1 Opening of the Meeting

1.1 Welcome from the Host

 Mr. Donn Terry (HOD USA) welcomed the delegations on behalf of the United States, ANSI and IEEE.
 

1.2 Introductions and Roll Call of Technical Experts

 Delegations were present from Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, UK and USA.  A full list of the delegates attending the meeting is appended to the minutes (Attachment 1).
 

1.3 Selection of Secretary and Drafting Committee

 The Secretary was provided by the USA delegation (Barry Needham). Roger Martin (USA), Martin Kirk (UK), Ron Elliott (Germany) and Yasushi Nakahara (Japan) agreed to form the drafting committee.
 

1.4 Adoption of the Agenda

 The agenda was approved as per WG15 N103 with the following additions / modifications and document numbers:

 2.1 WG15 documents N115, N116, RTN4 RTN5 & RTN13.
 2.3.1 Consideration of 1003.0.
 2.5 OSCRL ad hoc report RTN7.
 2.6 Internationalization  RTN3.
 2.7 SC22 AG report.
 3.1.1 LIS ad hoc report.
 3.1.2 1003.1 status.
 3.6 addition of 1003.4 & 6 WG15 N44, N46 & N112.
 4.1 RTN6.
 4.3 Synchronization proposal WG15 N107.
 5.1 eMail announcement of documents to be distributed by SC 22.
 5.2 profile coordination ad hoc at next WG15 meeting.
 7.3 addition of secretary to the selection of Vice Chair for the next meeting.

 A working copy of the agenda, as used at this meeting is included in the minutes (Attachment 2).
 

1.5 Minutes of the Previous Meeting

 The minutes of the Paris meeting of 12-15 June 1990 were approved with the following minor corrections:

 1.3 John Eliott was changed to Ron Elliott.
 2.4 Hugh Davies was changed to Hugh Davis.
 7.3a Earl Powell was changed to Arnie Powell.
 Action Item 47: "as" PDAM.
 Resolutions 11a and 11b: "instructs" convener.

2 Status, Liaison and Action Item Reports

2.1 Review of Action Items

 The Conveners response to action items is covered in WG15 N116. Action items on the United States are covered in RTN4, RTN5, RTN11 and RTN13 (Attachment 3).

 2) Convenor to obtain data on X/Open and its relationship to POSIX
  Status: Request has been made to X/Open for more information, further feedback is expected.
  Status: See WG15 N116.

 3) Provide an example of the Japanese Profile.
  Done. See WG15 N122.

 4) UK to provide a report on use of a formal definition language for POSIX (VDM-SL or Z).
  Done. See WG15 N115.

 5) US to provide a copy of SC24 WG1 report on windowing for Convener to circulate.
  Open.

 6) US to provide statement on progressing X/Windows as an International Standard to Convener for distribution.
  Done.

 7) Convenor to provide a "white paper" on FIMS to WG15.
  Open, See WG15 N116.

 8) US to report on the availability of first phase of 1003.0. Status: The current draft (draft 9) is not suitable for
  circulation.

 9) US to provide copy of 1003.6 DTLS for Cornelia Boldyreff.
  Status: 1003.6 is no longer using DTLS.  Al Weaver will notify Cornelia Boldyreff.

 10) Convenor will contact SC22 secretariat with view to improving the distribution of documents.
  Done, improvements are expected. See WG15 N116.

 11) Convenor will develop and use a standard front sheet for all WG15 documents.
  Done.

 12) Netherlands will provide information about language compatible arithmetic standard for circulation to WG15.
  Done, circulated in SC22.

 13) Vice Chairman will maintain an issues log.
  Done. Brief review of issues log by Herman Weegenaar. Log will be updated and maintained by Vice Chair.  Question of numbering of issue log, standing document or re-numbered at each meeting.

  This lead to a discussion of standing documents with the following determined:

  Current Standing Documents:
   SD-1 Membership list.
   SD-2 Document list.

   SD-3 Issue list.

 14) Convenor will provide an agenda item for the consideration of items on the Issues Log.
  Done, as per the October Agenda.

 15) Convener to nominate Kevin Murphy as liaison to SC27
  Done.  Letter has been sent to SC22 Secretariat

 16) Convenor to assure that meeting notices and draft agenda reach WG15 experts in good time.
  Done.  See WG15 N116.

 17) Member bodies to nominate additional experts on security to Rapporteur group.
  Status: Nominations are in progress from Canada and Japan.

 18) Convener to circulate TSG-1 N276 and N279 documents.
  Done.  See WG15 N113 and N114.

 19) Convenor to request flexibility and stability in ITTF rules for IS to SC22 Secretariat.
  Done.  See WG15 N116.

 20) Convenor to circulate 1003.3pt1, 1003.4a and 1003.6 to WG15 members for review and comment.
  Status: 1003.4a is still open. 1003.3.3 is to be re-circulated.

  There was a report of many problems in receiving documents from SC22.  This lead to a discussion of how  WG15 members know when something is to be expected from SC22?  Should eMail be sent out when a document is given to SC22 for distribution?

 21) Member bodies are to provide review and comment of the documents listed in action item 20 for format and language appropriate for CD or PDAM registration.
  Open.

 22) Member bodies to review and comment on 1003.5 and 1003.9 re suitability for registration as CD.
  Open.

 23) Convener to place consideration of 1003.5 and 1003.6 CD registration on the October Agenda.
  Done.  See WG15 N116.

 24) Convener and US to provide new synchronization proposal.
  Done.  See WG15 N107.

 25) US to coordinate security related activities with SC27, SC21 and SC18.
  Open.

 26) Convenor to coordinate with JTC1 SWG Security and register a WG15 representative to participate in in this workshop.
  Done.

 27) Convenor to provide a copy of 1003.6 for SC22 review and comment.
  Status: Distributed in WG15 only.

 28) Member bodies will identify and inform national and regional organizations on the next meeting of RGCT.
  Done.

 29) Convenor will distribute to WG15 documents related to the "Phoenix Project" on CT development.
  Done.  See WG15 N080 and N081.

 30) Convenor to circulate internationalization documents to SC22 ad hoc working groups on character sets and internationalization for review and comment.
  Done.

 31) Convenor to forward internationalization documents to 1003.2 for review and integration with 9945-2.2
  Done.

 32) National bodies to nominate representatives to RGCT and invite additional experts from national and regional bodies to the RGCT meeting.
  Open.  There was good attendance at the RGCT meeting at Orcas Island.

 33) Convener to provide for the disposition of comments on DIS 9945-1 and CD 9945-2.
  Done.

 34) US and Convener to forward a revised draft of 1003.2 of registration as CD 9945-2.2.
  Open.  See RTN5.

 35) Convener to request a second CD ballot for 9945-2.2 from SC22.
  Done via SC22 Secretariat.  Now waiting document from US member body.

 36) National bodies to contribute POSIX National Profiles.
  Open.

 37) RIN Rapportuer to seek guidance of SC22 working group on internationalization re WG15's handling of POSIX national profiles.
  Open, pending report of RIN Rapporteur.

 38) US to provide a report identifying the names of special characters used in POSIX.
  Done.  See RTN4.

 39) US to provide synchronization report for SC22 member body comments.
  Done.

 40) Denmark to provide updated version of the Danish Profile.
  Done.  See WG15 N097.

 41) Project Editor shall seek guidance from SC1 regarding full ISO definition of terms.
  Done.  See RTN11.

 42) Convener to forward TZ string and structured local issues to IEEE for consideration of possible inclusion in a future revision of 9945-1.
  Done.  RIN has a proposed solution which is included in 1003.1a.

 43) Convenor to submit coordination strategy to SC22.
  Done.

 44) Convenor to submit synchronization strategy to SC22.
  Done.

