1. Opening of Meeting

The WG15 meeting convened at 10:34, October 23, 1995.

1.1 Welcome from Host

Barry Needham welcomed the WG15 participants on behalf of the United States host, in particular ANSI and the IEEE, and announced that lunch, morning, and afternoon coffee would be provided Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. He also announced that there would be a U.S. hosted dinner Tuesday night, but that there would be no registration fees since PASC had allocated part of its budget to pay for all expenses.

1.2 Introductions & Roll Call of Technical Experts

David Blackwood Canada; HoD
Keld Simonsen Denmark; HoD
Jean-Michell Cornu France; HoD
Ron Elliot Germany; HoD
Nobuo Saito Japan; HoD
Herman Weegenaar Netherlands; HoD
David Cannon U.K.; HoD
Martin Kirk U.K., X/Open Liaison
John Hill U.S.; HoD
Jay Ashford U.S.
Jerry Powell U.S.
Jim Oblinger U.S.
Lowell Johnson U.S.; Secretary
Barry Needham U.S.; Host Chair
Jim Isaak Convener

1.2.1 Verification of HoD-PASC Distribution

Barry Needham will send e-mail, fax, and a letter to solicit an active response from each member. No response will cause removal from the distribution list.

1.3 Selection of drafting committee

Jay Ashford, Dave Blackwood, Ron Elliot, Dave Cannon, and Keld Simonsen volunteered. Jay Ashford was appointed chair.

1.4 Adoption of Agenda

Document N578r4 was the last proposed agenda which was adopted without objection with the addition of following items under New Business:

6.1 New Batch and Utilities - N614

6.2 Meeting Schedule and Management

1.5 Approval of the minutes.

Document N577 was the most recent copy of the minutes, which were revised from the original electronic version, even though it does not have an R following the number. The minutes were accepted with minor spelling corrections only.

1.6 Action Items & National Reports

2.1 Issues List

There were no new issues and it was stated that no issues were changed at the last meeting. (But see 4.1 and 4.5.2 for additions and changes). Some of the issues were discussed further.

2) Denmark questioned what will we do with a national profile since there is no entry in the TR-10000 taxonomy. In particular, how will they go forward in the international arena?

It was generally not thought to be feasible to include national profiles within standards because of their size and diversity. Another possibility would be to generate a separate ISO technical report for each national profile.

The "Guidelines for National Profiles and Locales" TR will cover this problem more completely. There was thought to be a draft, but they have not resolved all their problems yet, so they are not finished.

Keld Simonsen was given the action to capture this discussion in the issues list.

3) Disposition of the Canadian comment, 9945-1. The current wording of 1003.2b was thought to be adequate to resolve this, and this will be closed when 1003.2b goes to CD registration. Jim Isaak said at that point it is out of our hands, except to comment on, or respond to, any problems from SC22. He also announced that the last distribution for CD was in error; it should have been for Review & Comment.

6) Language Interaction Pertaining to Real Time. Jim Isaak thought that the completion of the threads ballot should have closed this, and no one objected, so it was closed.

2.2 JTC1 Actions Affecting Group

The JTC1 Ballots in progress have already been recorded.

Jim Isaak gave a report from the meeting on electronic document formats. We (WG15) can use any document format we need, but SC22 must use certain rules. Their distribution may be on floppy disk, and may include RTF, Word, Wordperfect, ASCII, and possibly Postscript as allowed SC formats.

2.3 SC22 Action, Convener Report

N594 was submitted as the conveners report, but only the open actions from the first page were discussed in detail:

Jay Ashford reported that SD11 had been updated last week and is currently available on the web. He will be updating it weekly if necessary, so by scanning it anyone should be able to determine what will be coming up in the next few months.

The most major change was that the PASC SEC voted to use the IEEE FIFO balloting queue. There will no longer be the long-term predictions of when a draft will go into ballot, but it will be much faster, since the ballots will go out 3 to 6 weeks after being received by IEEE. Jay also noted that the 1003.1f (TFA), 1003.1e and 1003.2c (security) recent drafts were finally done.

2.5 Liaison & Working Relationship Reports

Barry Needham noted that we have not even heard from many of these people in a long time and suggested that we terminate the liaison if we have not heard from them for over two meetings.

Since we have not had any reports and have not been able to find a person to act as liaison, it was decided to terminate our formal liaison to WG13. An Action Item was given to the Convener to notify WG13 that we have terminated our liaison to them.

After some discussion, an Action Item was put on the Convener to contact the liaisons to WG15 and let them know that they are expected to send at least one written report per year. It was further suggested that we request a report for the May meeting from everyone who is not here now or has not submitted a report at this meeting. This was approved unanimously.

It was also suggested that we remind them that the liaison may be discontinued if they do not respond, but the majority thought this was premature. If any liaison does nothing by the May meeting, we may take action then.

