1.1 The meeting was opened by Mr. Arnie Powell, the Lead Rapporteur, at 13:10 on 23.10.92 in the Holiday Inn, Utrecht. Mr. Powell explained the objectives of the Rapporteur group and suggested that attendees should review the Terms of Reference (WG15 N277). 1.2 The attendee list is attached to these minutes (Attachment 1). 1.3 Ron Elliott acted as secretary. Don Folland, Peter Owens and Ron Elliott volunteered to act on the drafting committee. 1.4 The agenda (RGCPA N019) was adopted with the correction of the date. 1.5 The minutes were approved without modification. 1.6 Mr. Powell agreed to act as chair of the next meeting.
3 Project Activities
2.1 Action Items 9105-02 Open, new action item 9210-01 9201-01 Closed 9201-02 Open 9201-03 Closed 9201-04 Closed 9201-05 Closed 9201-06 Closed 9201-07 Closed 9201-08 Open 9201-09 Closed 2.2 JTC1 or SC22 actions affecting the group. 2.3 Liaison Reports SGFS RGCPA N020 was distributed as the liaison report from SGFS. Item 7 was discussed at some length.
- It was suggested that POSIX Profiles under development should be published to a wider audience. (action item 9210-02)
- How will POSIX profiles be coordinated with the regional workshops. Action item 9210-03 and 9210-04
- Are there any implications in the new procedures on which WG15 should comment? Action item 9210-05
- What information should go to the Authorised Subgroup meeting in London in December, or to the next SGFS plenary. TCOS profiles, conformance test procedures, and 1003.0 are examples of documents which might be forwarded.
EWOS The EG CAE work identified a number of issues which fall into two categories, technical and managerial. An EG OSE was created to move forward the technical issues and the managerial issueswere moved to the TA. Documents EG CAE 45 and 49 should be forwarded to the RGCPA. The EG OSE will not be writing profile themselves. OIW At the last meeting of OSE/CT there were two main discussion points of interest to RGCPA:
- A process has been defined for handling user requests coming from other groups.
- The EWOS documents were reviewed and found to be suitable for starting discussions within OSE/CT
There was no report from AOW. 2.4 Participant Reports X/Open Is involved in producing profile and CCTA is producing a Guide to the X/Open profiles. It was suggested that it would be useful to know where the POSIX profiles and X/Open profiles overlap and how the POSIX work is incorporated. IEEE 1003.0 ballot closed with 81 voting members, 28 afirmative, 30 negative, and 23 abstentions. 1123 comments and objections were received and the resolution process is underway. Planning for a recirculation around April 1993. Draft 16 will be sent to SC22 for CD registration. CCTA notes that there is interest in business functional profiles, which are written in a form which business people can understand. P2003 The 2003 group is looking at conformance testing of profiles. There is a lot of problem understanding what profiles are going to be, whether they can be subsets of standards or specify extensions to standards. There is a White Paper produced by the 2003 group talking to these problems. (2003 N005) 2.5 Liaisons Discussions as whether several bodies need to apply for C-liaison status to JTC1. A resolution was written.
4 New Business
3.1 Issues List (RGCPA SD-2) The issues are all contained in the Isuues List (RGCPA SD-2) which is attached to these minutes. 3.2 Review of SGFS recommendations/actions
Action item 9210-13
3.3 9945-1 Profile Activity
There is no known activity (a not published FIPS is being worked)
3.4 9945-2 Profile Activity
No known activity
3.5 9945-3 Profile Activity
No known activity
3.6 Language Bindings
No known activity
3.7 TR Guide to POSIX OSE
3.8 Test Methods Issues
There is work going on in other rapporteur groups which is of interest to RGCPA, especially the work of RGCT.
3.9 Anticipated Profiles
FIPS 151-2, which is not yet released by NIST, should be reviewed by RGCPA, to see what teh US government is doing. There is a similar process starting for 9945-2.
There was no new business noted.5 Review / Approval of Resolutions
The resolutions (Attachment 2), action items (Attachment 3) and issues (SD-2) were all reviewed and approved as shown in the attached documents. The suggestion of two new issues, coming from the minutes of the last meeting, were discarded as not belonging an issue list.6 Closing Process
6.1 Future Meeting. Meeting May 10-11, 1993 in Heidelberg Meeting Oct 1993 is dependent on WG15 meeting dates 6.2 Document Number Assignment 6.3 Agenda for Next Meeting TR10000.x, FIPS 9945-1 and 9945-2 review, 2003 N005 review, 1003.0 Draft 16 should all be on the agenda for the next meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 on Saturday 24.10.93.
