Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!longway!std-unix From: jsh@usenix.org (Jeffrey S. Haemer) Newsgroups: comp.std.unix Subject: Standards Update, IEEE 1003.7: System Administration Message-ID: <413@longway.TIC.COM> Date: 21 Oct 89 03:09:21 GMT Sender: std-unix@longway.TIC.COM Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net Organization: USENIX Standards Watchdog Committee Lines: 107 Approved: jsq@longway.tic.com (Moderator, John S. Quarterman) From: Jeffrey S. Haemer An Update on UNIX* and C Standards Activities September 1989 USENIX Standards Watchdog Committee Jeffrey S. Haemer, Report Editor IEEE 1003.7: System Administration Update Steven J. McDowall reports on the July 10-14, 1989 meeting, in San Jose, California: War and Remembrance - How I survived a Posix Meeting Listen closely to this tale of wonder and bewilderment and hope that you shall never have to face such horrors as I. Yes, I was there when, in a flurry of activity, the 1003.7 committee elected Steven Carter to the chair. To show he was a good choice, Carter immediately sat on the chair to which he'd been elected. This was swiftly followed by the election of Vice-chairs Martin Kirk and Dave Hinnant (though I shall speculate not on what vices they may have perpetrated on those chairs); Mark Colburn, Secretary (owing to a proven ability to take dictation lying on a pool-side sun bed); and their honors Bob Bauman and Shoshana O'Brien, Technical Editors. You may sense that I feel few exciting things happened in San Jose. Correct. I wish this group would get into some real fights, like other groups. Interoperability may prove our only hope. Still, progress is progress, however uncontentious. Here's what else seemed to me to be important. 1. Language Independence The group voted, nearly unanimously, that the country of Language should be independent. We were uncertain about where, precisely, it might be, but tentatively put it near Borneo. We chose to use ASN.1 ("Abstract Syntax Notation - 1") as our internal notation for data structures. The group also appointed me representative to the 1003.1 language-bindings group to watch what those pursuers of knowledge are doing in this area. __________ * UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T in the U.S. and other countries. September 1989 Standards Update IEEE 1003.7: System Administration - 2 - 2. Interoperability X/Open continues to push this into the foreground. Luckily for us, they also continue to help us understand what it entails. Group consensus holds that interoperability is within the purview of 1003.7. What we're still uncertain of is how far down we should standardize; only through the application layer? down to the packet layer? For example, a standard application-layer protocol insuring interoperability might require that certain Application Program Interface (API) calls be available, with given arguments and results, but say nothing about how those calls are made. In contrast, a transport-level protocol might require that the information be fed into the API will be in a pseudo-ASN.1 format to help in non-homogeneous networks. A still lower level protocol might detail the exact packet structure, including ASN.1 format for the object data, to prevent foreign machines in a non-homogeneous network from throwing out otherwise unrecognizable packets. Most committee members have strong, idiosyncratic ideas about this subject and the issue is certain to re-surface in Brussels. We need input on this from the community at large. Where do YOU think a standards organization like the IEEE should draw the line in ensuring interoperability? [Editor's note -- This is not a rhetorical question. Things you do in the future may be affected by decisions P1003.7 makes in this arena. If you have an opinion on this subject, speak up.] As an aside, the current X/OPEN representative, Jim Oldroyd of the Instruction Set, Ltd., who has really helped the group a great deal in this area, may not attend the next 1003.7 meeting. We think this would be a real loss, and hope that X/OPEN and his employer find a way to arrange for him to go. 3. Misc. Some progress was made in doing the ASN.1 syntax for a few of the basic objects the committee decided on for phase I of the standard. Everyone is discovering that defining such objects (File Systems, Devices, Spools, etc.) in a non-ambiguous way using a meta-language like ASN.1 might not be as easy as we first thought. Live and learn, eh? September 1989 Standards Update IEEE 1003.7: System Administration Volume-Number: Volume 17, Number 43