Amendment (from this meeting) (1003.1d)
15068-4 Print Administration (1387.4)
We also discussed the status of the other Working Group drafts to see if any others should go into CD Registration and/or Ballot. It was decided that the 1003.1j Corrigenda should go to CD Registration only.
1003.10 and 1003.13 are not work items yet, but as soon as they are, we need to forward them. Jim thought we needed to get them forwarded to SGFS for preliminary analysis to provide feedback on if they were consistent with TR-10000.
An Action Item was given to the U.S. to provide the latest drafts of 1003.10 and 1003.13 for evaluation of consistency with TR-10000, and to send out the required cover material (the "explanatory report") for WG15 review and comment.
An Action Item was given to the Convener to find out how we get Registration and Ballot done for PDISP documents (ie profiles).
The 1003.22 Security Framework project had achieved their > 75% return. However, they are currently not in our scope of work, and it would be a technical report since 1003.22 is a guide.
22.21.01.02.01 Real Time
A resolution will be made to ask the U.S. to provide the scope and purpose for Advanced Realtime (1003.1j) ASAP so Jim can submit this to the September SC22 meeting. Jim told Keld Simonsen that the SC22 LIS work item was alright (Keld was going to ask for an extension) but that a new IEEE PAR was required.
An Action Item was given to Denmark to create the scope and purpose
for the requested new 1003.2 utilities, which can be used for both an SC22
work item and an IEEE PAR.
Japan had found several editorial errors and some errors 'between .1 and .2'. However, it was determined that they received draft 12.2 for the ballot, but the IEEE version was draft 13. An Action Item was given to the U.S. to verify that the correct draft of 1003.2d was circulated to ISO for ballot. Jim Isaak thought that the DAM ballot for this closes July 31.
The Netherlands raised some questions about LC_CTYPE and the non widthd space. Don Cragun admitted there was some inconsistency, but the definition of punct is from the C standard, and 1003.2 cannot change it: they have to ask for an interpretation before they can do anything. The same problem was claimed to exist with the soft hyphen.
An Action Item was given to the C liaison to ask for an interpretation on this issue. Another Action Item was given to the Member Bodies to communicate the information on these problems to their technical experts to deal with.
There are apparently also problems with the lower case I becasue there are two possibilities. Don said this is another ISO C problem: what do you get if 'toupper I'. Another Action Item was given to the C liaison to ask ISO C for an interpretation on this 'toupper I' issue.
An Action was given to the U.S. to advise the Convener of the status of 2003r. Another Action Item was given to the U.S. to forward the appropriate draft of 13210 (SC22 22.37) to the SC22 Secretariat for CD Registration.
An Action Item was given to the U.S. to circulate the appropriate draft of 2003r to WG15 and SC22 for Review and Comment.
Barry Needham suggested we make a resolution to forward the same draft
for CD Registration R&C has happened. We can then either send it along
after the July PASC meeting, or kill it. 14515-1.02 was given as the correct
number for this work.
A straw poll was conducted to decide if we wanted to do this:
Yes - U.K., Denmark, Japan, U.S., Canada, Netherlands
Abstain - Germany
The real problem X/Open has is the resources to do such a task. Martin said the only easy way was to completely replace 9945-1, 9945-2, and the C standard. Picking out all the appropriate bits would be a huge amount of work, and they use different terms, such as "will" instead of "shall". The official X/Open position was that it could be done, but probably shouldn't be because of the size and cost, and there was not currently any indication that there would be any sizable benefit from doing it.
There was an argument about whether X/Open was a clean proper superset of POSIX. Martin said it was, but only if you consider it against the published POSIX documents for which they claim compatibility. Basically, it takes a little while for them to clean up for the next bit that comes out of IEEE. X/Open intends to continue being a superset of the published POSIX documents, and will defer to them.
It was proposed that we could specify some specific functions to adopt, which would be relatively simple to do. Martin said it would be very possible to supply specific elements if we can identify the important interfaces that should be transferred. Steve Walli suggested that the paper he wrote for DISA may be useful for this.
Two Action Items were given to X/Open: one to investigate providing the DISA document to WG15, and a second, to investigate supplying the Single Unix Spec (probably in CD ROM form) to HoD's that request it for evaluation.
