From andrew@xopen.co.uk Thu Dec 10 10:08:47 1992 Received: from ben.uknet.ac.uk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA15237 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Thu, 10 Dec 1992 11:11:37 +0100 Received: from eros.uknet.ac.uk by ben.uknet.ac.uk via UKIP with SMTP (PP) id ; Thu, 10 Dec 1992 10:11:26 +0000 Received: from xopen.co.uk by eros.uknet.ac.uk via UKIP with SMTP (PP) id <8766-0@eros.uknet.ac.uk>; Thu, 10 Dec 1992 10:10:57 +0000 Received: by xopen (1.36.108.3/15.6) id AA05656; Thu, 10 Dec 92 10:09:59 GMT Message-Id: <9212101009.AA05656@xopen.co.uk> Received: by xopuk (1.36.108.3/16.2) id AA02414; Thu, 10 Dec 92 10:08:48 GMT From: Andrew Walker Subject: (wg15-uk 265) (SC22WG15.170) (urgent) Re: National Profile Issues (fwd) To: sc22wg15@dkuug.dk Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 10:08:47 GMT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Dear WG15, Nakahara-san has pointed out (below) that I should have submitted the liaison report to WG15 before sending it to SGFS. Mea Culpa. > I certainly appreciate your effort in making a somewhat "formal" report > to SGFS as a liaison statement, however, the following resolution from > the WG15 9210 meeting may request us to do additional steps before submitting > this report to the SGFS adhoc meeting, I'm afraid. > > > JTC1/SC22/WG15 RESOLUTIONS > > October 29, 1992 > > ..... > > > > RESOLUTION 92-220 Liaison Reports > > > > Whereas Liaison Reports are official communications between SC22/WG15 > > and other standards authorities, and > > > > Whereas Liaison Reports represent official SC22/WG15 statements, > > > > Therefore, all SC22/WG15 Liaisons are instructed to submit their > > Liaison Reports to SC22/WG15 to obtain a SC22/WG15 document number, > > before the Liaison Reports are submitted to the groups with which they > > are approved to liaise. I took the liberty of passing it directly to SGFS because the text was made up entirely of text from the WG15 meeting and other WG15 documents, and since it asked questions rather than representing a WG15 position. The problem arose because of the closeness of the SGFS meeting following on that of WG15. The alternative would have required that we delay to July next year. I attended the part of the SGFS discussion yesterday which dealt with the questions, and a draft text was produced which will no doubt be changed a bit and then approved in plenary tomorrow. In the discussions yesterday I think two key points were made, which are in the draft response and will no doubt stay there. The first is that the SGFS does not think it is appropriate to have a class of profile called 'National'. There are a variety of cross- functional issues, like security and management, which raise similar problems, and there was not any enthusiasm for defining special classes of profiles. It would certainly be appropriate however for profiles based on national or cultural characteristics to become ISPs, especially where the cultural issues cross national boundaries. The second point was that work is also going on in the Regional workshops on similar issues, in particular on FTAM and ODA profiles. There will I think be a request for the RWS-CC to make a document on the subject available to SGFS and thence to a wider distribution. On the last issue in our liaison statement there will I think be a request for input from the NBs and LOs. I think that all this has been helpful, and hope that you agree. Regards, Andrew ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Walker X/Open Company Limited Standards Manager Apex Plaza, Forbury Road EMail: a.walker@xopen.co.uk Reading, England, RG1 1AX Tel: +(44) (0)734 508311 x2270 Home: +(44) (0)564 775489 FAX: +(44) (0)734 500110 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------