2.5.1 WG9 / Ada no report

2.5.2 WG11 / Cross Language no report

2.5.3 WG13/ Modula 2 Bindings no liaison

2.5.4 WG20 / Internationalization

Keld Simonsen submitted N608 as the WG20 report, but also noted that they are not currently asking us for anything.

2.5.5 WG21 / C++ no report

2.5.6 SGFS no report

2.5.7 SC21/WG4

Martin Kirk reported that there was nothing to report, but noted that when the system administration work is done, this liaison will go away.

2.5.8 WG22 / PCTE no report

2.5.9 WG14 / C language no report

2.5.10 EWOS Liaison no report

2.5.11 CEN TC304 / Character Sets

Keld Simonsen reported that they have produced a new standard for locale registration. They also had a ballot that failed on a subset of 10646. N605 is an outline of what WG15 can do to cooperate with them, but this will be discussed later.

2.6 Editor Reports

Jim Isaak announced that we still did not have a project editor and solicited nomination of project editors for each major segment of our work; for example, System Interfaces, System Administration, Test Methods, etc. There are currently no Defect Reports in progress and the only Corrigenda deals with 9945-1 (1003.1).

At this point Germany indicated that everyone (and foreign people in particular) has not had a chance to read all the reports that were just distributed, so they were unable to comment at this time. We were reminded that we are supposed to have distributed these before the meeting.

After a short discussion, it was thought that distribution at least 4 weeks before the meeting would be sufficient (and they could be e-mail). However, the U.S. stated that there was no JTC1 requirement for prior distribution of this material. Barry Needham, as this meetings Chair, said that he would allow us to reopen any agenda item later in the week if it was necessary.

Germany suggested that the Action Item review take place on Tuesday morning at future meetings to allow time to read all the materials distributed. However, there was no consensus or action taken on this position.

2.7 Rapporteur Group Report / Status

2.7.1 Conformance Testing

Jerry Powell gave the RGCT report and distributed four documents: N615, N616, N617, plus one unnumbered document. The main issue was that the RGCT had resolved to disband and he had already given a resolution to that effect to the drafting committee.

Barry Needham noted that the RGCT had followed the rules, done their work, and disbanded. Congratulations were offered and the RGCT was dissolved by general acclimation.

Jerry also asked what he should do with the RGCT documents now that it has been dissolved. He should save them unless someone else wanted to archive them. We should have these all archived electronically, but we don't.

2.7.2 Internationalization

Keld Simonsen gave the RIN report (N606). RIN has looked at the work of WG20, but they had nothing to report at this time. They looked at their own terms of reference, but had no changes they wished to make.

They are working on an issues list and they wanted to change the WG15 meeting schedule so that they could meet before the plenary session. The reasons for scheduling the WG15 plenary meeting first were reviewed and no changes were made.

RIN was asked when they expected to complete their program of work. Keld said there were no specific dates for individual items and they had no planned changes to the schedule in their terms of reference.

He was asked if closed on the RIN issues list meant closed as far as the whole of WG15 was concerned. Keld did not think so because the issues list had not been approved by RIN yet.

2.7.3 Profile Coordination

Barry Needham announced that there had been no response to the call for a Lead Rapporteur. They also have not generated any reports or given any status to the parent body, so it was suggested that the RGCPA be dissolved.

However, Ron Elliot reported that there had been 5 people at the RGCPA meeting in Twentee, N581 and N582 were the minutes and issues from that meeting, and there were still 2 open issues. A temporary person stepped forward and called the last profile meeting since there was no Lead Rapporteur.

The U.S. maintained that in Twentee we had decided to terminate the RGCPA if they could not find a Lead Rapporteur, then the May minutes were read to support this position. Germany and Denmark spoke against disbanding a group that was actively doing work.

The U.S. proposed a resolution to terminate the RGCPA. In the discussion that followed, it was noted that any remaining RGCPA work would devolve back to the WG15 plenary.

There was a question of what would happen if we cancelled the RGCPA meeting before it meets on Thursday. That is, what would a potential RGCPA person do who did not arrive here until Thursday? Jim Isaak suggested that they would have a meeting, but that it may only have one item on the agenda: ie adjournment.

The Chair conducted a straw poll by National Body and no country objected to terminating the RGCPA (even Denmark and Germany). The discussion of the remaining RGCPA issues was postponed until 4.5.2 in the agenda.

3.0 Small Group breakouts

There was a short discussion of what small groups should be formed, but there was no interest in anything but the administrative issues. Therefore it was decided to deal with everything in plenary session, so we proceeded with the agenda.

Jim Isaak reported that 9945-1 Amendment 2 passed without comments.

There are currently two proposed disposition of comments:

N597 is the proposed disposition of comments for the batch amendment to 9945-1. It agrees with the U.K. comment and resolves the issue of the French title by agreeing to send it in a separate cover. No one disagreed with this proposed distribution.