An Action Item was given to Member Body technical experts to identify any specific elements of the Single Unix Spec that should be included in POSIX.
Various Member Bodies had a variety of concerns, but most agreed that we can defer to WG20 as the focal point for this work. The documented time scales were considered wildly optimistic. It was thought the liaison structure would cause all the time scales to 'seriously break'. The U.K. was concerned that there be a strong point of control on this issue or there will be lots of problems in the future.
After a lengthy discussion, we agreed on several points. We agreed to defer to WG20, but if they have some concrete proposals, they should forward them us. We should ask TC304 to respond to our queries. We should have a coordination plan with the designated working group. This is a very tangled web because of all the interconnectedness of these issues and the multiple groups involved.
Jim Isaak suggested that some of these things would be best dealt with after the Guidelines document work was complete and that we should send of copy of the guidelines to WG20 when complete. It was noted that Keld Simonsen was the liaison to CEN/TC304, and Jim, as the convener, was the equivalent of a liaison to SC22
Considerable time was spent wordsmithing a resolution to designate WG 20 as the focal point for this work and making several related recommendations (see resolution 96-348).
96-330 Termination of Liaison to WG4
Whereas the SC21/WG4 liaison to WG15 has reported that no further liaison activities with this working group are expected to be required for the foreseeable future, therefore JTC1/SC22/WG15 resolves to terminate its liaison relationship with SC21/WG4.96-331 Termination of Liaisons to WG5 and EWOS
Whereas liaisons to WG5 (FORTRAN) and to EWOS Conformance Testing and Profiles have been sought for some time and none have been forthcoming, therefore JTC1/SC22/WG15 resolves to terminate the positions of liaison to each of these two working groups.96-332 Nomination of Project Editors
Pursuant to its intention of May 1995 to divide the work of project editor for WG15 and whereas the US national body has nominated Stephe Walli as project editor for JTC1 22.39 (extensions to base) and JTC1 22.41 (additional utilities), and Barry Hedquist as project editor for JTC1 22.14515 (test methods) and JTC1 22.37 (13210 test methods), and whereas the Danish national body has nominated Keld Simonsen as project editor for JTC1 22.21.01.01 (system interface LIS) and JTC1 22.14677 (Guidelines for POSIX National Profiles and National Locales), therefore JTC1/SC22/WG15 resolves that these individuals be nominated as project editors for the respective projects and requests that SC22 confirm these appointments.96-333 Closure of RIN Issues
Whereas the Rapporteur Group on Internationalization (RIN) has documented and reported on the closure of fourteen of seventeen of its outstanding issues, therefore JTC1/SC22/WG15 resolves to accept the position of RIN with respect to these issues and to consider their proposed recommendations against the US development body's response for potential future action and/or implementation.96-334 Ballot Resolution and Disposition of CommentsAffirmative: Canada, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, U.K., U.S.
JTC1/SC22/WG15 authorizes its project editors to conduct an electronic ballot resolution processes to create, approve and forward to the SC22 secretariat dispositions of comments for the completing ballots on the following documents:96-335 CEN Cultural Registry
ISO/IEC 9945-2 (JTC1 22.41, IEEE 1003.2b) ISO/IEC 9945-2 PDAM
ISO/IEC 9945-2 (JTC1 22.43, IEEE 1003.2c) ISO/IEC 9945-2 PDAM
ISO/IEC 9945-1 (JTC1 22.42, IEEE 1003.1e) ISO/IEC 9945-1 PDAM
ISO/IEC 14515-2 (JTC1 22.14515-2, IEEE 2003.2) ISO/IEC 14515-2 CD (JTC1 22.14515-2)
Whereas the liaison from JTC1/SC22/WG20 to WG15 reports that WG20 is in a better position to handle issues relating to the CEN Cultural Registry, JTC1/SC22/WG15 resolves to not pursue work on a POSIX registry standard.96-336 Guidelines for POSIX National Profiles and National Locales
Whereas a number of participants in JTC1/SC22/WG15 may also be members of a proposed IEEE PASC working group on the Guidelines for POSIX National Profiles and National Locales, therefore WG15 extends an invitation to the US development body to hold meetings of this working group in conjunction with WG15 at its first meeting each year.96-337 Completion of RIN
Whereas the Rapporteur Group on Internationalization (RIN) has now largely completed the body of work assigned to it, WG15 resolves to close the RIN, thanks RIN for developing broad expertise in international issues and for educating WG15 in this area, and assumes responsibility for its remaining open issues. WG15 particularly thanks RIN's lead rapporteur, Keld Simonsen, together with all current and past participants for their dedication and outstanding work in this area.96-338 Termination of ProjectsAffirmative: Canada, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, U.K., U.S.
