From keld@dkuug.dk Mon Oct 24 08:31:21 1994 Received: by dkuug.dk id AA16178 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for wg15rin); Mon, 24 Oct 1994 07:31:22 +0100 Message-Id: <199410240631.AA16178@dkuug.dk> From: keld@dkuug.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 07:31:21 +0100 X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mnemonic-Intro: 29 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.2 4/12/91) To: wg15rin@dkuug.dk Subject: JTC1 and CEN In response to RIN AI 9405-12 - Here is the mail from Bob Follett: Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 11:19:40 -0500 (EST) From: Bob Follett Subject: JTC1 Plenary in Washington, 1-4 Feb 94 To: SC22 I would like to report to you on the results of the JTC1 Plenary meeting in Washington during the period 31 January to 4 February 1994. I am pleased to report that the problems regarding cooperation with CEN technical committees have been resolved. To a considerable extent, the problem was due to a misunderstanding. It is still true that we cannot have "liaison" with a CEN TC, but it turns out we don't have to! We can have a working relationship instead. At the JTC1 meeting, ITTF clarified that the Vienna Agreement offers three levels of cooperation: by exchange of documentation, by mutual representation at meetings, and by parallel processing of documents of mutual interest. There is no impediment to JTC1 and its subgroups using the provisions of the first two methods of cooperation. JTC1 unanimously passed a resolution agreeing that these two methods would satisfy the needs identified by several SCs and forwarded the resolution to CEN for its consideration. This means that a CEN TC or SC secretariat can be added to the mailing list of SC22 or any of our WGs, and that our group(s) can be added to their mailing list. Further, to quote from the resolution: "the Vienna Agreement allows any ISO committee to nominate up to two representatives to attend meetings of any CEN TC or SC, and similarly any CEN TC or SC to nominate up to two representatives to attend meetings of an ISO/TC or SC. Such representatives must represent the views and provide information on behalf of the committee which nominates them (i.e., they should be either the chairman, secretary, WG convener, or project leader/editor). Participation of such representatives in working group meetings is subject to invitation by the WG's parent committee." Regarding parallel voting with CEN, you will recall that JTC1 objected to the additional two-month ballot (corresponding to the CEN two-month formal vote) which would be required by JTC1 after completion of the DIS ballot and ballot resolution process, since it would lengthen the adoption process. JTC1 has been working hard to shorten the process as much as possible. The French proposed (in JTC1 N2810) a modification to the process in the Vienna Agreement which would drop the final two-month ballot in JTC1 so that JTC1 could proceed directly to publication during the CEN formal voting period. JTC1 accepted this proposal and it will be sent to CEN for their consideration. JTC1 noted the decision of SCC to relinquish the SC22 Secretariat and requested National Bodies to consider accepting this responsibility. JTC1 expressed its thanks to SCC for its excellent support of the SC22 Secretariat and in particular to Joseph Cote. While at the JTC1 plenary, I spoke with quite a few Heads of Delegation and was unable to find any of them who thought there was a possibility that their National Body could assume the SC22 Secretariat. I urge all National Bodies participating in SC22 to urgently consider this matter. Please let me know of any interest in accepting the SC22 Secretariat responsibility. JTC1 recommended that ITTF grant Category C Liaison status for both SHARE Europe and X/Open to our WG20, as we requested. A question was raised as to whether there should be some criteria for acceptance of user group requests for Category C Liaison. National Bodies are being requested to submit contributions on this topic for consideration by the working group on PAS (see below). At the plenary, JTC1 held an ad hoc group on the topic of Application Program Interfaces. In view of the SC22 resolution on this topic, I participated in this ad hoc. The ad hoc report is contained in JTC1 N 2890R. As a result, JTC1 resolved: - that a new permanent and maintainable document (such as an Annex to the Directives) shall be established on "Guidelines for JTC1 API Standardization." The text (attached to N2890R) shall be circulated to National Bodies for letter ballot. The text is substantially the same as the U.S. contribution on this subject (JTC1 N 2319 or SC22 N1407) but with certain sections (e.g., background and examples) deleted. All recommendations except #15 were carried forward. (Recommendation 15 dealt with use of formal specification methods; it was deleted since the Directives already include language addressing this subject.) - that JTC1 review the API guidelines two years after approval based on experience gained by then. - that National Bodies and Subcommittees should comment on JTC1 N2836 by 30 June 1994. Comments from National Bodies should be in the form of responses to the seven NP questions in order to determine the level of interest and National Body participation in the work described. (N2836 is the document with the SC21 Reports on Application Program Interfaces. One of these, SC21 N8045 rev 2, suggests a work program for development of an architectural framework to assist in coordination of API standardization activities and use of these standards, of technical guidelines for the definition of API standards, and of a conformance methodology for API standards. It is on this proposed work program that