SC22/WG15 N687

16 Oct 1996

RE: Convener Action Items Report from May 96 WG15 Meeting

9605-07 Convener - write a cover letter to National Bodies to consider the general issue of subsetting base standards from within profiles during their review of 1003.13. (rolled over from 9510-34, which came from RGCPA issue #6)

OPEN; 1003.13 not yet received for review; however issue has been surfaced to SC22 in the Proposed profile taxonomy

9605-10 Convener - request SC22 to terminate subdivision projects JTC1. (Administered Systems: Batch Services) and JTC1. (C Language Bindings: Batch API Administration Amendment). (rolled over from 9510-50 which came from R 95-326)

Closed: action taken at Sept. SC22 meeting

9605-15 Convener - consolidate the national body comments on N633 and N634 and report to SC22.

Closed, incorporated into report to SC22

9605-27 Convener - investigate the ISO procedures for limits on the number of amendments and how this relates to how they are accepted by regional bodies (like CEN).

Closed: The JTC1 directives place no limit on amendments (they are online at, but give ITTF the right to determine when to publish separately or integrated with the main text. The ISO Directives part 1 state: "2.10.3 Avoidance of proliferation of modifications: No more than two separate documents in the form of technical corrigenda or amendments shall be published modifying a current International Standard. The development of a third such document shall result in publication of a new edition of the International Standard" This does not limit amendments, but calls for consolidation as these are generated.

The regional body response is in flux. There is some interest in eliminating EN standards where ISO standards exist. This also relates to the way in which JTC1 and CEN have (and have not) developed a synchronization program. There is no stable answer at this time.

9605-28 Convener - contact each national body to verify their participation status in WG15 and obtain / verify e-mail addresses for each.

OPEN - initiated, in Oct. 96, but not closed yet.

9605-29 Convener - inform SC22 of the WG15 procedures for electronic balloting within WG15.

Done, see SC22 report

9605-35 Convener - investigate how we get registration and ballot done for PDISP documents (ie profiles).

Closed; request made to SC22 and SGFS leadership 6 Sept. 96 - process appears to be:

(Based on feedback from the SGFS Chair, Willem Wakker)

"According to SC22/N1820 the first two logical steps are done:

1- SC22 gets a NP approved. This is done (see SC22/N2102)

2- WG15 requests subdivision of the above NP. This is also done (I understand),

approval in London?

Then it gets interesting. According to N1820 step 3 is:

3- WG15 produces a taxonomy change proposal and an explanatory

report for the ISP, and sends this as a proposed liaison statement

to SC22. This is approved by a (letter) ballot at SC22 level.

After approval, the liaison is sent to SGFS

I think that this can be done immediately after approval of step 2.

Step 4 is kind of SGFS internal (TR 10000 procedures etc), the final step 5

syas again something about things to be done by SC22:

5- WG15 produces the ISPs together with the explanatory report

(see SGFS procedures), and sends this for `CD' ballot to SC22.

When this is approved the documents are forwarded to SGFS for

informal review and the production of a review report, and then

to JTC1 for DISP ballot.

I see no problem in progressing along to above lines. The only thing that

need to be done once the sub-division is approved (step 2) that is not

specified above is the process to get the ISP number (or project number;

normally here Bill would get in touch with Keith Brannon to get the next

IS number). For ISP this process is normally handled by the SGFS secretary

Peter Bessems at NNI ( I would suggest that Bill

contacts Peter about this issue. What might be helpful in this process is

if Jim (WG15) gives some thought on the document structure of the planned

ISP: will there be one single ISP with possibly multiple parts, or will

there several individual ISPs or what? If there is a need for more than one

ISP (number) is it then useful to try to allocate a small range of numbers?"