Whereas the following projects have been completed and integrated into the primary document, and future revisions will be done as part of the main document, therefore the following work items can be terminated:96-339 Extension of Deadlines
- JTC1 22.21.02.02 (UPE)
- JTC1 22.21.01.02.01 (Real Time)
- JTC1 22.21.01.02.02 (Threads)
Whereas the following projects have not reached the CD/PDAM registration stage within the required 3 year time limit, JTC1/SC22/WG15 requests that SC22 extend the deadline for these projects:96-340 Forwarding of Taxonomy
Extension for Projects that have not reached CD within 3 years22.21.01.01 9945-0 LIS Materials being provided to Denmark for development work
22.21.01.03.01 9945-1 TFA Input from U.S. expected
22.21.01.03.03 9945-1 PII [Draft 6.4 for Concurrent Reg/Ballot CD reg/bal] requested (10/95 res)
22.21.03.03 15068-4 Admin-Print Expect concurrent reg&ballot by end of 1996
22.21.04.031 14519 Ada Real Time Fast track recommended of approved US doc.
22.39 9945-1 System API addendum CD Reg by end of 1996 (.1a)
22.40 9945-1 Real Time Addendum Doc in Review and Comment 5/96 (.1d)
Whereas the US Member Body has prepared a draft Taxonomy Change Proposal for the POSIX OSE profiles (N643), therefore JTC1/SC22/WG15 instructs its convener to forward this proposal to the SC22 secretariat with the recommendation that it be forwarded to SGFS with appropriate header information as defined in N651.96-341 New Work Items
JTC1/SC22/WG15 instructs its Convener to request SC22's approval of appropriate Division of Work items to permit the work on POSIX OSE profiles (IEEE 1003.10, IEEE 1003.13) as defined in the Taxonomy Change Proposal (N643). Further, JTC1/SC22/WG15 instructs its convener to request SC22's approval for an appropriate Division of Work item for IEEE 1003.1j (advanced realtime).96-342 Decision Making by E-mail
Whereas JTC1 and SC22 are encouraging working groups to conduct more of their activities electronically, and whereas the Convener of WG15 has prepared a proposal (N649) for decision making by email, JTC1/SC22/WG15 endorses this proposal in principal and agrees to implement an arrangement (using ISO 646 format for documents) whereby a response or a request for a 15 day extension is due within 45 days of transmission and reminders will be sent out to non-respondents after 15 and 30 days. WG15 instructs its convener to notify SC22 of this decision and further encourages SC22 to implement a similar proposal.96-343 Synchronization Plan
Whereas it is desirable that member bodies have both sufficient time to review draft documents as well as opportunity to comment formally on such drafts as early in the process as possible, JTC1/SC22/WG15 approves its synchronization plan as amended in N676.96-344 Standards PublicationAffirmative: Canada, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, U.K., U.S.
