3-Apr: AJ to mail the Panel with proposed text for a NO vote recommendation on PDAM1 to IS 14515-1 for forwarding to IST/5. [Done: 27-Apr-1998. See P368]

3-Apr: Panel Convener: re 9945-1 PDAM 5 – the Panel recommends a YES vote, with no comments. [Done: 6-June-1998. See P369]

3-Apr: Panel Convener: The Panel proposes that the UK recommends that WG15 withdraw its Security Work Items, to maintain alignment with the (lack of) work in the IEEE.  [Done: 24-Apr-1998. See P371 Resolution 98-13]

3-Apr: DJ to check version control software, and to report any findings relevant to the proposed ‘Additional Utilities’ NP (P364) to the Panel email list within the next three weeks (ie, before the next WG15 meeting), for input to WG15. [Open]
 

3-Apr: Panel meetings will start at 10:00 in future, commencing with the meeting on 2-Oct-1998. [Done: NB - meeting rescheduled to 18-Dec-1998]

9804-22 All Member Bodies to identify specific issues that need to be addressed w.r.t. work in progress and co-operative development TOG/PASC/WG15 and report these to Roger Martin by May 31. [Closed: OBE]

[Closed: OBE]
 

[Closed: OBE]

9804-36 Member bodies to propose alternative methods for continuing and maintaining the work of WG15 if there is no convener, and to report these at the August SC22 meeting in Copenhagen. [See 9804-06] [Closed: OBE]
 

IEEE SEC have subsequently appointed a new ballot coordinator. A new ballot recirculation was organised, objections reviewed, and the new document is now ready for submission to the ballot group for final recirculation. It is expected that the draft will be approved by the IEEE SB in the next 3 to 6 months.

There is some concern that P1003.1g is now a couple of years behind current technology - the API of APB6 is now stable, for example. The Panel considered that the merge of P1003.1g into the base standard would not be a useful effort – better to use it as a basis of work for the Austin Group’s revision of the base standards.

It was reported that XNS, which also includes the basis of some threads work, is currently to be included in the remit of the Austin Group if and only if 1003.1g is approved – otherwise the Austin Group’s output will not include any networking interface.

The Panel debated the merits of locking the Austin Group to known, fixed technology, or of accepting and working on some evolution of the base standards: P1003.1g and XNS are technically aligned – and a POSIX standard without networking would be very restricted. The UK Panel propose that The Austin Group remit should include some form of networking interface, being XNS and/or 1003.1g.

NMS is attempting to progress the 1003.2b work in the IEEE, and is currently chasing proposed ISO revisions – see P378. Discussion moved to recent email from Don Cragun which queried the status and reasoning behind the UK proposal (WG15 N730) to limit the ‘ring-fencing’ of identifiers by POSIX standards. The Panel felt the issue would be best resolved by putting the paper’s author in contact with the IEEE development group.

NMS reported that there are moves afoot to get Linux developers more actively involved in the POSIX process, particularly the revision project.  The Linux community is also attempting to produce internal standards to avoid a diverging base.  A conformance test suite is being written.

The Panel’s recommended response in the Letter Ballot on WG15 Proposed Record of Responses for Defect Reports 01 to 147 for IS 9945-2: POSIX Shell and Utilities - SC22 N2689 (P374) was one of approval.

The Panel had arranged a review of ISO/IEC 9945-2:1993 POSIX Part 2, Shell and Utilities (98/644635), deadline 98-09-30, and recommended a response of approval with comments to IST/5.

IST/5 agreed that the Panel Convener, Mr N Stoughton, should be the HoD at the WG’s meeting in New Orleans in January 1999, and AITS funding in respect of his attendance was authorized.

It was noted by the panel that it has been common practice to include relevant parts of the C language definition in POSIX-based standards and guides. Inclusion was seen to be an aid to the reader, relieving him of the requirement to find the relevant portion of text in some other book. It also introduced the problem that the quoted text could become out-dated. The Austin Group were seeking guidance on the issue for its future output.
 

A cover letter to the latest mailing and an email had been sent to Panel members detailing the proposal, emphasising that no response to the proposal would be taken as approval of the change.

The Panel proposed that no posting whatever would be necessary in future. The Panel authorised its secretary to send just a reminding email two weeks prior to panel meetings, pointing to the Panel web pages. Panel documents are to be emailed to the Panel membership thus ensuring that each receives a unique email reference number, one document per email, in addition to a reference to the web pages. The Panel document list would continue to be maintained; all panel documents would therefore also have an email reference, but not all panel emails would necessarily have a panel document number.