 45) US to "pursue with vigour" the production of a language independent version of 9945-1.
  Status: A well attended language independent ad hoc meeting was held at Orcas Island just prior to the WG15 meeting.  The current draft (Draft2) of the language independent guidelines was registered as WG15 N119. Several resolutions and action items evolved out of this ad hoc meeting and related discussions.

 46) US to request the IEEE to expedite the completion of a language independent specification of 9945-1 with the attendant C language binding.
  Status: See Action Item 45.

 47) Convener to register 1003.2a draft 6 as PDAM to 9945-2.
  Open.

 48) National Bodies to support RIN.
  Done.

 49) Convenor to appoint Keld Simonsen as liaison to the ad hoc working group on character sets.
  Done.

 50) OSCRL Rapporteur to organize an ad hoc meeting prior to the October WG15 meeting.
  Status: An OSCRL ad hoc meeting was held with the report generated by that group registered as WG15 N120.  The OSCRL Rapporteur is currently in SC21 and is outside the direct scope of SC22/WG15.

 51) Convenor to request SC2 to allow mixed case character name specification
  Done.

 52) Convener, Netherlands, UK and US to provide written written reports on action items in time for circulation before the October meeting.
  Status: Convener, UK and US provided written responses to action items, which in most cases were distributed at the October meeting due to the press of time.

 Several comments that all responses / requests to other groups be assigned WG15 numbers and circulated in addition to being defined as done.
 

2.2 Review of Issue List: WG15 SD-3

 Making some progress on issue 1, still open.
 Issues 2 & 3 are still open.
 

2.3 Report on IEEE TCOS Standards Projects

 The status of TCOS projects from the IEEE prospective with no filtration was reviewed (RTN14).

  1003.0 will be circulated for comment in WG15 but is not included in the scope of WG15 work.

  General review of relationship between IEEE TCOS and WG15. TCOS does not want to distribute draft standards to WG15  too early.

  Development of resolution and action item to bring forward 1003.0 work to SC22/WG15.

2.4 Liaison Reports

 Discussion of a problem here in that there is no official liaison to these groups and nobody responsible for producing the reports. Resolution proposed.
 

2.4.1 C Language

 No Report.
 

2.4.2 C++

 No Report.
 

2.4.3 PCTE

 A written report was provided on the current activity of PCTE and it was entered as RTN12 (Attachment 4 to these minutes).
 

2.4.4 WG11

 

2.5 OSCRL Activity

 The ad hoc OSCRL working group produced a report for circulation by the WG15 Convenor as WG15 N120.

 Seven recommendations were provided to the drafting committee, some care needs to be taken with item 5.  Several questions about IFIP still being interested?  General concensus is probably.  Ian Newman (SC21 OSCRL Rapporteur) is willing to make a contribution in this area.  Decision to attempt to schedule an OSCRL Rapporteur meeting in conjunction with the May 91 WG15 meeting.
 

2.6 Rapportuer group report / status

2.6.1 Security

 No new report, no new members. Next meeting planed with the May WG15 meeting.
 

2.6.2 Conformance Testing

 Nothing to report for action items or resolutions.  Minutes of the meeting held before the October meeting in document RGCT 19.

 Work in progress on if WG15 should take on conformance testing; this will be continued at the next meeting.  The group is also looking on the effect of profiles and conformance testing.

 Next meeting will be with the May 91 WG15 meeting.  RGCT will coordinate with the programming language groups meeting in January at NIST.
 

2.6.3 Internationalization.

 RIN minutes and recommendations were distributed in WG15 (RTN 3).

 RIN has setup a public mailing list to supplement the private RIN mailing list:

  i18n@dkuug.dk

 To join send mail to

  i18n-request@dkuug.dk.

 RIN did a lot of work using the Danish and Japanese local definitions.

 Requested the production of a working paper on the harmonization issue in the national local definitions.  WG15 should expect a resolution later.

• 1003.2 D10 ballot resolution issues (objections to internationalization support). RIN would like to see the Draft 10 changes be accepted as the minimum set acceptable for internationalization.
• Continuing business: 7 Bit encoding; questionnaire.
• Next RIN meeting will be held with the May 91 WG15 meeting.

2.7 SC22 AG Report

 

3 Balloting Activities

3.1 9945-1 Status

 ISO 9945-1:1990 / IEEE 1003.1:1990 will be available Nov 7 (in
 A4 format); it will be identical to the IEEE version of the
 documents that WG15 approved.  The footnotes are included in the
 formal ISO version.  Diff marks (representing normative changes
 from IEEE 1003.1:1988) and line numbers will be in the document.

 There is a style guide (TCOS standards subcommittee POSIX
 standards style guide, available from TCOS) that has been produced
 for future use within IEEE.  This is intended to document the
 acceptable ISO formats for future use within IEEE documents.

 SC22 is looking into distributing documents (all SC22 documents?)
 in some type of electronic form.
 

3.1.1 Language Independent ad hoc Report

 LIS guidelines are currently at draft 2, they were reviewed at the ad hoc meeting immediately before the WG15 meeting. Chapter 4 of 1003.1 was redone in the new format and reviewed as an example of what a language independent standard would look like.

 IEEE ballot on the LIS guidelines document is expected next year.

 Discussion of thick vs thin. Currently only .9 is thin, .5 is thick.

 Language independent test assertions need to be looked at. [not in the scope of WG15]

 The report of the language independent ad hoc committee includes the following recommendations to WG15.

 1) Relax WG15 request to us member body that future LIS + C binding exactly match 9945-1:1990 to  allow bug fixes customarily incorporated in revised standards and possible addition of 1003.4 .6 and .8 functionality (allow true superset of 9945-1).
  { Deferred.}

  Proposed Resolution:
  US member body to provide schedule for delivery of POSIX related documents with the primary constraint that incorporation of language independent features shall not be on the critical path(s) for the production of C language based documents and secondary constraint that ultimate goal is production of an extended language independent 9945-1 and accompanying thin c binding at the earliest date possible.

  Milestones to be identified include time frames for the delivery to WG15 of the following documents  .1 .2 .4 .6 .8 .1a

• Thick c binding (including service definition).
• Language independent specification.
• Thin c binding to LIS.

  Schedule should show convergence of JTC1/ISO rules on the release of documents and point out need for wavers etc if necessary.
  {Referred to drafting committee.}

 2) Advise the US member body that WG15 prefers "thin" bindings (which must be read in conjunction with a service definition) to "thick" bindings (which include a redundant and possibly conflicting service definition.
  {Referred to drafting committee.}

 3) Advise the US member body that as an interim measure in the absence of a LIS that WG15 prefer thin bindings to a C language service definition to stand-alone thick bindings.
  {Referred to drafting committee.}

 4) Appoint formal liaison from WG15 to WG11.
  {Referred to drafting committee.}

 5) Request that WG11 appoints a official liaison to WG15.
  {Referred to drafting committee.}

 6) Request the US member body to base the terminology and methodology used in its work on LIS to the greatest possible extent possible on the work of WG11 (Note: not mandatory).
  {Withdrawn.}

 7) Commend and encourage the work of the US member body in researching the utility and the extent of the appealability of the development effort required for LIS for test assertions.
  {withdrawn }

 8) Form LIS rapporteur group.
  {Withdrawn.}

 9) Request the US member body to include conformance requirements that apply to language bindings in future LIS (as per WG11 work).
  {Referred to drafting committee.}

 10) Advise the US member body that WG15 endorses current statement of "goals and non-goals" in the LIS guidelines draft 2 (WG15 N119).
  {Referred to drafting committee.}

 11) Request SC24/WG1 to provide materials relating to the development of LIS for GKS and PHIGS  X3H3.
  {US action item, referred to drafting committee}

 12) Advise US member body that WG15 endorsees current direction of work in the development of LIS and associated language bindings.
  {Referred to drafting committee.}
 

 There then followed a discussion of proposed milestones for the LIS and the relationship between this timing and the bindings of fortran and ada.  General question left on the table: What ISO language standards will the ada and fortran bindings apply to?