A resolution was approved to accept N597 as the resolution of comments from the PDAM ballot for the batch amendment. The U.S. got an action to forward the final draft for DAM ballot and the Convener was actioned to forward the disposition of comments to the SC22 secretariat.

Canada noted that the project numbers do not match on N597. Jim Isaak said the correct project is 22.21.02.03 and the JTC1 project is 9945-2 amendment 2. However, Jim noted that the incorrect project was the number propagated in the summary of balloting. It will be corrected.

N615 is the proposed disposition of comments from the CD ballot for 2003.1 test methods for 1003.1 as generated by the RGCT. No one was opposed to accepting this disposition.

A resolution was approved to accept N615 as the resolution of comments from the CD ballot for the 2003.1 test methods. The U.S. got an action to forward the draft for DIS ballot and the Convener was actioned to forward the disposition of comments to the SC22 secretariat.

4.0 Actions Arising from Reports

4.1 Actions Related to Issues

Keld Simonsen distributed an updated issues list. Several discussion points were added, but the main change was Issue #6 was marked as closed at the Orlando meeting.

4.2 Responses to JTC1 or SC22 Action

4.2.1 Synchronization Plan Update

Jim Isaak reported that the JTC1 proposal was not accepted, so we have no requirement to change the synchronization plan. Their goal was to have no comments or changes allowed on a DIS ballot, so all changes must be made at the CD level. A second DIS, which has happened in the past, will be "discouraged". Technical reports will follow the same rule: the PDTR is the last draft that will be allowed to change.

Denmark expressed their concern that by the time an IEEE draft is ready for CD ballot, it is basically done and "frozen" by the IEEE, so that comments from National Bodies after that point cannot be acted on. They requested that drafts go to CD ballot at an earlier stage in their IEEE development.

Denmark also questioned the incorporation of interpretations from IEEE into the sync plan. Jim said that SC22 has identified a process of generating a "Record of Response", which lists interpretations that are not changes to the document, but clarifications.

The U.S. suggested that we plan to discuss revising the sync plan at the May meeting. It was requested that all positions be submitted in writing 6 weeks before the May meeting.

JTC1 was reportedly going to change things again at their March meeting. Their current plan failed, but they will try to achieve similar results in other ways. Jim Isaak commented that the JTC1 goal is to have the DIS ballots to be as complete as possible

Other documents pertinent to this discussion are:

N381 - Denmark comments on the sync plan
N460 - Japan comments on the sync plan
N476 - US comments
N352R2 is the current sync plan

The following diagram was drawn on the white board to clarify the current sync plan milestones.
 

	WG15	WG15 &	CD	DIS
	R&C	SC22 R&C	Registration	Ballot
	First	First	75%	Approved
	IEEE	IEEE	Ballot	IEEE
	Ballot	Recirculation	Approval	Standard

Denmark used 1003.2b, where they received draft 4 then not again until draft 10, as an example of the problem. They generally have had problems getting a written response to international comments. Keld got some answers last week, but he does not think he should have to attend the PASC meeting to get a response.

It seems that the international comments from the R&C drafts are the ones that are not getting back to the PASC working groups from the national bodies. Denmark said they have sent comments to WG15, not to IEEE, or any of the chairs in PASC.

It was pointed out that then the slow WG15 process probably delays everything 6 to 12 months, and by then, the Working Group is probably on subsequent drafts. The U.S. recommended that national bodies should also send their comments to the PASC groups directly, in addition to whatever ISO route they follow.

Jim Isaak observed that IEEE standards can be changed, ie our 1003.1i corrigenda changes, so National Bodies should not be locked out from changing IEEE standards. It was also noted that the IEEE balloting process is not strictly a U.S. process, since it is open to international participation, and in fact there were several people here that are currently balloting through IEEE.

An Action Item was given to the member bodies to submit issues or comments on synchronization in writing or to the reflector by April 8, 1996. No additional issues will be considered under the synchronization agenda item at the May meeting.

4.2.2 Ada Amendment Fasttrack Request

It was noted that work is being done in IEEE (1003.5b is going to the IEEE Standards Board in December), but ISO does not have a matching work item. Canada objected to any more Ada work being forwarded since they do not address international issues. The May 95 WG15 resolution was read that approved forwarding it for fast track, and there was no further discussion.

4.2.3 Web Page Maintenance & Electronic Document Distribution

Jim Isaak reported that SC22 needs a name for a person that will support our web pages. Keld Simonsen said that he was the correct person, so an Action Item was put on the Convener to report Keld's name back to SC22, along with the following data:

web master: listadm@dkuug.dk

URL is: http://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG15

We discussed what was supposed to be on our web page. SC22 is currently deciding what should be there, so it sounded like we could do anything we want for now. John Hill reported that SC22 will not be issuing their page structure until January 1996. Keld said that SC22 had resolved that all documents be distributed in e-mail and also supply FTP access.