Whereas it is desirable that each IS be contained within a single published document, therefore JTC1/SC22/WG15 wishes to encourage both the US development body and ITTF to merge base standards with their amendments for re-publication at the earliest opportunity.96-345 CD/PDAM Registration and Ballot
JTC1/SC22/WG15 approves the forwarding of the following documents to the SC22 Secretariat for concurrent CD/PDAM Registration and Ballot:96-346 PDAM Registration
JTC1 22.15068-4 (Print Administration)
- JTC1 22.39 IEEE 1003.1a (System API Amendment) (circulation to SC222 for review and comment required)
- JTC1 22.21.01.03.01 IEEE 1003.1f (TFA)
- JTC1 22.21.01.03.03 IEEE 1003.1g (PII)
JTC1/SC22/WG15 approves the forwarding of the following documents to the SC22 Secretariat for PDAM Registration only, and in accordance with the revised synchronization plan encourages member bodies to provide critical review and comments at this time.96-347 CD Registration
- IEEE 1003.1j (Advanced Real Time Extensions) (project number not yet assigned)
JTC1/SC22/WG15 approves the forwarding of the following documents to the SC22 Secretariat for CD Registration only, and in accordance with the revised synchronization plan encourages member bodies to provide critical review and comments at this time.96-348 CEN TC304
- 13210 (JTC1 22.37, IEEE 2003) Test Methods (for revision)
- 14515-1.02 (JTC1 14515-1.02, IEEE 2003.1b) Test Methods for Real Time Extension (after circulation in both WG15 and SC22 for Review and Comment)
Whereas SC22 has requested WG15 to cooperate with CEN/TC304 on a plan for the production of standards, WG15 has reviewed the document Project team report CEN/TC304/PT01 (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 N1961) together with the responses from its liaisons and member bodies. WG15 recommends to SC22 that WG20 serve as the focal point for this work and asks that the relevant parts of the document ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG15 N644 (response to action item 9510-10) be forwarded to CEN/TC304 for a response. WG15 also asks that the designated working group prepare and distribute a coordination plan to all concerned parties for their information. WG15 would then be pleased to consider any specific proposals that the designated working group might wish to develop.96-349 Thanks to Stephe Walli's Father
WG15 commends Mr. Stephe Walli's father on his excellent taste in fine dining, however in consideration of the fixed per diems of many WG15 attendees, it is resolved that Stephe Walli's gastronomical choices be treated to a more critical advance review in the future.96-350 Other Recognitions
WG15 would like to congratulate Stephe Walli for having broken the previous record for being a member of the greatest number of member bodies. We would also like to congratulate Ron Elliot for now having attended at least one meeting of every WG15 rapporteur group. And finally, whereas Roger Martin has rendered outstanding service to WG15 over many years, therefore WG15 extends its thanks and best wishes in the future to him on the occasion of his second retirement from WG15.96-351Acknowledgments and Thanks
WG15 extends its sincere appreciation to Danish Standards for hosting the meeting; to Keld Simonsen for his unflagging chairmanship; to the secretary, Lowell Johnson, in anticipation of his prodigious outputs; and to the drafting committee, consisting of David Blackwood, Jim Oblinger, and Nick Stoughton for their excellent work and perseverance in preparing these resolutions.
|9605-01||Japan and Netherlands - provide URLs and other information they would like posted to the WG15 web page (rolled over from 9510-08 on Member Bodies).|
|9605-02||Canada and France - review N596 (about Open Systems participants from AFNOR) and provide written comments or extensions for the October, 1996 meeting. (rolled over from 9510-11 on Member Bodies).|
|9605-03||U.S. - investigate the availability of the text in electronic form for the most complete merged copy of 1003.1, its integrated amendments, and corrigenda, and transfer the text to Denmark when it is available. (rolled over from 9510-16).|
|9605-04||Project Editor - forward the results from the 1387.2 (15068-2) editing meeting to the SC22 Secretariat and the WG15 Convener when the IEEE version is completed. (rolled over from 9510-21 and 9505-21).|
|9605-05||Denmark - report at the October, 1996 WG15 meeting what the state of their LIS work is, and what they expect to be able to accomplish. (rolled over from 9510-23 and 9505-24).|