3.2 9945-2 Status

 9945-2 is being prepared for a second CD registration. SC22 has approved this registration, the only thing now required is for a document to be submitted.
 

3.4 9945-3 Status

 9945-3 No new status.
 

3.5 Language Binding Status

 1003.4 D9 has been distributed to WG15 and SC22 (N44).
 1003.5 D6 has been distributed to WG15 (N112) and SC22.
 1003.6 D7 has been distributed to WG15 only (N45r1).
 1003.9 has not been distributed yet (see TCOS status report,  Attachment 5) .

 Question raised on the amount of time provided for members of WG15 to review 1003.6 (and also .4) before the next quarterly POSIX meeting. It is currently taking on the order of 2.5 months to circulate documents in WG15. This will be addressed under the discussion of the synchronization plan approved by SC22 (N107).
 

3.6 CD/PDAD Registration

3.6.1 1003.2a

 1003.2a D6 is in SC22 ballot for  for registration as a PDAM to 9945-2.
 

3.6.2 1003.4

 UK moved to register 1003.4 D9 as a PDAM. Failed for lack of a second.

 Canada moved IEEE 1003.4 D10 as a PDAM to 9945-1:1990, seconded by US.

 Proposed wording of "then current working  draft (greater than 9)" is OK with Canada and US.  Approved.
 

3.6.3 1003.5 and 1003.9

 1003.5 (and 1003.9) Should be on the agenda for next meeting.

 General feeling that there has not been enough time for WG15 to review the current drafts and register them.  Also general feeling that .5 and .9 are bindings to a C binding and that they should be bindings to a language independent specification.

• UK: In favor of going ahead with C language bindings and holding the ada and fortran language bindings until they are thin bindings to a language independent standard.
• Japan: In favor of moving the C language bindings forward and don't care about ada and fortran.
• Germany: No comment.
• France:  No comment.
• Denmark: Move forward on the C language binding, hold ada and fortran until language independence.
• Netherlands: Move on C and hold others for language independence
• US: General direction is OK but need feedback on both the .5 and .9 documents as if they were written to a language independent specification before the language independence is available.
• Canada: Neutral; if there is value to the registration of the documents then they are in favor.

 Decision not to accept IEEE 1003.5 or IEEE 1003.9 for registration at this time.
 

3.6.4 1003.6

 Not ready for PDAM registration at this time. TCOS is assuming language independence but a C language binding is acceptable at the ISO level.

4 Coordination

4.1 TSG1 Overview

 Jim Isaak presented the TSG1 status report (RTN-6).

 It is expected to be used in future profiles; portability portion is seen as important for heavy users of profiles.

 Recommendations are preliminary at this point and subject to change in TSG1.

 Work is expected to terminate in February, final report is currently on the table.  Main opportunity here is for member bodies to be aware of this activity.
 

4.2 EWOS & CEN

 Isak Korn provided an overview of the European standards efforts targeted to remove trade barriers by 1993.  They divided their standards between base standards (usually ISO) and functional standards that consist of profiles in the area of information technology:
 

1. Standard definition of information system description.
2. European procurement handbook for open systems based on OSI and testing.now growing beyond just OSI.

 ITSTC coordinates the standards between the 3 major European standards organizations.

 These are the people that want to adopt XPG3 as a European functional standard.  This effort was not successful and a EWOS working group was formed to develop a functional standard.

 EWOS workshops are also looking at character sets and internationalization issues.  This information will be provided to the RIN group.

 CEN/CENELEC has a project team working on security and tracking (informally) the work of 1003.6.  This information is available to the Security Rapportuer group.
 

4.3 Synchronization Procedure

 A report on the synchronization plan that was presented at the SC22 AG meeting was presented by the Convener.

 During this SC22 meeting changes were made in section 2.2.6 from the version discussed in the October WG15 meeting (WG15 N73 & N76).

 Main points are that documents should be distributed with at least 3 months for review and comment. Review and comment is required before CD registration for those members that are active in WG15 (if that member has no comment then that member should be no objection for CD registration)

 Once CD registration has been accomplished there is no restriction on comment. This lead to a discussion of how the mechanics of this plan would work.

 There is a problem perceived in the amount of change between drafts, as each draft is circulated for review and comment (this may be several POSIX working group drafts between each draft circulated at WG15).

 Problems perceived in the synchronization plan:

1. The current document does not REQUIRE a period of time for review.
2. Is it possible for the editor to document the changes from WG15 document to WG15 document.
3. The document submitted for CD registration should have no substantial changes from document circulated for review and comment.

 Discussion of how WG15 members can take part in the IEEE ballot processes and how IEEE handles comments/objections from non members.

 Discussion of how the IEEE ballot process works, how long it takes and how that ties into the ISO sync plan.

 Suggestion to change to the wording of the sync plan:  "...comparable in the points above to the working draft   review..."
 This would resolve the questions about the stability of the document reviewed and proposed as a CD.

 Discussion of SC22 balloting and CD registration guidelines.  Can we use existing practice in WG15?  Joe Cotea seems to have the final say in what he feels comfortable with.

 Request for smaller documents (normative sections of 200 pages or less) and then add sections to develop the standard over time ISO SQL (SC21) was used as an example.

 Another re-wording to two sections of the synchronization plan:

 2.2.6 Early WORKING draft distribution (1.1), review and comment distribution in WG15 and SC22 (1.2) of at least 3 months is essential to verify that the work of TCOS will result in a document that can be readily accepted for balloting in SC22

1. A cover letter on drafts requesting feedback on the general suitability of the work should be included. Issues related to
1. expected relationship and compatibility with other work (inside or outside JTC1)
2. appropriateness of the document in relation to the scope of the work, either missing or excess FUNDMENTAL contain
3. presentation, format and structure of the work, including language independence
4. suitability of this document, or a subsequent technical revision, for CD (PDAM) registration
5. and other specifically requested feedback must be raised at this time to provide direction for the development work.
2. Objections from participating members in WG15 WILL BE CONSIDERED OUT-OF-ORDER at the time of WG15 request for CD (PDAM) registration OF A DOCUMENT COMPATIBLE IN THE POINTS ABOVE TO THE WORKING DRAFT REVIEWED if such objections are not raised in writing to WG15 in the review and comment process.

 3.2.1 The division of work item JTC1.22.21 (POSIX) identifies a number of extensions to the parts of the document that would need to go through this process. JTC1 directives limit a document to two amendments before (strike revision) REPUBLICATION; and common sense leads to limitations on the number of amendments that can be handled independent of the main document.  Most of the amendments expected for 9945 will be in the form of extended functions and new clauses.

 Comment made that this is substantially the same discussion that was had in Paris during the October WG15 meeting.

 In general there is no object to getting a document to early. Earlier is better. The document will be updated and re-submitted to SC22 for approval.
 

5 New Business

5.1 eMail Announcement of SC22 Documents in Distribution

 WG15 has decided to create an informal mailing list for distribution of information that is of interest (including the availability of documents) to WG15 members.  Initial electronic distribution will be to a national body for re-distribution within that national body.
 

5.2 Profile Coordination ad hoc

 Proposal for a profile coordination ad hoc meeting to discuss those documents that are in CD, DIS or IS status.  This would include 9945-1 1003.4 PDAM 1003.6 PDAM 9945-2 and 1003.2a PDAM.

 Invites should include X/Open, NIST (app & osi ws), EWOS,  IEEE, OSF, UI, EUUG, UniForum Houston 30 COS, CEN/CENELEC, IPSIT. Also include members form Japan and pacific rim.  Request a limit of 2 per group attending.

 Note made that EUUG has changed its name and is now EurOpen.