Our web page should include our archive of documents (to the extent possible), the sync plan, SD6, etc. A more touchy subject was what should (or should not) be included about members.

It was suggested that we let all active National Bodies each decide what data they will supply about their own members, and what else would be included. An Action Item was given to all National Bodies to provide URLs and other information they would like posted to the WG15 web page.

The real question is when we can use it as the primary source for WG15 documents. This led to a discussion of what document formats would be acceptable, and how they would be distributed. The following slide of "acceptable" formats was created:
 

	push	pull	media
	email	ftp/URL	CD/floppy
ADMIN	ASCII	ASCII
	PDF (7 bit ?)	PDF
	HTML	HTML
		postscript (compressed)
	RTF	RTF
		<doc>.<format>
Working		yes	paper
Drafts		TROFF	CD ROM (but can't copy)

There were still many questions to be answered, such as: What would happen when we get documents not in an approved format. How would we limit access? Paper would probably always be the fall-back mode of distribution. It was suggested that we maintain an index of documents and their formats.

Keld Simonsen said they were doing similar work in WG20, so it was suggested that we should plagiarize the WG20 work.

4.2.4 Withdrawal of Integrated Project Items

When amendments to 9945 are merged into a single document, Jim Isaak said we should ask SC22 to delete the former (amendment) work item to simplify future issues about updating, etc. The only current example is 1003.2 and 1003.2a, but there will obviously be more in the future.

4.2.5 Electronic Decision Making

We discussed what we can realistically do by e-mail. Keld Simonsen reported that WG20 sends out question electronically, then waits 30 days. If there are no objections, the issue is approved. If there are any negative comments, they wait for the next meeting to discuss it. It was suggested we ask for an acknowledgement back, to prevent anyone claiming they did not get the mail.

The U.S. was not prepared to resolve this here and suggested we discuss this in detail at the May meeting. Everyone should be prepared to discuss rules for what situations can handled in what way. An early put was that we NOT assume that no respond is a positive response. An Action was given to the Convener to circulate by e-mail a proposal for electronic decision making to be discussed at the May meeting.

4.3 Proposals Related to IEEE PASC Activities

We went through the list of documents which may be coming forward in the next year one by one.

9945-1 Amend on Security (22.42)

It was decided to defer action until May because the new draft is a major revision.

9945-1 Amendment for Transparent File Access

This will be going out to WG15 for review and comment in a week or two and was reported to be based on the combined 1003.1 and 1003.1b. Action was deferred until the May WG15 meeting.

9945-1 Amendment for PII

There were no objections to forwarding this to SC22 for CD registration and concurrent ballot.

9945-2 Amendment 2 DAM ballot for batch

There was currently nothing to be done here.

9945-2 Amendment for security.

This is in the same state as the 9945-1 security amendment, so no action was taken at this time.

9945-2 Amendment (1003.2b) PDAM ballot.

Denmark did not think the current draft 11 was ready for CD registration. The U.S. maintained that getting comments is "never ending" so we should register draft 11 and wait for CD ballot. A vote was taken to authorize draft 11 be forwarded for CD registration only:

Japan - approve
Netherlands - approve
Canada - approve
U.K. - approve
U.S. - approve
Germany - abstain
France - abstain
Denmark - opposed

Keld said not fair, he was asked for comments to draft 10 and his comments has not been included.

15068-2 System Administration - Software Services

It was agreed to generate a resolution for the project editor to call a editing meeting to propose a disposition of comments.

15068-4 System Administration - Print Services.

This was definitely not ready for ballot. They may have a draft ready for CD registration in early 1996, so it was decided to defer this until the May, 1996 meeting.

15068-3 System Administration - User Services.

Draft 7 was reportedly ready for concurrent CD registration and ballot. However, after looking up the data, it was found to have been sent by Bob Pritchard to SC22 for CD registration and Ballot in September, but the ballot had not started yet.

Denmark pointed out that it did not have prior authorization for that forwarding, which appeared to be corroborated by the May minutes. A resolution was then authorized to approve retroactively its forwarding to SC22 for concurrent CD registration and Ballot.

A separate resolution was approved to also hold the editors meeting to resolve the disposition of comments, and Martin Kirk volunteered as the project editor. So yet another resolution was needed to approve Martin Kirk as the Project Editor for this part of the document.

14515-1 Test methods for 1003.1 (System APIs)

Jim Isaak said this should be going to DIS soon, since we had already approved the disposition of the CD ballot., but the DIS ballot is 4 months long. The WG15 convener was authorized to hold an editing meeting to resolve the disposition of comments with no objections.

14515-2 Test Methods for 1003.2 (Shell and Tolls)

This was approved for concurrent CD registration and ballot.

14252 Guide to POSIX OSE.

The DTR ballot closes 11/20/95 so we needed to authorize the convener to hold an editing meeting for the disposition of comments. There were no objections.
 
