OPEN 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.  Action 9310-09 raised. Status:                    Open
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. PASC has an ad-hoc working on this subject to report back to PASC in 01/94. P1003.13 will define how the pieces should be broken out, this will then be fed back to 1003.1, who will then find a way to subset 1003.1.  1003.13 will then point to 1003.1 Status:                    Open

 

9105-01	Should this group take any action to influence the JTC1 work on organization? Status:                    Closed by resolution 9105-04
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. Status:                    Closed at 9305 meeting.  Resolution 9210.03 (WG15 92-210 (WG15 N326) and action item 9210-49)
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
9105-08	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. Status:                    Closed at 9305 meeting.  This is not allowed by TR10000 Part 1.
9201-10	Should profiles referring to WG15 standards also refer to OSI standards? Status:                    Closed.  If appropriate then they will be referred to.
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. Status:                    Closed at 9310 meeting.  SGFS is doing the workk in this area.
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 There is not sufficient information available at this time to make a recommendation to POSIX.  We feel that options should be discouraged but if they are there then they should be named options. Status:                    Closed at 10/93 meeting.  See resolution 93/02.
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) [Note: Reference in RGCPA 014, Minutes of the January 1992 RGCPA meeting in San Francisco, to AI 9102-20 is probably a typo for AI 9201-20:   9201-20 Participants:  recommend whether RGCPA or WG15 should be a profile developer (or of what types). This AI was not referenced in RGCPA 023, Minutes of the October 1992 RGCPA meeting in Utrecht - it appears from other missing AIs that the last page had been dropped from RGCPA 014.] Status:                    Closed at 9310 meeting.  Resolution 9305-01 was forwarded to WG15.  (WG15 Resolution 93-232).  See resolution 9310-03.