From peren!beh@uunet.uu.net Wed Jan 6 20:08:03 1999 Received: from relay1.UU.NET (relay1.UU.NET [192.48.96.5]) by dkuug.dk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA24490 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 20:08:02 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from peren!beh@uunet.uu.net) Received: from uucp1.uu.net by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: uucp1.uu.net [192.48.96.81]) id QQfxai22517; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:08:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from peren.UUCP by uucp1.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:08:01 -0500 Received: by (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA13982; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:49:28 -0800 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:49:28 -0800 From: peren!beh@uunet.uu.net (Barry E. Hedquist) Message-Id: <199901061849.KAA13982@> To: rinehuls@uunet.uu.net Subject: Disposition of Comments:PDAM Ballot for PDAM1 to IS 14515-1 Cc: wg15@uunet.uu.net X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22/WG15 DATE: October 31, 1998 TO: JTC1/SC22/WG15 TITLE: Disposition of Comments: PDAM Ballot for PDAM1 to IS 14515-1: Information Technology - Test Methods Specifications for Measuring Conformance to POSIX - Part I: System Application Program Interface (API) - Amendment 1: Realtime Extension (C Language) PROJECT: JTC 1.22.14515-1.02 Reference Documents: SC22 N2744, Summary of Voting wg15tag 2075 SC22WG15.1286 SC22docs.537 Action Identifier: ACT WG15 RESPOND TO: beh@peren.com The PDAM Ballot to IS 14515-1 was approved with two negative votes (Germany and United Kingdom) and one Abstain/Comment (USA). The ballot closed on 1998-06-22. The Summary of Voting is contained in SC22 N2744, as well as the other references listed above. The comments are attached. As a summary, Germany proposed that the project be withdrawn due to lack of market relevance, the United Kingdom and the US submitted identical comments expressing general concerns over a perceived lack of progress (part of which was induced by an administrative error by WG15), participation in the effort, and market relevance. Proposed Response: The IEEE draft standard 2003.1b (Draft 6) was approved in the latest ballot which closed earlier this month (October), with a 90% approval. It is now being prepared for submission to the IEEE Standards Board for final approval as an IEEE Standard. This project is being processed in accordance with the Synchronization Plan established between WG15 and the IEEE Computer Society, Portable Applications Standards Committee, as approved by SC22. It has been in process as an IEEE Draft Standard and satisfied all of the requirements imposed by IEEE and PASC relevant to that process. Withdrawal of the project, as suggested by Germany, would conflict with the Synchronization Plan, and thus is not a viable option. The fact that 2003.1b has now been approved via the IEEE balloting process addresses the general concerns raised by Germany, the UK, and the US. There were no specific technical changes requested in any of the comments submitted by Germany, United Kingdom, or the US, that called for or require changes to the PDAM. Thus, none are proposed. Proposed Recommendation: Continue processing this PDAM per the Synchronization Plan. Status: The proposed disposition of comments was distributed Oct 31, 1998. Comments were due NLT Nov 30, 1998. No comments were received. Forwarded to SC22, Jan 6, 1999. Action: WG15. Barry Hedquist Project Editor Tel: 1 408 347-7800 Fax: 1 408 347-7803 Email: beh@peren.com =============================== ATTACHED COMMENTS ==================== COMMENT ACCOMPANYING THE NEGATIVE VOTE FROM GERMANY "We disapprove the draft for the following reason: In our view the test assertions presented by the PDAM1 are antiquated. There are two realtime test systems used in the global market which are independent from the requirements of the PDAM. So the test assertions of the PDAM are not verifiable by implementations, and the have not passed a quality assurance level. Therefore, we disapprove the PDAM and propose to cancel the project due to a lack of market relevance." COMMENT ACCOMPANYING THE NEGATIVE VOTE FROM UNITED KINGDOM "We have several general concerns against progressing this to the status of an ISO standard. The slow progress of development and the small number of active participants in its development leads to a question of continued market relevance. The development organization should review the progress of this project, assure continued market relevance, consider changes to improve progress, and report back to WG15. Unlike IS 14515, this work is not being validated by implementations of test suites. The lack of validation leads to concerns over the accuracy of the final standard. As such until the accuracy of the standard can be assured we cannot approve this for ISO status." COMMENT ACCOMPANYING THE ABSTENTION VOTE FROM THE USA "A substantial number of Members of the US committee responsible for developing a US position on this document expressed several general concerns against progressing this to the status of an ISO/IEC standard, as expressed below, but the result did not constitute a consensus position. The slow progress of development and the small number of active participants in its development leads to a question of continued market relevance. The development organization should review the progress of this project, assure continued market relevance, consider changes to improve progress and report back to WG15 or alternatively withdraw the work item. Unlike IS 14515, this work is not being validated by implementations of test suites. The lack of validation leads to concerns over the accuracy of the final standard. As such until the accuracy of the standard can be assured, some believe that JTC 1 should withdraw the work item."