9605-51 Convener - notify SC21/WG4 that we have terminated the position of liaison to their group on the recommendation of that liaison that no further liaison activities are expected for the foreseeable future. (R 96-330)

OPEN; convener contact is though:

Japanese Industrial Standards Committee

c/o Standards Department

Ministry of International Trade and Industry

1-3-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku

Tokyo 100

9605-52 convener - forward the nominations of the following persons: Stephe Walli - JTC1 22.39 and JTC1 22.41 Barry Hedquist - JTC1 22.14515 and JTC1 22.37 Keld Simonsen - JTC1 and JTC1 22.14677 as project editors to SC22 for confirmation. (R 96-332).

Done, see report to SC22; also included additional nominees proposed by U.S. and confirmed by email ballot of WG15.

9605-58 Convener - notify SC22 that the following projects: JTC1 (UPE) JTC1 (Real Time) JTC1 (Threads) have been completed and integrated into the primary document, and since future revisions will be done as part of the main document, these work items may be terminated. (R 96-338)

Done, see SC22 Report

9605-59 Convener - request that SC22 extend the deadline of the following projects which have not reached the CD/PDAM registration within the required 3 year time limit (R 96-339): 9945-0 Language Indepent 9945-1 Transp. File Access 9945-1 Protocol Ind. Interfaces 15068-4 Print Administration 14519 Ada Real Time Binding 22.39 9945-1 System API addendum 22.40 9945-1 Real Time addendum

Done, See SC22 report

9605-60 Convener - forward the draft Taxonomy Change Proposal prepared by the U.S. member body to the SC22 Secretariat with the recommendation that it be forwarded to SGFS with appropriate header information as defined in WG15 N651. (R 96-340)

Done, See SC22 report

9605-61 Convener - request SC22's approval of appropriate Division of Work items to permit the work on POSIX OSE profiles (IEEE 1003.10, 1003.13) as defined in the Taxonomy Change Proposal (WG15 N643) and also request an appropriate Division of Work item for 1003.1j (advanced realtime). (R 96-341)

Done, See SC22 report

9605-62 Convener - notify SC22 of WG15's proposal (N649) for decision making by email (using ISO 646 format for documents) whereby a response or a request for a 15 day extension is due within 45 days of transmission and reminders will be sent out to non-respondents after 15 and 30 days, and encourages SC22 to implement a similar proposal. (R 96-342)

Done, See SC22 report

9605-64 Convener - get approval of the SC22 on the new synchronization plan as amended by WG15 N676. (R 96-343)

Done, See SC22 report

9605-67 Convener - call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for IEEE 1003.1a System API Amendment (JTC1 22.39). (R 96-345)

OPEN; Reg ballot closes 12/96

9605-69 Convener - call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for IEEE 1003.1f Transparent File Access (JTC1 (R 96-345)

OPEN; Reg ballot closes 12/96

9605-71 Convener - call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for IEEE 1003.1g Protocol Independent Interface (JTC1 (R 96-345)

OPEN; Concurrent PDAM reg & ballot closes 12/96 [note there are issues with thisone]

9605-73 Convener - call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for IEEE 1387.4 Print Administration (JTC1 22.15068-4). (R 96-345)

OPEN; Reg ballot closes 12/96

9605-75 Convener - call and conduct an editing meeting to create, approve, and forward to the SC22 Secretariat, a disposition of comments for IEEE 1003.1j Advanced Real Time Extensions (JTC1 project number not yet assigned). (R 96-346)

OPEN; Division of work approved by SC22 - See SC22 Report; balloting not yet initiated

9605-78 Convener - forward the WG15 recommendation contained in resolution 96.348 to SC22.

(CEN work plan), Done, See SC22 Report

7 Aug 1996

WG15 Report to SC22 for Sept. 1996 Meeting

Action requested of SC22:

1. Appointment of Project Editors: [res 332]

  • Jon Spencer is unable to continue in the overall role, and WG15 has determined to recommend project editors for each document (or set of documents) independently:
  • (lis) Keld Simonsen (5/96)
    <Multiple>9945-1 -- 1003.1/1b/1c/1g/1i Stephe Walli (5 & 8/96)
    22.42P1003.1e Casey Schaufler
    <Multiple>9945-2 -- 1003.2/2a Stephe Walli (5 & 8/96)
    22.43P1003.2c Casey Schaufler (8/96) (soft) Jay Ashford (from Oct. 95) (User); 15068-4 (Print) Martin Kirk (from Oct 95)
    22.1451914519 (Ada) & other Ada bindings Ted Baker (8/96)
    22.3814252 (OSE) request for nominations