 

4.4 Liaison / Relationship Statement and Actions

4.4.1 TC304 Plan and Feedback Requested by SC22

Keld Simonsen reported that they are proposing several projects (15) in the SC22 space. We are supposed to work on a common plan to work these items, then report to SC22. N1961 was the original SC22 document, and N595 was thought to be an extraction of this document.

It was agreed to need to really study the CEN work before we report to SC22, especially since they have several projects to be done "in conjunction with" WG15 and POSIX. A lot of this is locales, charmaps, character sets, etc., but we need more details. It was given to RIN which will report back in writing at the May meeting, where it will be added to the agenda.

An Action Item was given to member bodies to review TC 304 N595, the liaison report N607, and SC22 N1961, and submit written contributions to be used to form the WG15 response. A separate action was given to the convener to circulate SC22 N1961 to WG15 members ASAP.

4.4.2 Relationships Among Open System Participants

Jean-Michell Cornu asked people to review his paper and model (see N596, N622). It is important to maintain communication and liaisons since some groups provide the building blocks and some provide integration. He asked either quick feedback now, or detailed feedback at the next meeting. The general consensus was that this was valuable work.

Martin Kirk noted that N622 is an X/Open table to spell out what is included in the Single Unix Spec to fulfill an action item. It does not cover sockets/XTI, CURSES, or other things being done by X/Open not related to 9945-1 and 9945-2. It also does not identify all the things that are historical implementations.

The major question was what would happen to the pieces that are not currently included in POSIX.

An Action Item was given to all Member Bodies to review N596 and provide written comments or extensions for the May meeting. Another Action Item on the Member Bodies and X/Open liaison was to review N622 in the contest of providing an ISO specification in alignment with the Single Unix Specification and come to the May meeting with a preferred tactical method to achieve this (if appropriate). ie, how do we want to progress the differences between POSIX and the Single Unix Specification?

4.5 Actions related to Rapporteur Groups

4.5.1 Reviews of Terms of Reference

Keld Simonsen reported that RIN had no suggested changes to their terms of reference. They expect to complete their issues list by the May meeting and may be able to complete the 1003.2b work review.

A couple member bodies felt that the issues tentatively listed as closed on the RIN issues list should be finally closed by WG15 so that we can progress them as appropriate. An Action Item was given to RIN to close as many as possible of the issues before the May WG15 meeting and distribute the issues list to the WG15 members. A May WG15 agenda item will be created to review the RIN issues list.

4.5.2 RGCPA - Work Program, Leadership & Methods

Ron Elliot reported that there are two very old issues on their issues list (N581) that we need to handle. There are also 13 open action items that needed to be gone through one by one and WG15 Action Items made up for those that were still open. All the remaining work will be done by the whole WG15 plenary.

RGCPA Action Item review:

Ron Elliot asked what happens to the documentation and history of the RGCPA. There was no firm answer, but they should keep it safe until we decide what to do with it.

An Action Item was put on the Convener to write a cover letter to the National Bodies to consider the general subsetting issue in the review of 1003.13.

4.5.3 Division of Profile Work Item & Explanatory Report

Jim Oblinger reported N613 as the response from the U.S. SC22 would be the preferred route unless the SC22 procedures are especially onerous, then the regional workshops would be used.

The convener suggested we ask for a division of work now, and no one initially objected to a resolution asking SC22 to create a sub-division of the SC22 profile work item. The first work item is currently pending in JTC1. However, the U.S. objected that we do not have a taxonomy, and that the division cannot take place before there is a taxonomy. Therefore, asking for a subdivision is premature since we do know if anyone will approve our taxonomy.

An Action Item was given to the U.S. to provide a taxonomy for POSIX OSE profiles.

4.5.4 RIN Issues with 10646

The RIN analysis is in N583 and they believe there is not much needed by the POSIX interfaces. However, the U.K. indicated they will take N621 into RIN to discuss. Canada stated there are additional impacts not in N583, some were in N621, but there were others. Denmark noted that there are no APIs in POSIX to handle character strings, so some of this is out of scope. WG20 apparently will be addressing this also.

It was suggested that RIN combine N583 and N621 to produce a unified position document to forwarding as a written liaison report to WG20. It was questioned if we needed a letter ballot to approve this liaison report. Although not absolutely required, the Convener though it was a good idea.

4.5.5 Review of N515 & N558 & N606, N605 Concerns

Keld Simonsen discussed some of the RIN concerns (see documents for details). Several countries had reviewed these as part of their national reports. 9410-27, 9410-35 are RIN action items. Also refer to AI 9410-26 and 9505-47. RIN could not resolve some of these issues, so they were referred back to WG15.

5 technical items from N558 page 3 AI 9410-35

An Action Item was given to the U.S. to review the following documents relating to the 1003.2b issues: N583, N586, N598, N602, N604, N605, and N606.