|9605-06||Project Editor - request ITTF to assign part number 0 to IEEE 1372 LIS for JTC1 numbering. (rolled over from 9510-25 on the Project Editor and 9505-42) (former open action items 9310-64, 9405-28, and 9410-07).|
|9605-07||Convener - write a cover letter to National Bodies to consider the general issue of subsetting base standards from within profiles during their review of 1003.13. (rolled over from 9510-34, which came from RGCPA issue #6)|
|9605-08||U.S. - forward the appropriate draft of IEEE 1003.1g as ISO/IEC 9945-1 Amendment for Protocol Independent Interfaces (JTC1.22.21.01.03.03) to the SC22 secretariat for PDAM registration and ballot. (rolled over from 9510-41 which came from R 95-317)|
|9605-09||U.S. - forward the current draft of IEEE 1003.1a as ISO/IEC 9945-1 Amendment for System Interface Extensions (JTC1.22.39) to the SC22 Secretariat for Review and Comment. (changed from PDAM registration in 9510-47 which came from R 95-323)|
|9605-10||Convener - request SC22 to terminate subdivision projects JTC1.22.21.03.02 (Administered Systems: Batch Services) and JTC1.22.21.01.04 (C Language Bindings: Batch API Administration Amendment). (rolled over from 9510-50 which came from R 95-326)|
New Actions Items from Copenhagen, May 20-23, 1996
|9605-11||U.S. - forward the current draft of IEEE P2003 to the EWOS / EG-CT Expert Group for information.|
|9605-12||Member Bodies - respond to IDI to indicate interest, e-mail, and address for the HoD's interested in receiving access to the PASC electronic distribution of materials.|
|9605-13||Keld Simonsen - capture the discussion on national profiles from the Orlando meeting (see minutes, p7) for the purpose of updating the issue list.|
|9605-14||Members Bodies - provide comments to the convener on documents N633, and N634 regarding conformity assessment plans and interoperability before August 1 for input to the SC22 meeting.|
|9605-15||Convener - consolidate the national body comments on N633 and N634 and report to SC22.|
|9605-16||U.S. - make all working drafts from the development body available in a manner consistent with the JTC1 on-line access policy.|
|9605-17||Member Bodies - report to the convener if they have volunteers for representing SC22 in the GII working group.|
|9605-18||Keld Simonsen - electronically distribute the report on the revision of the C Standard with respect to the alignment with 9945-1 and the new Internationalization material derived from 9945-2.|
|9605-19||Member Bodies - recommend people as project editors for the following areas: Ada, OSE, and Profiles.|
|9605-20||U.S. - find out from PASC what happened to the defect reports (see SC22 N1236 and WG15 N676), distribute them to WG15, and invite Andrew Josey (PASC Vice-chair of Interpretations) to attend one of our WG15 meetings since he is the internationally recognized expert for this material.|
|9605-21||Member Bodies - look for a solution to the problem of extended identifiers in 1003.2 (from RIN issue 0) and report back.|
|9605-22||Japan and Denmark - provide comments on the PASC proposal contained in WG15 document # N640r.|
|9605-23||Keld Simonsen - supply a table of information about research and products that support the functionality the of LC_TRANS extension to the IEEE 1003.2 working group by June 15.|
|9605-24||Japan and Denmark - provide responses to the issues raised in N664 and submit to the IEEE 1003.2 working group by July 1 for consideration at the July PASC meeting in Nashua, NH.|
|9605-25||Japan - provide the latest version of the GPNPNL source document to use as a base document for the National Profiles and Locales project.|
|9605-26||U.S. - provide the expected date for TFA to go to concurrent PDAM registration and ballot.|
|9605-27||Convener - investigate the ISO procedures for limits on the number of amendments and how this relates to how they are accepted by regional bodies (like CEN).|
|9605-28||Convener - contact each national body to verify their participation status in WG15 and obtain / verify e-mail addresses for each.|
|9605-29||Convener - inform SC22 of the WG15 procedures for electronic balloting within WG15.|
|9605-30||Keld Simonsen - set up a restricted access web server for WG15 use on which we can put up drafts or other controlled access documents.|
|9605-31||U.S. - provide an electronic version of the POSIX 1003.13 profiles presentation to put on the WG15 web page.|