 As per WG15 N75:  Before meeting request designation of delegates and request submission of profiles and existing work.
 

6 Review of Resolutions and Action Items

 Discussion that for any resolution WG15 has the right to change its mind at a later date.

 The WG 11 document number SC22 N842 Language independent data types and the WG11 N188 document covering language independent procedure calling mechanism should be used as a reference for resolution 4.

 Much discussion about OSCRL, the OSCRL Rapporteur group and if the WG15 N120 report should be the final report to SC22 as requested by the SC22 AG.  The OSCRL resolution was rejected and the subject will be reviewd at the next meeting after member bodies have reviewed WG15 N120 and the OSCRL issues.  Resolutions and action items were entered to achieve this.

 Five additional resolutions were proposed and passed with only editorial changes.

 In the future resolutions will be numbered sequential to infinity.  They will not be renumbered for each meeting.  First resolution of this meeting is number 93.

 A copy of the Resolutions is included as Attachment 6.

 Action items were reviewed and accepted with only editorial changes or removed where superseded by resolutions.

 A copy of the Action Items is included as Attachment 7.
 

7 Closing Process

7.1 Future meetings

 % 14-17 May 1991, Netherlands Tuesday Lunch thru Friday Lunch.
  Rapportuer and ad hoc meetings 13-14 May.
 % 4-8 November 1991, Sweden.
 % 18-22 May 1992, New Zealand.
 % Fall 92 Denmark.
 

7.2 Document Number Assignment

 Temporary documents were assigned WG15 numbers, attached to the minutes or left as temporary working documents as follows:
 
 

RTN #	WG15 #	Subject
1		SC22 AG Recommendations and resolutions.
2	119	Draft 2 of the LIS guidelines.
3		RIN recommendations.
4		Att to min US summary report on US action items.
5		Att to min US report on action item 34 re 9945-2.2.
6		TSG1 meeting report.
7	120	ad hoc OSCRL report.
8	122	Japanese National Profiles for POSIX.
9	123	Japan Answer to Questions on Internationalization.
10		Fwd to RIN Japan (JISC) Interface for Application Portability.
11		Att to min Action Item 41 Character set terms and character names.
12		Att to min Status Report on ECMA PCTE Standard.
13		Att to Min IEEE TCOS POSIX projects status report.
14
15	121	Revised sync plan (supersedes N107).

7.3 Selection of Vice Chair and Secretary for Next Meeting

 Isak Korn of Denmark was selected to be the Vice Chair and Domimic Dunlop of the United Kingdom was selected to be Secretary of the May 91 WG15 meeting in the Netherlands.
 

7.4 Agenda for next meeting.

 A proposed agenda was distributed at the end of this meeting.  It fill be formally circulated as WG15 N117.
 

7.5 Thanks to Host.

 Thanks were expressed to our hosts, IEEE and ANSI; to the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary of the meeting and to the Drafting Committee.

8 Adjournment.

 Attachment 1

 Jim Isaak Convener DEC

 Ten Tara Blvd  TTB1-5/G6
 Nashua NH 03062
 (603) 884-3634
 isaak@decvax.dec.com

 Arnie Powell Canada IBM Canada Ltd.

 105 Moatfield Dr.
 02/321
 North York, Ontario
 CANADA  M3B 3L9
 IBM
 (416) 443-5207

 Stephen R Walli Canada EDS of Canada, Ltd.

 1615 Dundas Street E, Whitby, Ontario
 Canada, Lin7s6
 (416) 644-3773
 walli@osmcl1.gm.hac.com

 Isak Korn Denmark Information Tech. Center

 Christian Winthers Vej 5
 DK-1860 Frederiksberg C
 Denmark
 +45 3123 4488
 i.korn@itc.dk

 Jean-Michel Cornu France Consultant

 69 Rue De Sein
 91130 Ris Onangis, France
 +33 1 69 43 48 47
 Jean-Michel.Cornu@end.fr or
 Jean-Michel.Cornu@afuu.fr

 Christian Brade Germany SNI AG

 Systems Engineering / Open Systems
 Otto-Hahn-Ring 6, D-8000 Munich 83
 +44 89 636 44922

 Ron Elliot Germany IBM Deutschland

 Kst. 2751, Bldg. 7032-87
 Postfach 80 08 80
 D7000 Stuttgart 80
 +49 7031-18 5097

 Yukiharu Imafuku Japan NTT DATA

 66-2 Horikawa-cho, Saiwai-Ku
 Kawasaki-shi, Kanagawa
 210 Japan
 +81 44-548-4555
 ima@rd.nttdata.jp

 Yasushi Nakahara Japan Toshiba Corp

 5-20-7 SORD Bldg
 MASAGO CHIBA-City,
 CHIBA, 260 Japan
 +81-0472-77-8670
 ynk%ome.toshiba.co.jp@uunet.uu.net

 Nobuo Saito Japan Keio University

 School of Environmental Information
 5322 Endo
 Fujisawa 252 Japan
 +81-466-47-5111 Ext 3256
 ns@sfc.keio.ac.jp

 Herman J. Weegenaar Nethherlands University of Groningen

 Economische Fac.
 Vakroep Accountancy
 Postbus 800
 9700 AV Groningen
 Netherlands
 31 55 792107

 Willem Wakker Netherlands ACE Associated Computer Experts

 Van Eeghenstraat 100
 1071 GL Amsterdam
 Netherlands
 +31 20 6646416
 willemw@ace.nl

 Dan Chacon United Kingdom BSI

 PO Box 375, Milton Keynes, MK14 6LL, UK
 +44 908 220908
 dan@bsiqa.uucp

 Domimic Dunlop United Kingdom The Standard Answer Ltd

 9 The Forty
 Cholsey
 Wallingford
 OXON OX10 9LH
 +44 491 652590
 domo@tsa.co.uk

 Don Folland United Kingdom CCTA

 Gildengate House
 Upper Green Lane
 Norwich,   NR3 1DW
 U.K.
 44 603 69 4713
 def@cctal.co.uk

 Martin Kirk United Kingdom X/Open Company Ltd

 Apex Plaza
 Forberry Rd
 Reading, Berks, UK RG 11AX
 +44 734 50831
 m.kirk@xopen.co.uk

 John Hill USA Unisys

 MS E8-130, BOX 500, Blue Bell, PA, 19424
 (215) 986-4565
 hill@prc.unisys.com

 Hal Jesperson Project Editor (USA) POSIX Software Group

 447 Lakeview Way, Redwood City, Ca, 94062, USA
 (415) 364-3410
 hlj@posix.com

 Roger Martin USA NIST

 Buld 225, Room B266, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899, USA
 (301) 975-3295
 rmartin@swe.ncsd.nist.gov

 Barry Needham USA Arix Corporation

 821 Fox Lane, San Jose, Ca, 95148, USA
 (408) 922-1767
 sun!arete!barry of barry@arix

 Mary Lynne Nielsen Observer (USA) IEEE

 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ, 08855, USA
 (908) 562-3827

 Paul Rabin Expert, Language Independence (USA)

 Open Software Foundation
 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142, USA
 (617) 621-8873
 rabin@osf.org

 Susanne W. Smith USA Windsound Consulting

 6225-137th Place SW, Edmonds, WA, 98026
 (206) 742-5008
 sws@calvin.wa.com

 Donn Terry USA Hewlett Packard

 MS-99, 3404 E. Hormong Rd, Ft Collins, CO, 80525
 (303) 229-2367
 donn@hpfcla.hp.com

 Alan Weaver USA IBM

 (512) 823-2611
 weaver@aixsm.austin.ibm.com or uunet!aixsm!weaver

Attachment 2

Date:                 23-26 October 1990
Location:            Rosario Hotel, Orcas Island +206-376-2222 [East Sound, WA, 98245, USA]
Host Contact:     Donn Terry +303-229-2838 [USA]