4.5.6 Review of RIN Future. (N605, N606)

There was a lot of discussion about how the May meeting should be scheduled around RIN. It was finally decided that WG15 would receive a report from RIN and deal with as many issues as possible as a plenary on Tuesday. RIN would meet separately on Friday if they whished.

An initial suggestion was made that RIN be dissolved within the next year or so and have the remaining RIN work brought back into the WG15 plenary.

The U.S. was given an Action Item to invite Don Cragun to the May WG15 meeting (or at least the first few days) to supply expertise for the RIN issues.

4.6 Defect Reports / Interpretations

Jim Isaak reported that there were no defects reports, so there is nothing to do here at this time.

5.0 Project Activities - Registration, Balloting, Content

SD-4 was distributed Monday and Jim Isaak requested updates before he mailed it out in the next two or three weeks. Barry Needham asked who coordinated with the similar list in PASC but was told it was not needed because they track different data.

5.1 9945-0 LIS System Interface

Keld Simonsen said that Denmark is looking at doing more than just LIS for 1003.1 classic, and asked for us to give him as much as possible for 1003.1b.

An Action Item was given to the U.S. to investigate the availability of the text for the complete 1003.1-1994 and transfer the text to Denmark if it is available. (1003.1 + 1003.1b and possibly the upcoming 1003.1c and technical corrigenda merged draft).

Keld said that they really want to do a C binding to the LIS and suggested having the thin C binding be an Annex to the LIS. Jim Isaak agreed it was a good idea and said that the SC22 work item would allow this approach.

It was pointed out that SC22 just extended the work item another year (the second time) and SC22 would probably not extend it again. There was a long discussion of what could be completed in time, the U.S. strongly objecting to forwarding the existing LIS. It was decided to wait until Denmark has analyzed the work, then either R&C the current draft if they will not change the format, or wait for the Danish recasting in the new format, then forward that.

This will be on the agenda again in May.

5.2 9945-2, Shell and Utilities

5.2.3 Project 22.41 - Additional Utilities.

Authorization for CD registration has been request by the U.S., but Japan the U.S. to reconsider and until certain issues have been dealt with (basically the N602 comments). Denmark said all of Europe needs the functionality described by Japan as missing from current draft of 1003.2b.

RIN was specifically assigned to review N586, N602, N604, N605, and N598 for consideration at the next meeting.

The opposing views of the ballot cycle were reiterated. Comments should come in through the ballot process and it was further claimed that most of the issues that fall between the cracks were not balloted.

Denmark maintains that that is too late in the process to effectively allow national bodies to change anything. Jim Isaak said they should make their comments into objections on the CD registration ballot, but this was still thought by Denmark to be too late in the process to add technical material.

5.2.4 Security Amendment

The U.S. will send the current draft for Review and Comment.

5.2.5 Batch services

N597 was already addressed earlier in the meeting.

5.3 15068 Administered Systems

The status of these was already discussed. However, it was pointed out that batch services have no further work and no active project within PASC for amendments to system services or system administration. A resolution was drafted to ask SC22 to remove the corresponding work subdivisions 22.21.03.02 and 22.21.02.04 for batch services.

5.4 9945-1 C Language Bindings

These projects were discussed earlier, have all been dealt with, and there were no further comments on 1003.1a, 1003.1b, 1003.1c, 1003.1d, 1003.1e, 1003.1f, and 1003.1g.

Jim Isaak reported that the work item for directory services was withdrawn by SC22 at their September meeting.

5.4.11 NL Proposal Concerning Modularization

The Netherlands is concerned that 9945-1 will become a very thick document and believes that implementors should have the choice of implementing the parts they want.

There was a long discussion of how options are implemented, and how options in amendments are preserved through the merging process. PASC requires that all options in its standards be both named and defined.

Martin Kirk said X/Open already provides a value added document that highlights optional material. It was suggested that X/Open produce a hyper-text document, where you define what options you have, then you only see the necessary text.

Netherlands accepted the existing situation. The U.K. requested that PASC give an example to WG15 of a large merged document so they can see the results. We thought there was already an Action Item to that effect.

5.5Ada Language Bindings

Ada real-time is currently in the fast track process.

5.6 FORTRAN

This was work item was withdrawn in September by SC22, and this agenda will be deleted in all future WG15 agendas.

5.7 Guide to POSIX OSE

This is still in ballot, but we have already authorized a disposition of comments meeting.

5.8 Test Methods

The disposition of comments for 14515-1 (N615) was approved and the CD ballot for 2003.1 closes November 17.

There was a discussion of the naming and numbering problem with 2003.1a: ie that 2003.1b does not match 1003.1b in that the real time test methods were not merged with 2003.1, while 1003.1 was merged with the real time standard to become 1003.1b. This creates some problems.