R. J. Elliott Germany M. Einseln Observer D. E. Folland CCTA A. Hankinson Observer J. Isaak WG15 Convener K. Lewis Observer R. Martin Observer P. W. Meier USA Y. Nakahara Japan P. T. Owens CCTA M. van Neste Observer B. Purdy Observer A. M. Schoka Observer F. Schultz NIST Y. Suehiro Observer S. Swearinger Observer W. Wakker EWOS EG-OSE S. Yamada Japan
9210-01 Category C Liaison
Whereas The JTC1 Directives permits organizations which wish to make effective technical contributions and participate actively at the Working Group or Project level to seek Category C liaison, and
Whereas information from IEEE TCOS groups working on profiles and profiling issues, and from X/Open, would be mutually beneficial for WG15 RGCPA, and
Whereas this appears to be in the terms of reference of RGCPA,
Therefore WG15 RGCPA requests ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG15 to encourage IEEE TCOS Profile Steering Committee (PSC) and X/Open to coordinate with ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG15 to establish Category C liaison with WG15 RGCPA.
9210-02 Information for SGFS
Whereas the liaison report from the SGFS meeting in June 1992 seeks information to go forward to the SGFS Interim meeting in December 1992
Therefore WG15 RGCPA requests ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG15 to forward document N297 (P1003.0 Draft 15), document N164 (P1003.18 Draft 3), or most recently available draft, and any appropriate profiles or conformance testing documents to SGFS.
Whereas WG15 RGCPA is aware of profile work which requires capabilities not currently addressed by International standards, and
Whereas it would be of value for WG15 RGCPA to have guidance as to how these should be addressed in proposed profiles,
Therefore the WG15 RGCPA requests ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG15 to ask its member bodies and liaisons to offer specific recommendations on how profiles can be constructed in areas where standardization work is incomplete, and where there are insufficient standards to meet fully the user need.
9210-04 Progression of 1003.0
The WG15 RGCPA requests ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG15 to approve that the appropriate version of IEEE 1003.0 be forwarded to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 for registration as a CD for a Type 3 Technical Report.
9210-05 Thanks to Host
The WG15 RGCPA thanks IEEE TCOS for hosting the RGCPA meeting.
9210-06 Thanks to Chair
The WG15 RGCPA thanks Mr. Arnie Powell for chairing the meeting.
9210-07 Thanks to Secretary
The WG15 RGCPA thanks Mr. Ron Elliott for acting as secretary for the meeting.
9210-08 Thanks to Drafting Committee
The WG15 RGCPA thanks Mr. Don Folland and Mr. Peter Owens for participating on the Drafting Committee.
Action Items Log
9105-02 IEEE to provide a report on the options in 9945-1 9201-02 US member Body: Distribute PSC profile guidelines, after the January 1993 meeting. 9201-08 US Rapporteur: RGCPA Rapporteurs should be added to the invitation list for joining balloting groups for profiles. This would be a coordination review (not a counted balloting group member) 9210-01 Lead Rapporteur: Distribute Portability Annex of the JTC1 Directives to RGCPA for review. 9210-02 Liaisons to SGFS, EWOS, OIW and AOW: Check with their organizations and report back their process for distribution of materials relating to profiles. 9210-03 US Member body: Ensure that the scope and purpose sections of all IEEE TCOS profiles currently under development be sent to RGCPA, EWOS, OIW and AOW requesting that they respond describing how the profiles fit into their profile program. 9210-04 Lead Rapporteur: Send a letter to X/Open, EWOS, AOW and OIW requesting documents relating to the POSIX profile work, e.g. taxonomy. 9210-05 Lead Rapporteur: Request X/Open, CCTA, and US Member Body to advise to what action has been taken to harmonize their profiling activities and any issues arising from such activities. 9210-06 Lead Rapporteur: Request AFNOR to supply information on their POSIX profiling activities. 9210-07 Lead Rapporteur: Request NIST to update WG15 RGCPA on the activities regarding FIPS 151-2, and 9945-2. 9210-08 US Rapporteur: Make available extraction of general principles of the PSC Rules to JTFS. 9210-09 US Rapporteur: Circulate 1003.0 Draft 16 to RGCPA when available 9210-10 US Rapporteur: Circulate 2003 N005 revised to RGCPA when available 9210-11 Andrew Walker: Provide early visibility of TR10000 Parts 1 & 3 after the December SGFS meeting. 9210-12 Lead Rapporteur: Circulate FIPS 151-2 to RGCPA. 9210-13 Lead Rapporteur: Obtain copy of 9945-2 FIPS, when available, and circulate to RGCPA. 9210-14 Lead Rapporteur: Ask liaisons opinion on how the different IEEE TCOS profile types be brought forward for International Standardization, E.g. regional workshops, working groups, fast-track.