Chair:                 Arnie Powell +416-443-5207 [Canada]
Vice Chair:         Herman J. Weegenaar +31 55 792107 [ Netherlands]
Secretary           Barry Needham +408-922-1767 [USA]

Rapporteur Meetings:      Internationalization         4-5 October, London UK
                                     Conformance Testing     22-24 October, with WG15
                                     Security                        15-19 October, Seattle WA USA, with 1003.6

Ad Hoc Meetings            OSCRL                         22-23 October, with WG15
                                     Language Ind                 22-23 October, with WG15

1 Opening of meeting

 1.1 Welcome from Host
 1.2 Introduction and roll call of Technical Experts
 1.3 Selection of secretary & Drafting Committee
 1.4 Adoption of agenda
 1.5 Approval of minutes

 2.1 Action Items {N115, N116, RTN4, RTN5, RTN13}
 2.2 Issues List {SD3}
 2.3 Report on IEEE TCOS Standards Projects

  2.3.1 IEEE 1003.0 report

 2.4 Liaison Reports

  2.4.1 C Language
  2.4.2 C++
  2.4.3 PCTE
  2.4.4 WG11

 2.5 OSCRL Activity {RTN7}
 2.6 Rapportuer Group report / status

  2.6.1 Security (Kevin Murphy)
  2.6.2 Conformance Testing (Roger Martin)
  2.6.3 Internationalization {RTN3}

 2.7 SC22 AG Report

 3.1 9945-1 Status

  3.1.1 Language Independent ad hoc report
  3.1.2 IEEE 1003.1 status

 3.2 9945-2 Status
 3.4 9945-3 Status
 3.5 Language binding status
 3.6 CD/PDAM Registration {N44, N46, N112}

  3.6.1 1003.2a
  3.6.2 1003.4
  3.6.3 1003.5 and 1003.6
  3.6.4 1003.6

 4.1 TSG1 Overview (review expected final report materials/impact)
 4.2 CEN & EWOS Activity
 4.3 Sync procedure {N107}

 5.1 eMail announcement of SC22 documents in distribution
 5.2 Profile coordination ad hoc

7 Closing Process

 7.1 Future Meetings
 7.2 Document Number Assignment
 7.3 Selection of Vice Chair and new Secretary for next meeting
 7.4 Agenda for next meeting
 7.5 Thanks to host

Attachment 3

 National Body Action Item Status
 

 Action Item #52: Those with outstanding actions to provide written reports on action items in time for circulation before the next meeting.

 Status: This report is in response to this action item.

 Action Item #24: New synchronization proposal required. Take into account rejection of P1003.4 registration & request for  language independent work.

 Status: N107 has been created and forwarded to SC22. The U.S. would like for WG15 to approve N107.

 Action Item #44: Synchronization Strategy. Submit WG15 N076 to the SC22 secretariat by the end of July 19~0 in response to resolution #110 of SC22 N729.

 Status: N076 has been forwarded to SC22.

 Action Item #17: Nomination of additional experts on security to the rapporteur group.

 Status: The U.S. national body has selected Al Weaver to be the security rapporteur.

 Action Item #21: Review and Comment. Examine documents P1003.3 part 1, P1003.4a, and P1003.6 to ensure that they are correctly formatted, written in an appropriate language form and can be progressed to CD or PDAM as appropriate.

 Status: The technical editors of these groups have been working with the project editor to ensure that these documents are in the proper format.

 Action Item #22: Review and Comment. Examine P1003.5 & P1003.9 when circulated through SC22 to determine whether they are suitable for registration as CD in October 1990 (is underlying language independent model of services sufficient i.e. both adequate and consistent).

 Status: P1003.5 draft #6 is appropriate for review and comment but not suitable for CD registration.

 Action Item #32: Request to member bodies to nominate representatives to the Rapporteur Group on Conformance Testing (RGCT-) and invite additional experts from international, regional, and national bodies which are undertaking effort in CT.

 Status: NIST is an interested U.S. national organization for testing accreditation. Roger Martin from NIST is the U.S. rapporteur to RGCT. All interested parties have been notified.

 Action Item #36: POSIX national profiles and internationalisation.  Contribute any POSIX national profiles they have developed to the rapporteur group on internationalisation for coordination along with a cover letter explaining the profile.

 Status: The U.S. does not produce national profiles.

 Action Item #48: Internationalisation. Support the rapporteur group on internationalisation (RIN) by providing to the rapporteur group early visibility of ballot comments related to internationalisation via the convenor, and where possible by electronic mail.  This information should be provided at the same time that the ballot comments are provided to the secretariat.  Nominate candidates to serve as liaison to the proposed working group in internationalisation which may affect the work of RIN to the convenor, to be forwarded to the proposed SC22 working group on internationalization and for use by the RIN. Nominate candidates for internationalization rapporteur.

 Status: The U.S. national body is active in the area of internationalization. Donn Terry is the rapporteur for internationalization.

 Action Item #6: Copy of US member body statement on progressing the X Window System as an international standard to be sent to convener for distribution.

 Status: Completed.

 Action Item #8: Availability of first phase of P1003.0.

 Status: The current draft #9 of P1003.0 is not suitable for circulation.

 Action Item #9: P1003.6 DTLS. Copy to go to Cornelia Boldyreff.

 Status: P1003.6 is no longer using DTLS. Al Weaver will notify Cornelia Boldyreff.

 Action Item #25: Coordination of Security-Related Activities. Review the scope of IEEE/CS POSIX security related activities with regard to the proposed program of work and terms of reference of JTC1/SC27, SC21, SC1~3 and their working groups. Identify any areas of potential overlap. Report these findings to WG15 for consideration at its first meeting in 1991.

 Status: Should be available for WG15 meeting during the week of October 22, 1990.

 Action Item #38: Special Character Names. Provide a report identifying the names of special characters used in POSIX and their relevance to the work of WG15. Forward it to SC2 of consideration.

 Status: Hal Jespersen has generated a list of the special character names. Action has been taken to forward this document to SC2.

 Action Item #39: Synchronization of Ballot Resolution/Provision of Disposition of Comments report for SC22 member body comments.

 Status: The U.S. intends to provide a disposition of comments report.

 Action Item #46: Request for Language Independent 9945-1. Request the IEEE to expedite the completion of a language independent specification of 9945-1 that is precisely functionally equivalent to the existing 9945-1:1990 and ~ provide a C language binding that is syntactically and semantically identical. Provide a detailed status report on this issue including a synchronization proposal at the next meeting of WG15.

 Status: There will be a language independent ad hoc meeting on October 22 and 23 during the WG15 meeting. A report will be giver. there. Paul Rabir. %will be circulating copies of appropriate documents to this meeting.

 Action item #34: To forward a revised draft of IEEE P1003.2 for registration as CD 9945-2.2.

 Status: The IEEE is currently resolving ballots against P1003.2 Draft 10.  Draft 10 contains significantly new internationalisation material that is still being actively reviewed by the WG15 RIN group.  Therefore, the U.S. National Body recommends that a later draft of P1003.2 be forwarded for registration as CD 9945-2.2.

 To: SC22/WG15
 From: Hal Jespersen, Project Editor, SC22/WG15
 Subj: Character set terms and character names.
 With respect to the following action items against the project editor and the U.S. the following results were found.

Action item #41. Project Definition of Terms. Seek guidance from SCl Editor regarding the full ISO definition of the following terms:  byte, octet, glyph, character set, coded character set,  character repertoire, coded character, multi-bvte  character, wide characters, unencoded character, graphic  character; and publish reply to WG15 experts.