    14515-1.02 (Test Methods)

    Barry Hedquist (5/96)
    22.14515-22003.2 Shane McCarron (8/96)
    22.1476614766 Guide to Natl. Profiles & Locales Keld Simonsen (5/96)
    (div. of work)IEEE 1003.10/13/14/18 Jim Oblinger (8/96)

    2. Withdrawal of Projects

  • Note: WG15 has been engaged in a "project management" activity quite similar to that proposed by JTC1, and the withdrawal of the projects below reflects this activity.
  • Batch Systems Oct 95 resolution for Batch administration Oct 95 resolution
    The Following projects are complete and merged into primary documents and should be removed from the SC22 program of work
    22..21.02.02User Portability extensions (merged into 9945-2) amd 1, real time (merged into 9945-1) amd 2 threads (merged into 9945-1)

    3. Extension for Projects that have not reached CD within 3 years Materials being provided to Denmark for development work [is lang. binding required?] registration initiated [Draft 6.4 for CD reg/bal] PDAM registration & ballot initiated CD registration initiated
    22.39System API addendum (.1a) PDAM registration initiated
    22.40Real Time Addendum (.1d) Doc in Review and Comment 5/96

    4. WG15 Synchronization plan

  • WG15 N676 (attached) is an update of the WG15 Synchronization Plan and is submitted to SC22 for approval. [attachment #4]
  • 5. Taxonomy recommendation for SC22 Profiles

  • See attached recommendation for profile and associated information [attachment #1]. This should be endorsed and forwarded to SGFS. Below is a proposal for division of the SC22 work item to cover the two most mature documents in this area (Supercomputing, IEEE 1003.10, & Real Time, IEEE 1003.13). Two others can be expected later, 1003.18 (general purpose systems) which was circulated some time back for SC22 awareness, and 1003.14 (multiprocessing) which is available for circulation to SC22 IF SC22 would like to see the current draft before a request for division of work item.
  • 6. Request for Division of work items

  • WG15 requests the following division of the SC22 Profile work item:
  • div of:
    (C lang API))
    Portable Operating System Interfaces (POSIX¨) - Part 1: Advanced Realtime System Application Program Interface Extensions [C Language Binding] (P1003.1j)
    div of: 22.15287
    (Profiles umbrella)
    POSIX Supercomputing Applications Environment Profile (1003.10)
    Standardized Environment Profile
    -- POSIX¨ Realtime Application Support (1003.13)

    7. Endorsement of Fasttrack for Ada Real time extensions Fasttrack

  • WG15 has recommended that the U.S. fasttrack an amendment to the Ada POSIX bindings for real time (IS 14519 amendment; project is the Ada Binding.). An amendment for 14519 to incorporate real time capabilities (corresponding to these extensions in 9945-1) was circulated to SC22 for comment in N1501 (1993) and a revised version in N1813 (4/1995). The action proposed for SC22 is to invite the U.S. to forward this amendment for fasttrack processing by JTC1. There is no project or division of work that covers this area in SC22 currently.
  • 8. Comments on JTC1 N3826 / SC22 N2039 --Action Plans on Conformity Assessment

  • The approach used by WG15, and response to the questions raised by JTC1 is outlined in a contribution from the U.S. development group for the POSIX standards, and attached to this report along with comments from other WG15 Members. We would note that ISO Standards 13210 and 14515-x are specific work that has resulted from WG15's activities in conformance test methods, and that the concepts of conforming applications and conforming implementations set forward in 9945-1 have parallels in many other SC22 projects (where both applications and compiler implementations can be characterized as conforming or not conforming to the specifications of a given standard.) [attachment #3]
  • 9. Comments on JTC1 N4039 - SC22 N2105 - Electronic presentation of Standards-