|9605-32||U.S. - provide a summary of the option annexes in the POSIX standards to be put on the WG15 web page.|
|9605-33||Denmark and Japan - work with the WG15 SGFS liaison (Williem Wackker) to figure out how National Profiles could be incorporated into TR-10000.|
|9605-34||U.S. - provide the latest drafts of 1003.10 and 1003.13 for evaluation of consistency with TR-10000, and send out the required cover material (the "explanatory report") for WG15 review and comment.|
|9605-35||Convener - investigate how we get registration and ballot done for PDISP documents (ie profiles).|
|9605-36||Denmark - create a proposed scope and purpose for new IEEE 1003.2 utilities, which can then be used for both an SC22 work item and an IEEE PAR.|
|9605-37||U.S. - provide the Batch Services document 1003.2d to ITTF (if they have not already done so).|
|9605-38||U.S. - verify that the correct draft of 1003.2d (12.2 vs 13) was circulated to ISO for ballot. (DAM ballot for this closes July 21).|
|9605-39||C Liaison - ask for an interpretation on the classification of non widthd space and soft hyphen (see N674 items 1 and 2) WG14.|
|9605-40||Member Bodies - communicate this information (on non widthd space and soft hyphen) to their internationalization experts to deal with.|
|9605-41||C Liaison - ask ISO C for an interpretation on the 'toupper i' issue (see N674 item 3).|
|9605-42||U.S. - forward 1387.2 and 1387.3 to the JTC1 secretariat for DIS balloting as soon as practicable.|
|9605-43||Member Bodies - verify that normative reference to the new C Language Standard and Amendments does not cause any problems with 9945-1 and 9945-2.|
|9605-44||U.S. - advise the convener on the status of the P2003 revision of IEEE 1003.3.|
|9605-45||X/Open - investigate providing the DISA document (re Single UNIX Specification) to WG15.|
|9605-46||Member Bodies - have their technical experts identify any specific elements of the Single Unix Specification that should be included in POSIX.|
|9605-47||X/Open - investigate supplying the Single Unix Specification (probably in CD-ROM form) to HoD's that request it for evaluation.|
|9605-48||Editor of POSIX National Profiles and Locales - incorporate N658 into that document. (Keld is ed).|
|9605-49||U.S. - provide assistance with the LIS PAR to be revised.|
|9605-50||Keld Simonsen and Dave Cannon - ensure the RIN issues list is complete.|
Action Items Resulting from May 1996 Resolutions
|9605-51||Convener - notify SC21/WG4 that we have terminated the position of liaison to their group on the recommendation of that liaison that no further liaison activities are expected for the foreseeable future. (R 96-330)|
|9605-52||Convenor - forward the nominations of the following persons:
Stephe Walli - JTC1 22.39 and JTC1 22.41as project editors to SC22 for confirmation. (R 96-332).
|9605-53||P9945-2 Project Editor - call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for IEEE 1003.2b (JTC1.22.41). (R 96-334)|
|9605-54||P9945-2 Project Editor - call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for IEEE 1003.2c (JTC1.22.43). (R 96-334)|
|9605-55||P9945-1 Project Editor - call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for IEEE 1003.1e (JTC1.22.42). (R 96-334)|
|9605-56||P14515 Project Editor - call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for IEEE 2003.2 (JTC1.22.14515-2). (R 96-334)|
|9605-57||U.S. - invite the development body for proposed work on the Guidelines for POSIX National Profiles and National Locales to hold one of its meetings each year in conjunction with the first WG15 of the year. (R 96-336)|
|9605-58||Convener - notify SC22 that the following projects:
JTC1 22.21.02.02 (UPE)have been completed and integrated into the primary document, and since future revisions will be done as part of the main document, these work items may be terminated. (R 96-338)
|9605-59||Convener - request that SC22 extend the deadline of the following projects
which have not reached the CD/PDAM registration within the required 3 year
time limit (R 96-339):
22.21.01.01 9945-0 Language Indepent
|9605-60||Convener - forward the draft Taxonomy Change Proposal prepared by the U.S. member body to the SC22 Secretariat with the recommendation that it be forwarded to SGFS with appropriate header information as defined in WG15 N651. (R 96-340)|
|9605-61||Convener - request SC22's approval of appropriate Division of Work items to permit the work on POSIX OSE profiles (IEEE 1003.10, 1003.13) as defined in the Taxonomy Change Proposal (WG15 N643) and also request an appropriate Division of Work item for 1003.1j (advanced realtime). (R 96-341)|