comments are being requested.) I attempted to defer the response date since our plenary is not until September but the Chairman and Secretariat suggested we should compile our comments (if any) by correspondence. I would observe that National Bodies can more quickly submit comments directly rather than attempting to establish a consensus by correspondence within SC22. However, if any SC22 member bodies have comments which they believe SC22 should make, please send them to the SC22 Secretariat as quickly as possible so that they can be circulated for comment to other member bodies. Of course, circulation and comment by email would also help to expedite consideration. Another ad hoc group at the JTC1 plenary addressed the topic of JTC1 use of "de facto standards," also known as Publicly Available Specifications (PAS). The ad hoc report is contained in JTC1 N2889R. The thrust was to be able to take advantage of technology developed outside of JTC1, especially since there are significant gaps in the JTC1 portfolio which need to be filled. In doing so, the National Body process must be preserved with a goal of producing JTC1 standards and ISPs while maintaining JTC1 principles. As a result of this ad hoc, JTC1 took two actions: - JTC1 established a Working Group on PAS to explore this topic further and report back to the JTC1 October 1994 plenary. The working group will have two 3-day meetings, beginning 9 May in Berlin and 30 August in Washington. National Bodies and Subcommittees are invited to contribute comments on JTC1 N2889R by 8 April 1994, for consideration by the working group. Since the deadline is so short and we do not have a plenary during this time frame, it appears impossible to submit official comments from SC22 by 8 April. As noted above, National Bodies can more quickly submit comments directly but if any SC22 member bodies have comments which they believe SC22 should make, please send them to the SC22 Secretariat and circulate them by email. I don't see how we could make the 8 April deadline but we might be able to submit something in time for the second meeting of the working group if necessary. - JTC1 will publicly announce that, as the focal point for IT standardization, it "will provide the capability of accepting standard solutions to IT problems that have been developed outside JTC1. This capability shall be consistent with the process used to accept standards developed within JTC1, maintaining the same level of quality." JTC1 also requested that its Chairman and Secretariat be made aware of any proposals for consideration of PAS and to ensure that the door remains open for all such proposals. A third ad hoc addressed possible improvements in the JTC1 process. This ad hoc addressed a number of different procedural topics, with the following results: - JTC1 modified the first DIS ballot procedure, effective 1 June 1994. The new normal ballot period for a DIS or DAM is four months (plus mail time). However, in instances where SCs believe that the complexity of the text requires additional time for review, we may request that the ballot be extended by two months, for a total of six months. - JTC1 considered the requirements for minimum participation. Some comments were concerned with the failure of some projects due to the inability of obtaining five National Bodies as participants. JTC1 reaffirmed the five NB requirement for active participation and went on to define active participation for NPs as "characterized by: -- attendance at meetings* -- contributing to the development of the Working Draft -- performing substantial review on a CD and subsequent stages submitting detailed comment with ballots. * Note: Supplement 3 of the JTC1 Directives permits the use of Voice Teleconferencing and Electronic Messaging as mechanisms for participation." A fourth ad hoc addressed the problem which users encounter in keeping track of the current status of standards with many Amendments and Technical Corrigenda. While this problem primarily occurs in other SCs, the solution will affect SC22 as well. In the future, each Amendment and Technical Corrigendum shall list the status of all Amendments and Technical Corrigenda to the current edition of the document. In this way, a user can determine whether he is missing any previously adopted modifications to the standard. In addition, JTC1 "strongly encouraged" editors to "maintain an updated document, incorporating all confirmed modifications in order that a new edition of the standard can be published with minimum delay." In other resolutions, JTC1: - established a new Subcommittee 30 on Open-edi to carry out the work initiated by JTC1/WG3. The French National Body will provide a chairman and secretariat. - instructed its SCs to discontinue use of the term "Special Working Group" (SWG) in order to avoid confusion with same term at the JTC1 level. - initiated a letter ballot on a revised and restructured version of the JTC1 Directives. - established a special balloting procedure for voting on the PDTR for the Interpretation of ISO/IEC Guide 25 for Information Technology. The PDTR letter ballot will be sent to all SC21 "P" members and to those "P" members of participating SCs which are not "P" members of SC21 (but with one vote per "P" member). - took note the high cost of large ISO/IEC standards and its negative effect on the sale of these standards to the user community, and requested National Bodies and the ITTF to submit contributions to the next JTC1 Plenary on possible mechanisms for addressing this issue. Any participants in SC22 with ideas on this issue should submit them through their National Bodies for consideration by JTC1. The next two plenary meetings of JTC1 will be 25-28 October 1994 in Korea and 12-16 June 1995 in Sweden.