  • The draft proposal of Nov. 95 distributed in the April 96 SC22 distribution appears to be inconsistent with the resolutions of JTC1 at the March 96 meeting [see res. # 32 of JTC1 & JTC1 N3778]
  • 10. GII standard and SC22:

  • Application portability and development of applications in standardized languages is of significant value in both the development of software support for GII, and developing applications that are designed for distribution and/or execution over the GII. This includes SC22 language standards, internationalization, and operating system interfaces.
  • 11. Information Sought from SC22 Member Bodies and Working Relations

  • WG15 Is concerned that documents it is forwarding which represent multiple amendments to a base document, and how these are adopted (hopefully efficiently) by regional standards bodies such as CEN.
  • WG15 is unclear on how CEN will be able to update their adoption of ISO standards from WG15 in a timely fashion as amendments and revisions are brought forward. This may be a concern to other SC22 groups, and is a question we might raise with our CEN working relations.
  • For Information of SC22

  • 12. Common Work Plan with CEN/TC304 - (Per SC22 N1961, & resolution 95-31; WG15 res 348):
  • Whereas SC22 has requested WG15 to cooperate with CEN/TC304 on a plan for the production of standards, WG15 has reviewed the document Project team report CEN/TC304/PT01 (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 N1961) together with the responses from its liaisons and member bodies. WG15 recommends to SC22 that WG20 serve as the focal point for this work and asks that the relevant parts of the document ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG15 N644 (response to action item 9510-10) be forwarded to CEN/TC304 for a response. WG15 also asks that the designated working group prepare and distribute a coordination plan to all concerned parties for their information. WG15 would then be pleased to consider any specific proposals that the designated working group might wish to develop.
  • 13. We have terminated rapportuer groups on: Conformance Testing, Coordination of Profiling Activities, and internationalization (and previously on Security); tasks in these areas are being handled by WG15 directly
  • 14. We have terminated liaison with WG13 and WG5 areas due to a lack of volunteers to pursue this activity, we do have liaison from EWOS in related areas, but not liaison to EWOS.
  • 15. WG15 has encouraged the IEEE to sponsor the Guide for National Profiles and National Locales (14766) activities, and would invite national bodies to nominate additional experts to participate in that work. See the WG15 web site for details (
  • 16. WG15 has adopted a method for electronic decision making using email, a copy of this process is attached for feedback of SC22 members. SC22 is encouraged to adopt a similar policy (and WG15 could then follow that policy). [attachment #2]
  • 17. WG15 has also agreed to electronic distribution of documents, along with archiving. Paper copies will not be distributed where electronic distribution has been provided.
  • 18. 13210 is ready for a revision ballot (project 22.37) and a document will be forwarded to the SC22 Secretariat for CD Registration ballot.
  • Documents Currently in Balloting - (& Date of ballot closing)

    22.429945-1 Security PDAM ballotMay 30, 1996
    22.439945-2 Security PDAM ballot May 30, 1996
    22.14515-22003.2 Conform. Test for 9945-2 DIS ballot not yet started
    22.39.1a add. extensions to 9945-1 PDAM registration Dec 2, 1996 CD registration Dec 2, 1996 registration Dec 2, 1996 PDAM registration & ballot
    15068-2Software Admin DIS ballot pending

    WG15 report attachment #1

    Proposed TR10000-3 Taxonomy additions for SC22 POSIX based Profiles

    Scenario/relationship positioning of PSE variants:

    The POSIX Application Environment Profiles are developed with application software portability at the source code level for specific environments as their objective. Source code portability requires specification of at least one computer language as well as the interfaces defined in the POSIX standards, so these profiles typically include computer languages, and potentially include API's (Application Program Interface) for other services beyond the operating system (communications, database access, graphics, etc.) All of these profiles include a normative reference to IS 9945-1, the POSIX System Interface API.

    There are four major segments defined here: the Interactive Systems Environment, , two High Performance Application Environments and a set of Real Time Application Environments. The interactive system environment corresponds with the traditional multi-user operating system set of services, with language development in C (or Ada as an alternative).

