From jls@uxb.liv.ac.uk Fri Feb 5 17:01:34 1993 Received: from ib.rl.ac.uk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA08849 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Fri, 5 Feb 1993 18:02:41 +0100 Received: from mail.liv.ac.uk by ib.rl.ac.uk (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with TCP; Fri, 05 Feb 93 17:02:07 GMT Received: from uxb.liverpool.ac.uk by mailhub.liverpool.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) id <03975-0@mailhub.liverpool.ac.uk>; Fri, 5 Feb 1993 17:01:47 +0000 Received: from uxb.liv.ac.uk (uxf.liv.ac.uk) by uxb.liv.ac.uk (4.1/SMI-4.1-LIV-CSD) id AA15712; Fri, 5 Feb 93 17:01:34 GMT From: jls@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Dr.J.L.Schonfelder) Message-Id: <776.9302051701@uxb.liv.ac.uk > Subject: Ballot on N1267, CD 1539:1991 Amendment 1 (fwd) To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk (SC22/WG5 members) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 93 17:01:34 GMT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 I received the following from Bob Follett, I think this effectively solves the UK's problem with the amendment issue. All it appears to need is the number changed in the CD from 1539-1 to 1539-2. I have not discussed this with the UK panel but I dont think they will mind having the discussion in a wider public. Lawrie Follett RH wrote > From FOLLETT@BETVMIC1.VNET.IBM.COM Thu Feb 4 17:11:30 1993 > Message-Id: <9302041711.AA23461@uxb.liv.ac.uk> > Date: Thu, 4 Feb 93 12:04:21 EST > From: "Follett RH" > To: jls@uxb.liverpool.ac.uk > Subject: Ballot on N1267, CD 1539:1991 Amendment 1 > > Laurie, I checked with the office of the JTC1 Secretariat about the > possibility of converting an Amendment to a Part; if that's what SC22 > wants to do, it's really not a problem. There is precedent for this. > In SC21, the ISO Reference Model, IS 7498, was originally published as > a standard, but later parts were added for Security (Part 2), Naming and > Addressing (Part 3), etc. When the original standard is revised, it will > be republished as Part 1, but today that's implied. > > The processing steps for an Amendment are the same so ITTF really doesn't > care whether something is published as an Amendment or a Part. However, > we have to be clear in WG5 and SC22 what we want. We should decide now > if we want to change the Fortran Amendment 1 to be Part 2, so that the > DIS will reflect the way we want it published. > > Regards, > Bob > -- Dr.J.L.Schonfelder Director, Computing Services Dept. University of Liverpool, UK Phone: +44(51)794 3716 FAX : +44(51)794 3759 email: jls@liv.ac.uk