 Here's what we found in ISO 2382 "IT--Vocabulary" and ISO 824
 "Terminology related to microprocessors."  [Both are contained in the ISO/AFNOR Dictionary of Computer Science.  Thanks to Mary Lynne Nielsen of the IEEE for her help with this research.]  I have also added the definition from DIS 10646 if it differed.
 

 byte: A string that consists of eight bits. (aka 8-bit byte, octet)

 octet: See byte. 10646: A string of eight bits considered as a unit.

 glyph: Undefined.

 character set: A finite set of different characters that is complete for a given purpose.

 character repertoire: Undefined.

 coded character: Undefined. 10646: A character together with a distinctive set of binary digits (bits) by which it may be uniquely represented for machine use.

 coded character set: A coded set whose elements are single characters.  10646: A set of unambiguous rules that establishes a character set and the one-to-one relationship between each character of the set and its coded form and representation.

 multibyte character: Undefined.

 multi-octet coded character set: Undefined.  10646: A coded character set in which each character is coded with two or more octets.

 wide character: Undefined.

 unencoded character: Undefined.

 graphic character: A character, other than a control character, that has a visual representation and is normally produced by writing, printing, or displaying.  10646: A character, other than a control function, that has a visual representation normally handwritten, printed, or displayed, and that is coded with one or more octets.

 graphic symbol: 10646: The visual representation of a graphic character as presented.

 character: A member of a set of elements that is used for the representation, organization, or control of data. 10646: [samei

 coded set: A set of elements which is mapped onto another set according to a code.

 string: A sequence of elements of the same nature, such as characters, considered as a whole.

 bit: Either of the 0 or 1 when used in the pure binary numeratlon system.

 control character: A character whose occurrence in a particular context specifies a control function.  NOTES: (1) a control character may be recorded for use in a subsequent action. (2) A control character is not a graphic character but may have a graphic representation in some circumstances. (3) Control characters are described in ISO 646 and ISO 6429.

 to display: To present data visually.

 code: A collection of rules that maps the elements of one set on to the elements of a second set.  NOTES: (1) The elements may be characters or character strings. (2) The first set is the coded set and the second set is the code element set. (3) An element of the code element set may be related to more than one element of the coded set but the reverse is not true.

 38. US  Special Character Names. Provide a report identifying the names of special characters used in POSIX and their relevance to the work of WG15.   Forward it to SC2 for consideration.

 The following table shows character names in POSIX.1 and POSIX.2 on the left.  The first term on the left of a solidus is the formal term, used in character set description files; the term on the right is a more informal synonym.  The capitalised terms on the right are from ISO/IEC 10646, but only when they differ from the first term in the left column.

 alert
 ampersand
 apostrophe/single-quote
 asterisk
 backslash                                REVERSE SOLIDUS
 backspace
 carriage-return
 circumflex                                CIRCUMFLEX ACCENT
 colon
 comma
 commercial-at/at
 dollar-sign
 equal-sign                                EQUALS SIGN
 escape
 exclamation-mark
 form-feed
 grave-accent/backquote
 greater-than
 hyphen                                    HYPHEN MINUS
 left-brace/left curly bracket        LEFT CURLY BRACKET
 left-bracket/left square bracket   LEFT SQUARE BRACKET
 left-parenthesis
 less-than                                 THAN SIGN
 newline                                    LINE FEED
 numher-sign
 percent                                    PERCENT SIGN
 period                                      FULL STOP
 plus-sign
 question-mark
 quotation-mark/doukle-quote
 right-brace/right curly bracket     RIGHT CURLY BRACKET
 right-bracket/right square kracket RIGHT SQUARE BRACKET
 right-parenthesis
 semicolon
 slash                                       SOLIDUS
 tab                                          CHARACTER TABULATION
 tilde
 underscore/underline                 LOW LINE
 vertical-line/vertical bar
 vertical-tab                                LINE TABULATION

 Hal Jespersen
 
 

POSIX Language-Independent Specifications Status Report

1. Requirements
    1.1 SC22 accepted registration of 9945-1 in the form of a C language binding based on the commitment of the US national body to provide a revision in a language-independent form without delay.  The US national body has agreed to provide POSIX standards in this form.

    1.2 TCOS-SEC believes that non-formal methods of language-independent specification will be acceptable to SC22 and to WG15. Neither SC22 nor WG15 has endorsed or provided to the US national body a description of required or recommended methods.

2. TCSO-SS Methods for Language-Independent Specifications
    2.1 Use abstract model to allow flexible language bindings.
    2.2 Use semi-formal notation for abstract data-type and procedure call interface specifications
    2.3 Use non-formal descriptions of interface semantics

3. LIS Guidelines Document
    3.1 Early drafts were distributed from 12/88 to 8/89.
    3.2 Draft 1.0 was distributed in Danvers (7/90).
    3.3 Draft 2.0 was distributed in Seattle (10/90).
    3.4 PLAN: Distribute draft 3.0 in the 11/90 mailing.

4. Base Standards
    4.1 1003.1: A draft of chapter 4 (Process Environment, 20 procedure interfaces) in language-independent form was submitted before the Seattle meeting, and revised during the Seattle meeting.  This revision generaed several new guidelines and extensions to the notation.

    PLAN: Using the revised guidelines, with chapter 4 as a model, several additional chapters will be prepared in language-independent form before the New Orleans meeting (1/91). Expected completion of first draft by 10/91. First ballot in Spring 92.

    4.2 1003.2: Draft 10 includes sketches of language-independent specifications for the C language interfaces.

    4.3 1003.4: A substantial draft of 1003.4 in language-independent form was prepared during the 1/90 meeting. This needs to be revised to accord with the new guidelines and and with changes to the C language binding.

    4.4 other: No other language-independent specifications have been prepared. However, draft base standards such as P1003.6 and P1003.8 are largely language-independent.

5. Language BIndings
    5.1 C Language: All current C Language bindings are thick (self- sufficient) bindings.  The (thin) C Language binding (1003.16) corresponding to the language-independent version of 1003.1 has not been started.  Thin C Language bindings to other base standards have not yet been started.

    PLAN: Expected completion of first draft of P1003.16 by 10/91. First ballot by Spring 92.

    5.2 Ada: The current draft is a thick (self-sufficient) binding to 1003.1. This would need to be revised to be a binding to the language-independent version of 1003.1.

    5.3 FORTRAN: The current draft is a thin binding to the C binding of 1003.1. This would need to be revised to be a binding to the language-independent version of 1003.1.

    5.4 Future language bindings should be made to language independent base standards.

6. Test Assertions
    6.1 Currently, all test assertions are in language-specific form. Test assertions are not separated into those that are language dependent and those that are language independent.

7. Issues
    7.1 How can the language-independence work be scheduled so that
    TCOS-SS standards development gets the most benefit and avoid unnecessary duplication of work.

    7.2 Should conformance requirements for language bindings to base standards be specified?

    7.3 Should language bindings and base standards be permitted to contain ovelapping specifications?

    7.4 What are the requirements for interoperability between language bindings?

    7.5 Should language-independent base standards primarily formalize interface specifications or semantic specifications?

    7.6 Should test assertions be separated into language-dependent and language-independent?
 
 

Attachment 4

Standard
We still plan to forward a draft standard of the abstract specification!"  approval by the  ECMA General Assembly in December 1990, although timescales are now very tight. We have developed the C and Ada binding strategy to a point wher we are confident the bindings will not need further changes to the abstract specification and we have a complete draft of the C binding. We now plan to submit the C and Ada bindings for approval in June 1991 and expect no difficulty in meeting that date.

We are pleased with the emerging results of separating language bindings from abstract specification.  I believe it would benefit the POSIX community to hold a small meeting to discuss our PCTE experience and how this might be used in future POSIX specifications.

