Delegate report from JTC 1 SWC directives meeting - March 7-9, 2007
This report is my contribution for the response on SC34 N0749 from
the JTC 1 SWG directives meetings in Ottawa and New York.
N0749 had an unfortunate faith. First it was not distributed in
time by the SC34 secretariat to the JTC 1 secretariat, so it was
rejected for the Ottawa meeting. Then the JTC 1 secretariat forgot to
distribute it to JTC 1 in time for the New York meeting, so it was
also rejected for the agenda of this meeting. Eventually the document
was distributed as JTC 1 N8525, and I was allowed to talk about the
issues in the New York meeting, although the document was not posted
to the agenda. What follows is then not an official response from the
SWG, but my personal observations. The following 7 clauses correspond
to the 7 clauses of N0749.
1. Maintenance of standards originated by the fast-track or PAS
procedures.
SC34 has identified that the following problems can occur in the
maintenance process of standards originated by the fast-track or PAS
procedures in clause 13 and clause 14 of the directives.
1.1 The maintenance process where the standard is maintained by
the originating organisation may result in slightly different
versions of the fast-tracked standard and the ISO standard. Sometimes
the changes introduced into the ISO standard are then introduced in
the standard of originating body and reballotted there. But having
two slightly different standards may confuse the marketplace and
implementors, and it would be better if ISO comments could be
introduced earlier en the process such that only one version would
result.
1.2 When a revision first needs to be ballotted in the originating
body and then in ISO gives a delay in the appearance of the ISO
standard, that is inconvenient if JTC 1 wans to produce timely
standards. The delay could be in the order of one year.
1.3 It is not easy to get national experts to participate in the
revision process, and maintain the expertise in ISO. Some national
body comments may be difficult for the originating body to
accomodate, as the specification may already be the result of a
delicate decision process.
One solution illustrated by the arrangement around ISO/IEC 9945
POSIX standard would be joint maintenance by the participating
organizations by parallel processing respecting the individual
procedures of the partipating bodies, and the participating bodies
having colocated meetings, as described in SC34 N0587.
The SWG is asked to consider this together with other possible
solutions for the revision of the Directives.
Response: The JTC 1 chair confirmed that this was one of the allowed
ways of maintenance already, and I stated that this was also only the
intention of SC34 that this mode be allowed.
2. Problems with clause 13.4 resolution of comments received
during the 30-day review period.
In a fast-track submission there is an initial 30-day comment
period.
The Directives indicate the comments shall be resolved by the ITTF
and the JTC 1 secretariat, but this may be difficult and the national
bodies and the designated project editor should probably be involved.
Response: this proposal was overtaken by events by approval of the
new procedures for fast track in JTC 1 N 8521.
3. Problem of getting notice of ballots in ISO and IEC on DIS
level.
Currently it is very difficult for working group experts to get
information on standards that are out for ballot at DIS level.
Information on at least the title and ballot due dates would be very
valuable for experts and possibly the public in general.
Response: A proposed recommendation is to issue a JTC 1 document with
the title and due dates of the documents on DIS level from ITTF.
4. Comments on fast-track submissions
SC34 would like clarification that comments on fast-track
submissions can include those of an non-technical, editorial, or
general nature, in addition to technical comments.
Response: the JTC 1 chair, Scott Jameson clarified that nobody
could hinder national bodies to express any comments they want, even
in such ballot. I will look to work on a proposal for changed
wording.
5. Availablility of the PAS Explanatory Report
The Explanatory Report mentioned in clause 14 should be available
to members of the subcommittee and working group to which the PAS
submission has been assigned.
Response: this will be available with the ballot, and obtainable
via the national body as part of this ballot.
6. Document Formats
JTC 1 Directives Section H4.1 Document Formats should include the
following formats in the list of acceptable document formats.
Response: this will be releyed to the IIT-RG group, and an answer
is expected for the next SWG meeting in Paris.
7. Testing conformance
There are no mechanisms by which National Bodies can validate that
organizations claiming conformance to the JTC1 standards are actually
conforming. SC34 feels that it should be a requirement for all PAS
and fast-track submitters to provide National Bodies with conformance
procedures. Where standards, such as DIS 26300, only require
conformance to parts of the standard, there should be clearly
documented boundaries, at a high level in the document structure, to
which conformance can be claimed.
Response: They felt that there was no way to accomodate this
proposal.
8. Other information
The current directives are recorded in JTC 1 N8521 (SC34 N0828).