|9605-62||Convener - notify SC22 of WG15's proposal (N649) for decision making by email (using ISO 646 format for documents) whereby a response or a request for a 15 day extension is due within 45 days of transmission and reminders will be sent out to non-respondents after 15 and 30 days, and encourages SC22 to implement a similar proposal. (R 96-342)|
|9605-63||U.S. - get approval of the U.S. development body on the new synchronization plan as amended by WG15 N676. (R 96-343)|
|9605-64||Convener - get approval of the SC22 on the new synchronization plan as amended by WG15 N676. (R 96-343)|
|9605-65||U.S. - convey the wishes of WG15 to the development body, IEEE, and ITTF to merge base standards with their amendments for re-publication at the earliest opportunity so that each IS will be contained within a single published document. (R 96-344)|
|9605-66||U.S. - forward the appropriate draft of IEEE 1003.1a System API Amendment (JTC1 22.39) to the SC22 Secretariat for concurrent CD/PDAM Registration and Ballot. (R 96-345)|
|9605-67||Convener - call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for IEEE 1003.1a System API Amendment (JTC1 22.39). (R 96-345)|
|9605-68||U.S. - forward the appropriate draft of IEEE 1003.1f Transparent File Access (JTC1 22.21.01.03.01) to the SC22 Secretariat for concurrent CD/PDAM Registration and Ballot. (R 96-345)|
|9605-69||Convener - call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for IEEE 1003.1f Transparent File Access (JTC1 22.21.01.03.01). (R 96-345)|
|9605-70||U.S. - forward the appropriate draft of IEEE 1003.1g Protocol Independent Interface (JTC1 22.21.01.03.03) to the SC22 Secretariat for concurrent CD/PDAM Registration and Ballot. (R 96-345)|
|9605-71||Convener - call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for IEEE 1003.1g Protocol Independent Interface (JTC1 22.21.01.03.03). (R 96-345)|
|9605-72||U.S. - forward the appropriate draft of IEEE 1387.4 Print Administration (JTC1 22.15068-4) to the SC22 Secretariat for concurrent CD/PDAM Registration and Ballot. (R 96-345)|
|9605-73||Convener - call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for IEEE 1387.4 Print Administration (JTC1 22.15068-4). (R 96-345)|
|9605-74||U.S. - forward the appropriate draft of IEEE 1003.1j Advanced Real Time Extensions (JTC1 project number not yet assigned) to the SC22 Secretariat for PDAM Registration only. (R 96-346)|
|9605-75||Convener - call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for IEEE 1003.1j Advanced Real Time Extensions (JTC1 project number not yet assigned). (R 96-346)|
|9605-76||U.S. - forward the appropriate draft of IEEE 2003 Test Methods (for revisions) (JTC1 22.37) to the SC22 Secretariat for CD Registration only. (R 96-347)|
|9605-77||U.S. - forward the appropriate draft of IEEE 2003.1b Test Methods for Real Time Extensions (JTC1 14515-1.02) to the SC22 Secretariat for PDAM Registration only. (R 96-346)|
|9605-78||Convener - forward the WG15 recommendation contained in resolution 96.348 to SC22.|
|Future meetings:||Munich, October 28-31, 1996, RIN on Nov 1|
|Exeter, U.K., May 19-23, 1997|
|Canada, October 20-24, 1997|
|Invitations Sought:||France, April or May, 1998|
|(proposed dates)||Australia or U.S., October, 1998|
|Denmark, Spring 1999|
|Keyoto, Japan, Fall 1999|
Ron Elliot asked people to signup with him for the October meeting, to be held at the IBM education center. It will be at the Holiday Crown Plaza (about $120.00 per night), but he cautioned us not to take a cab because it was very expensive.
Dave Cannon asked for our preferences next May (Exeter or London) and the majority indicated Exeter. There were many conflicts for the weeks between April 21 and May 19, but the consensus appeared to be for May 19. David Blackwood reported they have made arrangements for October, 1997 at the Transport Canada Training Institute in Cornwall, Ontario. The nearest airport is 1.5 hours by car.
Barry Needham objected that we should not be going to Australia becasue they have not participated in WG15 and he thought we had a rule to that effect. Jim Isaak said it was not a rule. The U.S. said it could host the October 1998 meeting if Australia did not.
CTN01 Information on Essex Meeting (U.K.)
CTN02 N674 Guide to User Requirements (U.K.)
CTN03 N675 Final RIN Issues List (RIN)
CTN04 Netherlands National Profile (Netherlands)