Reference Model
We have submitted Version 4 of the ECMA Reference Model for CASE Environment Frameworks as a Technical Report for approval by the ECMA General Assembly in December 1990.  Don Folland of the UK has a copy. It has changed in detail but not in outline or approach since Version 2 which was circulated to ISO/IEC JTCl/SC22/WG15 as N069. The ECMA RM will be used as the base definition for the NIST ISEE RM and we in ECMA hope to work with NIST on future development.

The ECMA RM has much in common with the 1003.0 Guide to POSIX Open Systems Environments and in some respects they are complementary. I am submitting separately some comments on the Guide from a PCTE viewpoint.
 
 

Attachment 5

     Document     Draft Plan Date Usage

 1003.0     11  1/91 IEEE Mock Ballot
     .0     13  8/91 IEEE Ballot, WG15 Comment

 1003.1A     4  5/91 IEEE Ballot, WG15 Comment
     .1 LI   TBD  10/91 IEEE Ballot, WG15 Comment
     .1 C    TBD  10/91 IEEE Ballot, WG15 Comment

 1003.2     11  1/91 IEEE Ballot
     .2A     6  2/91 IEEE Ballot, PDAM Registration
     .2 2.1  9  9/89 CD Registration
     .2 2.2  11+  1/91 CD Registration

 1003.3     13  11/90 IEEE Ballot
     .3.1    12  2/91 IEEE Ballot
     .3.2    1  TBD TBD

 1003.4     10+  11/90 IEEE Ballot, CD Registration
     .4A     5  11/90 IEEE Ballot, CD Registration
     .4B LI  TBD  TBD TBD

 1003.5     6  9/90 IEEE Ballot
     .5     7  5/91 IEEE Ballot
     .5     9  2/92 IEEE Ballot

 1003.6     9  2/91 IEEE Ballot, WG15 Comment

 1003.8     4  1/91 IEEE Mock Ballot
     .8     5  5/91 IEEE Ballot, WG15 Comment

 1003.9     8  11/90 IEEE Ballot, WG15 Comment

 1003.11     4  4/91 IEEE Mock Ballet

 1003.12     TBD  10/91 IEEE Mock Ballet
     .12     TBD  5/92 IEEE Ballot

 1003.14     5  10/91 IEEE Ballot

 1003.DSN    S  TBD 10/91 IEEE Ballot

 1224-Obj  2 7/91 IEEE Ballot
 -X.400     2  7/91 IEEE Ballot

 1238.0     4  10/91 IEEE Ballot
     .1     TBD  7/93 IEEE Ballot
 

Attachment 6

93. Distribution of WG15 Correspondence:

 The official correspondence constitutes an important part of that history; and

 It is important for WG15 to have access to that correspondence as part of its deliberations;

 Therefore, all official WG15 correspondence should:

1.   be assigned WG15 document numbers,
2.   be distributed to WG15 member bodies

94. Language Independent Specifications:

 The production of a language independent specification corresponding to IS 9945-1:1990 and subsequent C language-based amendments, together with a C-language binding to that language independent specification, is required by the Division of Work Item JTC 1.22.21; and

 The production of further language bindings to the language independent specification corresponding to 9945-1:1990 as subsequently amended is ultimately desirable; and

 WG15 considers that "thin" language bindings (which must be read in conjunction with a service definition) are suitable candidates for standardization, but "thick" bindings (those which incorporate a service definition duplicating and possibly conflicting with the service definition provided by another standard) are not;

 Therefore, JTC1/SC22/WG15 requests the U.S. member body to provide a schedule for the delivery to WG15 and SC22 of 9945-1-related documents which is subject to the following constraints (listed in order of precedence, highest first):
 

 1. The incorporation or development of language independence  features shall not be on the critical path(s) for the  production of C language-based documents;

 2. The ultimate goal is the production of an extended, language  independent 9945-1 and accompanying "thin" binding to the C  language at the earliest possible date;

 3. Every attempt shall be made to observe JTC1/ISO rules on the  bringing forward of amendments etc., with the need to seek  waivers being highlighted if this appears necessary in order  to satisfy the constraints above;

 4. Language bindings, other than those for the C language, shall  not be brought forward to WG15 or SC22 for any purpose other  than review and comment before the language independent 9945-1  has been registered as a DIS; and

 5. Where possible in the light of other constraints, C  language-based documents shall include a informative annex  setting out a language independent definition of the services  defined by the normative body of the document;

 The schedule shall identify timeframes for at least the following document circulation and registration milestones:

 1. "Thick" C bindings for amendments to 9945-1:1990;

 2. Language independent specifications corresponding to  9945-1:1990 and subsequent amendments;

 3. "Thin" C bindings to language independent specifications  corresponding to 9945-1:1990 and subsequent amendments;

 4. A combined language independent 9945-1 and accompanying "thin"  C binding to the services that it defines; and

 5. "Thin" bindings for further languages to the whole of the  combined language independent 9945-1, or to supersets or  subsets of the services which it defines.
 

95. Request for Liaison from WG11 to WG15

 The issue of language bindings is pertinent to the work of WG15;

 Therefore, WG15 requests WG11 to identify a WG11 liaison to WG15.
 

96. Conformance Requirements for LIS

97. Endorsement of LIS Guide Goals and Non-Goals

98. Endorsement of Current Direction of LIS Work

 Therefore, WG15 endorses the current direction of work in the development of LIS and associated language bindings, and encourages its rapid completion.
 

99. P1003.0 Technical Report

 The U.S. member body is providing a report to WG15 on the appropriateness of using P1003.0 as a WG15 Technical Report; and

 WG15 is not certain which of the two following actions is appropriate;

 Therefore, WG15 requests the SC22 secretariat to review this issue and request SC22 to take whichever of the following actions is appropriate:

 1. If P1003.0 is within the scope of WG15, then authorize a  division of work item to include development of a Technical  Report based on P1003.0; or

 2. If P1003.0 is not within the scope of WG15, then approve the  submission of a New Proposal (NP) to develop a Technical  Report based on P1003.0.
 

100. PDAM registration of P1003.4

101. PDAM registration of P1003.4

102. Request for Comments on Non-C Language Bindings

 International input regarding these specifications is important in the evolution of these documents;

 Therefore, WG15 strongly encourages all member bodies to provide written comments and guidance on these documents prior to the next WG15 meeting. Specific comments are requested on issues such as:

•  language binding versus language independent specifications
•  current revision of the existing base language standards
•  resources needed to review
•  "thick" versus "thin" approach for specifications

103. Substantive Changes to Documents Undergoing WG15 Review and Comment

 WG15 national bodies wish to be responsive to the developing organizations in providing timely comments; and

 Drafts of the IEEE documents under consideration for adoption as part of WG15's work item often are large and require a very great deal of effort to review and comment; and

 The changes between drafts distributed for review and comment are often substantial in both number and complexity;

 Therefore, WG15 requests the US member body to provide summary information explaining the major changes which have been made between the new document being distributed and the version of the document previously distributed to WG15.
 

104. Clarification of CD Registration Authority

105. Size of Base Documents Submitted for WG15 Consideration

 Therefore, WG15 requests the US national body to notify the US development body that for future work WG15 prefers the submission of draft standards for WG15 consideration which consist of a base document of limited (reasonable) size and multiple amendments to those base documents.
 

106. Early Visibility of IEEE Draft Standards

 Therefore, WG15 requests the US national body submit to WG15, as early as possible, a working draft document which makes clear the structure and technical direction of the effort.
 

107. Revision of Synchronization Plan

108. Review of OSCRL Activity Report

 Therefore, WG15 requests the OSCRL Rapporteur and experts to:

 1. Review WG15 N120 and provide feedback to the WG15  convenor by March, 1991.

 2. Consider convening an OSCRL Rapporteur Group meeting  in conjunction with the May, 1991 meeting of WG15.
 

109. Internationalization Requirement for LIS

 WG15 believes that the current "National Profile" issues should be appropriately discussed in the LIS work;

 Therefore, WG15 requests the U.S. member body to initiate the discussions regarding internationalization issues, especially of character and "National Profile" related items, with WG15/RIN.
 

