From isaak@csac.ljo.dec.com Thu Aug 25 13:05:19 1994
Received: from crl.dec.com by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA18356
  (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for <sc22wg15@dkuug.dk>); Thu, 25 Aug 1994 23:07:10 +0200
Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA13407; Thu, 25 Aug 94 17:02:37 -0400
Received: by csac.ljo.dec.com (5.65/fma-100391/BobG-15-Feb-93);id AA13605; Thu, 25 Aug 1994 17:05:19 -0400
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 17:05:19 -0400
From: isaak@csac.ljo.dec.com (Jim Isaak- isaak@csac.enet.dec.com)
Message-Id: <9408252105.AA13605@csac.ljo.dec.com>
To: 3lgj@rsvl.unisys.com, sc22wg15@dkuug.dk
Subject: JTC1 Approves 13210 (aka 1003.3)
Cc: m.nielsen@ieee.org
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29

The ballot on DIS 13210 has completed and the
IEEE Standard is approved as an IS.

The three comments received are:

1) France, negitive ballot,
	wants to see the more recent version approved (2003)

2) Japan
	a number of editorial comments (many related to the fact
	that the document circulated was an IEEE standard, and not
	fully "iso-ized".

	Also technical comment:
	"Section 4: Testing leveles and complexity levels, there are only
	the definitions of the levels.  Therefore, it is more appropriate
	to move these definitions to the definition section 2.2. It is
	also suggested that the normative rules should be clearly
	described by using the "shall" verb."

3) Ukraine
	concerned with proceedural issue about not receiving the
	ballot (ITTF/JTC1 Secretariat problem, not WG15 issue).

Good work!

	I would encourage the US to review the comments, particularly
since there is a revision in progress, and the document is already
an IEEE standard, and propose feedback on the Japanese recomendations
and objections for the Oct. meeting.  [including the question of
how best to address the editorial changes related to the ISO text
issues]

Thanks, 
Jim