Germany requested that both test standards clearly state what they test. However, that would mean that 2003.1 would have to change, since by the time it is published internationally, the 9945-1 it points to will include more than just .1 classic.

Actions were placed on the U.S. and the Convener, work with ITTF to resolve the naming inconsistency with the test standards and report back to the May WG15 meeting. Jim suggested the US propose a title send a cover letter suggesting it.

5.8.4 Comprehensive Test Methods NP

This came out of a U.K. item from 2 years ago: SC22 got it, but did not pass it around to other SC's to see if any of them were interested. WG15 asked the U.K. to go back to see if they still wanted to carry on with this, but they had nothing to report at this time.

Denmark is also working on general testing issues and would like to see the NP from the UK.

5.9 Guide for National Profiles and Locales

It was noted that the NP ballot closes November 15.
 
 

6.0 New Business

6.1 New Batch and Utilities - N614

Denmark is requesting 3 topics be added to 1003.2b, but Keld Simonsen met with the PASC Working Group last week and it was decided they will not be part of 1003.2b, but should become a new project. Denmark would do the work, but they would prefer to go through the IEEE standards process.

An Action Item was given to the U.K. to investigate submitting the appropriate PAS to cover these areas and report back in May. Another Action Item was put on the U.S. to investigate pursuing this work as a new PAR in PASC. Some resources for this activity may be available from Denmark.

6.2 Meeting Schedule and Management

It was determined that the October, 1996 WG15 meeting should be scheduled to last 4 full days.

The Netherlands requested that X/Open be added to the liaison part of the agenda next time (which will be 2.5.12 on the agenda). Since the liaison is 2-way, it was suggested we need a resolution to appoint Matin Kirk be our liaison back to X/Open.

The next meeting is May 20-24, not what was listed in the agenda for this meeting.

7.0 Review and Approval

7.1 Tasks and Assignments for Rapporteur Groups

RIN to complete the review of their issues list, close as many as possible, and bring forward the remainder to the WG15 meeting in May, 1996.

RIN to review and comment on the Japanese document N602.

7.2 Resolutions

The following resolutions were approved during the WG15 May meeting. All were unanimous except three: 95-314, 95-318, and 95-329. The specifics of those votes are noted below.

95-312 Termination of Liaison to JTC1/SC22/WG13

Whereas volunteers have been sought for some time for the position of liaison to JTC1/SC22/WG13 and none found, therefore, JTC1/SC22/WG13 terminates this position.

95-315 Disposition of Comments: CD ISO/IEC 14515-1

JTC1/SC22/WG15 accepts its document N615 as the Disposition of Comments for CD Ballot of ISO/IEC 14515+1 (IEEE std 2003.1, Test Methods for 9945-1:1990), and approves the forwarding IEEE Std 2003.1 to the SC22 Secretariat for DIS Ballot.

95-316 Editing meeting: ISO/IEC 9945-1 TC1

JTC1/SC22/WG15 authorizes its Convener to call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a Disposition of Comments for ISO/IEC 9945-1 Technical Corrigendum 1 (IEEE 1003.1i), providing appropriate notice of the meeting and likely conducting such meeting by electronic means.

95-317 Forwarding of IEEE 1003.1g

JTC1/SC22/WG15 approves the forwarding of IEEE 1003.1g as ISO/IEC 9945-1 Amendment for Protocol Independent Interfaces (JTC1.22.21.01.03.03) to the SC22 Secretariat for concurrent PDAM Registration and Ballot.

95-318 Forwarding of IEEE 1003.2b

JTC1/SC22/WG15 approves the forwarding of Draft 11 of IEEE 1003.2b as ISO/IEC 9945-2 Amendment for Additional Utilities (JTC1.22.41) to the SC22 Secretariat for PDAM Registration only.

Denmark objected to approval because the working group has not finished their work, there are a number of acknowledged errors, and some missing material, so it would be inappropriate to forward. The U.S. noted that this is for registration only and a later draft will be used for the PDAM ballot. The convener observed that we are just deciding if we want to forward it, but SC22 has to also make the decision to accept the document for registration. In ISO terms this is considered changing from stage 2 to stage 3.

A formal vote was taken to forward this draft of 1003.2b:

Approve = 5, Opposed = 1, Abstain = 2

So the motion passed.

95-319 Editing Meeting: CD ISO/IEC 15068-2

JTC1/SC22/WG15 authorizes the nominated Project Editor for ISO/IEC 15068-2 (JTC1.22.21.03.04, IEEE 1387.2, Software Administration) to call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a Disposition of Comments for that document, providing appropriate notice of the meeting and likely conducting such meeting by electronic means.

95-320 Forwarding of IEEE 1387.3

JTC1/SC22/WG15 approves the forwarding of IEEE 1387.3 as ISO/IEC 15068-3 (JTC.22.21.03.05, User and Group Account Administration) to the SC22 Secretariat for concurrent CD Registration and Ballot.

