From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Tue Aug 18 02:27:25 2015
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 31321356693; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 02:27:25 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (mailhost.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.139.109])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C903356679
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 02:27:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [137.79.7.57] (math.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.7.57])
	by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id t7HMEMtp024580
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128 bits) verified NO)
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:14:26 -0700
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5535) WG5 straw ballot on draft TS
From: Van Snyder <Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
References: <20150814170931.B41963572EE@www.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150814170931.B41963572EE@www.open-std.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Organization: Yes
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:14:22 -0700
Message-ID: <1439849662.12691.349.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-34.el6) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Source-Sender: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov
X-AUTH: Authorized
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

Please answer the following question "Is N2074 suitable for forwarding to 
ISO for publication?" in one of these ways. 

1) Yes.
2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes. 
3) No, for the following reasons.
4) Abstain.

I would have preferred that we had taken the opportunity to cover many
of the properties of and restrictions on event type and lock type with
the single blanket of a PROTECTED attribute usable for any type, as
advocated in 14-165r1, rather than making each of them a separate
special case that offers no assistance to any other types, but that's
water under the bridge.

I vote 1) Yes.