    The real time environments range from embedded real time applications (settop devices, guidance control systems, etc.) which might not have any "rotating media", with steps up to a full blown environment that includes all of the "interactive systems environment" and expands it to include most of the real time options as well.
    Title of WorkReference document from IEEE
    PSE 01-HIPInteractive Systems Environment Profile 1003.18
    PSE 10-HIPSupercomputing Application Environment Profile 1003.10
    PSE 14-HIPMultiprocessor Application Environment Profile 1003.14
    PSE 51-PMinimal Realtime System Profile 1003.13
    PSE 52-PRealtime Controller System Profile 1003.13
    PSE 53-PDedicated Realtime System Profile 1003.13
    PSE 54-IPMultipurpose Realtime System Profile 1003.13

    WG15 Report, attachment #2

    WG15 Electronic Decision Making Process

    Proposal on WG15 decision making by EMAIL 23 May 96

    Note, most "decisions" related to actual standards drafts are handled by SC22. However, WG15 has decisions that need to be made, from endorsing action (such as forwarding a document to SC22 for balloting) or agreeing to a disposition of comments. Such decisions are made, ideally, "with no objections" ... seeking to identify any concerns that might be raised, and also to achieve consensus. Here is our recommendation on how we conduct this via electronic means as a result of the May 1996 meeting (resolution 342, Doc 649r):

  • 1) Distribute a "WG15 BALLOT" via the official WG15 email reflector. The title should include those words to help members recognize decision related mail. (Even though the feedback sought is likely to not be a "yes/no" ballot response.). Documents for decision should be short, "flat", ISO 646 text format.
  • 2) The email document will propose a position, and/or wording to be approved. (i.e. "forward draft x of abc for concurrent CD registration and ballot", or "text for the disposition of comments is as follows: ...")
  • The primary question raised will be "do you have any objections to the stated position (or recommendation)?" with room to expand on comments related to the recommendation.

    And the question will be raised: "is this the response for your member body?" --- (WG's are primarily nominated experts, and may or may not be speaking for the member body ... but objections at the WG level from any expert should be considered.)

  • 3) A time period will be set for response of 45 days. An extension for 15 more days may be submitted by any member body within this period. Reminders will be sent via the email reflector by the convener after 15 and 30 days.
  • 4) Approval and alternatives:
  • At the end of that time, if there are no objections or requests for an extension the proposal will be considered to have been approved.
  • Please direct comments to the entire WG15 distribution list (just as concerns would be voiced to the entire group), this will allow other members to concur with a comment, or to propose a resolution. And please do this as quickly as possible in the cycle.
  • The convener will incorporate comments and proposed changes to the document with the intent of establishing the greatest consensus (i.e. including things that seem easy, or where there is significant concurrence with the concern.)
  • If there is controversy over a proposed change, but substantial consensus exists (for this, affirmative feedback is also needed) then the proposal will have been considered to be approved.
  • If there not substantial consensus, the issue will either be restructured and a new ballot initiated, or refereed to a discussion of the Working Group.
  • WG15 report, attachment #3

    Subject: (wg15tag 1364) (SC22WG15.872) WG15 Action Item 9605-14

    Date: July 17, 1996

    From: Barry Hedquist; Chair; PASC Test Methods Working Group

    The following response to the Conformity Assessment Action Plan was generated by the PASC Test Methods Working Group in Nashua.

    Re: ISO/IEC JTC 1/SWG-CA N 197

    ISO/IEC JTC 1 N 3826

    ISO/IEC JTC 1/ SC 22 N 2039

    ISO/IEC JTC 1/ SC 22/ WG 15 N 633

    1. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 22/WG 15 requested the US member body to respond to JTC1 N 3826, "Recommended Request from JTC1 for Action Plans and Information form SCs and SGFS on Implementation of JTC 1 Policy on Conformity Assessment and JTC 1 Policy on Interoperability".