95-321 Editing Meeting: CD ISO/IEC 15068-3

JTC1/SC22/WG15 authorizes the nominated Project Editor for ISO/IEC 15068-3 (JTC1.22.21.03.05, IEEE 1387.3, User and Group Account Administration) to call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a Disposition of Comments for 15068-3, providing appropriate notice of the meeting and likely conducting such meeting by electronic means.

95-322 Forwarding of IEEE 2003.2

JTC1/SC22/WG15 approves the forwarding of IEEE 2003.2 as ISO/IEC 14515-2 (Test Methods for ISO/IEC 9945-2:1992) to the SC22 Secretariat for concurrent CD Registration of Ballot.

95-323 Forwarding of IEEE 1003.1a

JTC1/SC22/WG15 approves the forwarding of IEEE 1003.1a as ISO/IEC 9945-1 Amendment for System Interface Extensions (JTC1.22.39) to the SC22 Secretariat for PDAM Registration only.

95-324 Editing Meeting: DTR ISO/IEC 14252

JTC1/SC22/WG15 authorizes its Convener to call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a Disposition of Comments for DTR ISO/IEC 14252 (JTC1.22.38, IEEE 1003.0, Guide to the POSIX OSE), providing appropriate notice of the meeting and likely conducting such meeting by electronic means.

95-325 Editing Meeting: DIS ISO/IEC 14515-1 JTC1/SC22/WG15 authorizes its Convener to call and conduct an editing meeting to crate, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a Disposition of Comments resulting from DIS Ballot of ISO/IEC 14515-1 (IEEE 2003.1, Test Methods for ISO/IEC 9945-1:1990), providing appropriate notice of the meeting and perhaps conducting such meeting by electronic means. 92-326 Request for Termination of Two Batch Services Projects

Whereas there is no work in process to develop corresponding standards, therefore JTC1/SC22/WG15 requests that JTC1/SC22 terminate subdivision projects JTC1.22.21.03.02 (Administered Systems: Batch Services) and JTC1.22.21.01.04 (C Language Bindings: Batch API Administration Amendment).

95-327 Appointment of Liaison to X/Open

JTC1/SC22/WG15 appoints Martin Kirk as its liaison to X/Open

JTC1/SC22/WG15 also expresses its appreciation to the members of its October 1995 drafting committee: Jay Ashford, Dave Blackwood, Dave Cannon, Ron Elliott, and Keld Simonsen.

95-329 Expression of Appreciation to John Hill

Whereas John Hill has informed WG15 that this will be his last meeting with them and,

Whereas John Hill has rendered outstanding service to WG15 over the space of many years, as evidenced by the significant number of his birthdays celebrated during such meetings,

Therefore JTC1/SC22/WG15 expresses its heartfelt gratitude to John Hill and wishes him many happy and prosperous birthdays in his new assignments.

Canada objected to unanimous approval so we would take a roll call vote, which would document that everyone approved.

During these discussions, an old WG15 resolution (92-184) was brought up that was thought to require that ALL resolutions must have an associated Action Item that points back to the resolution. However, the correct wording is:

92-184 - All actions arising from a SC22/WG15 Resolution shall be included in the Action Item list for the meeting at which the Resolution is passed. The action item shall include a pointer to the corresponding resolution.

7.3 Action Items

The following action items were open at the end of the meeting:

New Actions Items from Orlando, October 23-25, 1995

A new copy of SD3 dated October 25 was distributed and the few changes were summarized. The main change was the addition of issue #7 which was taken from the RGCPA issues list.

Denmark requested a vote on the issues list, presumably to verify the current status. This had never done that before, so the Chair accepted the current draft, and no vote was taken.

8.0 Closing Process

8.1 Future Meeting Considerations

Future meetings: Copenhagen, May 20-26, 1996

Munich, October 28-31, 1996, RIN on Nov 1

Invitations Sought: UK, April 21-24, 1997

(proposed dates) Canada, October 20-24, 1997

France, April or May, 1998

Australia, October, 1998

8.2 Document Number Assignment

There were no temporary document numbers at this meeting.

8.3 Selection of Vice Chair, Secretary for Next Meeting

The host for the May, 1996 meeting is Denmark and the contact person is Keld Simonson who may also be the Chair. Denmark must also supply a secretary for the meeting and Germany must supply the vice-chair, but these were not named.

8.4 Agenda for the Next Meeting

WG15 N626 is the next agenda, a preliminary form of which was distributed, but it will be updated based on several requested changes.

Germany requested a specific early time on the agenda to distribute any documentation. RIN will be scheduled for Tuesday, May 21 and Friday, May 24.

8.5 Thanks to Host

The chair thanked IEEE PASC for funding this meeting.

9.0 Adjournment

The WG15 meeting adjourned at 4:32 on Wednesday, October 25, 1995.