110. Internationalization Functionality in P1003.2

111. Appreciations - Host, Drafting Committee, and Others

1.  WG15 expresses its appreciation to the U.S. member body for  hosting the October, 1990 meeting.  Special thanks is extended  to Mr. Donn Terry for arranging the meeting.
2.  WG15 expresses its thanks to the IEEE Computer Society for  sponsoring the meeting and the Tuesday evening dinner.
3.  WG15 expresses its appreciation to the drafting committee (Mr.  Ron Elliott, Mr. Martin Kirk, Mr. Roger Martin, and Mr.  Yashushi Nakahara) for their work in drafting the resolutions  and drafting items for the October, 1990 WG15 meeting.
4. WG15 expresses its appreciation to Orcas Printing and Graphics  for providing the printer used during the meeting which  enabled the timely review and completion of action items and  resolutions.
5.  WG15 expresses it appreciation to Arnie Powell and Barry  Needham for their outstanding support as chair and secretary  of this meeting.

Attachment 7

1. Convenor Provide a 'white paper' on FIMS to WG15 (from Brussels)  (Paris #7)

2. Netherlands Provide information about Language compatible arithmetic  standard for circulation to WG15 Netherlands Convenor.  (Paris #12)

3. Convenor Document Circulation for Review and Comment P1003.3 pt1,  P1003.4a, P1003.6 to be circulated to WG15 experts for  review and comment. (Paris #20)

4. Member Bodies Review and Comment Examine documents P1003.3pt1,  P1003.4a, P1003.6 to ensure that they are correctly formatted,  written in an appropriate language/form and can be  progressed to CD or PDAM as appropriate.  (Paris # 21)

5. Member Bodies Review and Comment Examine P1003.5 & P1003.9 when  circulated through SC22 to determine whether they are suitable  for registration as CD in October 1990 (is underlying  language independent model of services sufficient i.e.  both adequate and consistent).  (Paris #22)

6. US  Coordination of Security-Related Activities.  Review the scope  of IEEE/CS POSIX security related activities with regard  to the proposed program of work and terms of reference of  JTC1/SC27, JTC1/SC21, JTC1/SC18 and their working groups.  Identify any areas of potential overlap. Report these  findings to WG15 for consideration of its first meeting  in 1991. (Paris #25)

7. US & Convenor New CD 9945-2 Document.  Forward a revised draft of  IEEE P1003.2 for registration as CD 9945-2.2.  (Paris #34)

8. Convenor Request second CD ballot for CD9945-2.2 from SC22 (upon  receipt of a revised draft of IEEE P1003.2). (Paris #35)

9. RIN & Convenor POSIX National Profiles.  Seek guidance from Working  Rapporteur  Group on Internationalization on improvements to  the practice of WG15's handling of POSIX National Profiles.  (Paris #37)

10. Convenor Distribute a list of SC24/WG1 documents related to  windowing.

11. Convenor Assign WG15 document number and distribute copies  of all convenor correspondence sent in response to action  items, to WG15.

12. U.S. Provide IEEE 1003.2A, Draft 6 to SC22 Secretariat for  registration as PDAM to 9945-2.

13. U.S. Prepare a detailed schedule for development and  synchronization of language independent and C-language  binding amendments to 9945-1 for IEEE 1003.1A, 1003.4,  1003.6, 1003.8. Submit to WG15 for review and comment.

14. National Bodies Nominate candidates for position of official liaison  from WG15 to WG11 (Binding techniques)

15. U.S.  Obtain materials relating to the development of LIS for  GKS, PHIGS, and SQL for use in WG15's LIS work.

16. Convenor Develop list of WG15 work items and the potential  expiration dates if no progress is demonstrated and  distribute this list to WG15.

17. U.S.  Provide a written report on language binding issues, such  as name spaces, for use by WG11 in providing a report on  the nature and extent of any problems at the 1991 SC22  Plenary. (Ref: SC22 AG recommendation F)

18. Isak Korn Provide an annotated bibliography of known CEC, SOGITS,  CEN/CENELEC, ITSTC, EWOS and other European documents of  interest to WG15.

19. U.S.  Provide a report describing P1003.0 and its  appropriateness for use as a WG15 TR.

20. Canada & Japan Notify the WG15 Security Rapporteur of the name of  their Security rapporteur.

21. WG15 RIN   Identify the parts of P1003.2 that affect  internationalization, and submit that information to the  U.S. member body.

22. U.S. Request that the P1003.2 Working Group provide those  portions of the draft P1003.2 document for  those parts identified by the WG15 RIN (see 12).

23. U.S. Initiate a dialogue in order to give advanced visibility  with RIN on internationalization issues, especially those  pertaining to networking.

24. Convenor Report the results of the R&C on the P1003.5 and  P1003.9 documents to the WG15 member bodies prior to  the next meeting.

25. Convenor Notify RIN rapporteurs of the rescheduled Spring 1991  meeting which will coincide with the WG15 meeting.  (May 13 - 17).

26. Convenor Determine the degree of participation which could be  expected from South Pacific countries if the WG15 meeting  were held in New Zealand (April 1992). Report to WG15  prior to May 1991.

27. Member Bodies Determine the degree of participation which could  be expected from member bodies if the WG15 meeting were  held in New Zealand (April 1992).  Report to convenor by  April, 1991.

28. US Provide information to the convenor for distribution to  WG15 Heads of Delegation on how to participate in the  IEEE ballot process.

29. Convenor Distribute information on how to participate in the IEEE
  ballot process to WG15 HODs.

30. US  Provide WG15 with a summary list of changes made between  IEEE P1003.2 draft 9 which was distributed to WG15 for  registration as a CD and the next draft which will be  submitted for CD registration. This summary to be  provided when the P1003.2 draft is submitted to WG15.

31. Convenor Update Synchronization Plan (N107) based on October 1990  discussions of WG15; redistribute to WG15 national bodies  as N121; and report to SC22 for SC22 endorsement.

32. Convenor Submit WG15 request to SC22 secretariat to provide  interpretation of JTC1 procedures with regard to CD  registration authority (clauses 6.5.1.1 - Preparation,  6.5.2.2 through 6.5.2.8 - Finalization, and 6.5.4 -  Combined Voting).

33. US  Notify US development body of WG15's desire to receive  future draft standards of limited size with subsequent  multiple amendments to those standards.

34. Convenor Set up a WG15 e-mail distribution list for use in rapid,  informal distribution of WG15 material.

35. Member Bodies Notify convenor of national body e-mail address for  inclusion in the WG15 e-mail distribution list.

36. Convenor Distribute a Draft Agenda for a WG15 ad hoc Coordination  Meeting (per N075) to WG15 national bodies   (deadline = November 1, 1990).

37. Convenor Distribute a Meeting Announcement for the WG15 ad hoc  Coordination Meeting (per N075) to WG15 national bodies   (deadline = November 1, 1990).

38. Member Bodies Identify, and notify convenor of, potential participants  who should be invited to the WG15 ad hoc Coordination  Meeting (deadline = December 1, 1990).

39. Netherlands Notify convenor of location of next WG15 meeting  in the Netherlands (deadline = December 20, 1990)

40. Member Bodies Identify, and notify the convenor, of any persons who  could regularly provide status reports to WG15 on C++, C,  and PCTE.

41. Member Bodies Review N120 and provide comments to WG15 convenor by  March, 1991.

42. Herman Weegenaar Coordinate WG15 OSCRL activities between now and  the May 1991 meeting of WG15.

43. Convenor As soon as possible, circulate a typed version of N120 to  WG15 member bodies for review.

44. Convenor Distribute OSCRL feedback prior to the May, 1991 meeting  of WG15.