    2. The main body of work within WG15 has been the development of application portability interfaces (APIs) for POSIX. This work has been carried out by the IEEE Computer Society's Portable Applications Standards Committee (PASC). Since the focus of this work is on application portability interfaces, the answers given here are provided in the context of conformity assessment of those interfaces, rather than interoperability assessment.

    3. Concerning the request for information on implementation methodologies:

    3.1 Assessment Methodologies

    a). What is the practice and experience with regard to conformity to standards and interoperability of IT systems?

    IEEE/CS/PASC standards are written so they can be implemented and those implementations can be certified as conforming. These standards also require that implementations provide documentation describing specific details of the implementation. All of the standards contain a conformance section describing the conformance requirements. Some of the API standards have corresponding test method standards developed within IEEE, and forwarded to ISO, and test method implementations (test suites) developed by organizations outside the WG15 community (commercial and government).

    b) To what extent is there a need to differentiate between conformity assessment and interoperability assessment?

    We see the two as different activities. Our APIs do not define interoperability requirements, thus we focus only on conformity assessment.

    c) Are reference implementations of standards used? If so...

    Reference implementations are not used, however we have developed a standard that defines requirements for test method specifications and implementations.

    d) Are formal specifications of standards used? If so...

    No, formal description techniques have not yet been used for conformity assessment, however we have developed rigorous test method specifications.

    e) What methodologies and tools (including formal techniques) already exist and are in use for assessment of conformity and interoperability.

    There are existing test method specification standards, and conformance documents is use today by government and industry for the development of test method implementations (test suites) and use by accredited testing laboratories.

    f) What is the standardization status of each of the methodologies and tools.

    Some complete, some in process, some in planning. [See IS 13210 and 14515, wg15 convener]

    g) To what extent, and in what manner is there a need for conformity assessment to be complimented by interoperability assessment.

    None, for us.

    h) What, if any, additional standardization is needed to cover interoperability assessment.

    None for us - we don't define interoperability requirements.

    i) To what extent, and in what manner is it possible to rely upon and recognize, transpose, or reference existing material form sources outside the SC/SGFS, e.g. publicly available specifications for existing test methods or suites.

    We don't take nothing and use it blindly. Everything must be subjected to a public review process, and possible modification.

    j) Are there areas which are important for current and future market needs, for which conformity assessment and/or interoperability assessment methodologies need to be developed and/or standardized, and if so, which are the high priority ones?

    We believe that the area of greatest need and importance is for conformity assessment methodologies and standards for interface standards which promote application portability.

    3.2 Key interfaces for Interoperability

    These questions all deal with interoperability and are not applicable to our program of work. However, we do believe that application portability is required to promote interoperability. As such, the key standards are the POSIX Application Portability Interfaces (APIs) and their associated test method standards.

    Other WG15 Member input:

    The UK MB comments to WG15 are that, while the aims of the JTC1 papers are to be applauded, we believe that sourcing and directing the required effort at SC and WG level will be problematic.

    Experts are drawn to contribute to the standards process usually because they (or their employers) see a need for a document to clarify existing practice or to point a way for emerging technology. The experts are volunteers but the costs to their employers are not insubstantial. These 'technology' experts are not necessarily the same group of people with expertise in conformity assessment, and JTC1 will need to attract people from that group in order to achieve its goals.

    This implies extra costs, not just in financial terms, but also in terms of the management of the standardisation process, where different groups of experts may need to be shepherded through the sequence necessary to create a single 'conforming' standard.

    Management of the process will have to take account, from the very start of a project, whether conformity assessment is likely to be a requirement of that project, and if so whether the necessary effort is available. In some circumstances, where a project is deemed to be of critical importance but where conformity experts are not available for whatever reason, JTC1 may have to decide whether to proceed at all, and if so whether to attempt to 'buy in' the conformity expertise; the effects here could be very extensive indeed.

    WG15 report attachment #4

    WG15 N676 CTN6-r0 --, 23 May 1996

    Attached here, deleted from WG15 convener report, see WG15 N676