Doc# Document Title Date/distributed 1 TSG1 Final Report (Preliminary) 90/09 - 90/12/04 2 FIPS Publication 151-1 90/09 - 90/12/04 3 P1003.18/D3 POSIX Platform 90/09 - 90/12/04 4 EWOS Expert Group on Common Application Environment Interim Report 90/09 - 90/12/04 5 RGCPA Meeting Notice and Agenda 90/11/26 - 90/12/04 6 Minutes of WG15 Profile Coord. Ad Hoc Mtg. (WG15 163) 91/06/03 - 92/01/13 7 Intro for the WG15 Profile Coord. Ad Hoc Mtg. (WG15 166) 91/05/31 - 92/01/13 8 SGFS Report (WG15 N191) 91/08/19 - 92/01/13 9 Excerpts from proposed FIPS 151-2 91/12 - 92/01/13 10 Framework for User Requirements 91/12 - 92/03/20 11 Proposed Terms of Reference for RGCPA 92/01 - 92/03/20 12 TR10000-1.3 revision 91/12 - 92/03/20 13 SGFS Report (issues/results) 91/12 - 92/03/20 14 January 1992 RGCPA Minutes 92/01 - 92/03/20 15 PSC Standards Reference 91/12 - 92/03/20 16 PSC Summary of POSIX SP Efforts (P1003.0/D14) 91/12 - 92/03/20 17 IEEE TCOS Balloting Chart 92/03 - 92/03/20 18 X/Open's Response t "Required Interface Definitions" 91/10 - 92/03/20 19 RGCPA Meeting Notice and Agenda for Oct. 1992 92/10 - 92/10/23 20 Liaison Report on SGFS meeting June 1992 92/10 - 92/10/23 21 EWOS - Method for Developing and Documenting OSE Profiles 92/06/26 - 92/10/23 22 EWOS - The Documentation Structure for OSE Profiles 92/06/25 - 92/10/23 23 Minutes of RGCPA Meeting, Oct. 1992 92/10/24 - 92/11/02
OPEN Issues List
CLOSED Issues List
9105-02 What is the process for ensuring that user requirements are fully taken into account in profile harmonization
A paper from the UK (DISC) was used as basis for discussion (RGCPA N010). It was suggested that everything be left to SGFS and RGCPA should concentrate on coordination, not investigation. Action 9201.01 and 9201.04 raised to deal with forwarding N010. No feedback received as of 9210 meeting.
9105-03 How can functional profiles be constructed in areas where standardization work is incomplete, and where there are insufficient standards fully to meet the user need.
Closed at 9105 meeting and passed to SGFS
Discussed at 9201 meeting and suggested that it be revisited once the Terms of Reference were available.
Status: Reopened at 9210 meeting.
9105-05 There is no unifying framework for Application Environment profiles. The lack of one makes standards profiling less effective, and harder, than it could be.
9105-06 There are no standards for how standards should be subsetted. The "no subsets allowed" principle established by SGFS may not be sufficient.
Reworded at 9201 meetign to read:
What approach, if any, is appropriate for subsetting of WG15 base standards.
9105-07 Should the use of named options be discouraged
Closed at 9105 meeting.
Revisited at 9201 meeting and reworded:
Should the use of named options in POSIX standards be encouraged
9105-08 Is it permitted in a profile specification to give a defintion to an option which in the standard was "implementation defined" or "undefined".
Closed at 9105 meeting.
Revisited and reworded at 9201 meeting:
Is it permitted in a profile specification referring to WG15 standards to give a defintion to an option which in the standard was "implementation defined", "undefined", etc.
9201-09 Is WG15 expecting to own any profiles, and if so how are they harmonized?
Reference in the 9201 minutes to Action Item 9102-20 (cannot be found)
9105-01 Should this group take any action to influence the JTC1 work on organization?
Status: Closed by resolution 9105-04
9105-04 Is there a hierarchy of standardization, in which ISO standards are used by everyone, and built upon by regional bodies, national bodies and user groups in order to meet local needs?
Status: Closed. Passed to SGFS
9201-10 Should profiles referring to WG15 standards also refer to OSI standards?
Status: Closed. If appropriate then they will be referred to.