Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!usenix!std-unix From: jsh@usenix.org (Jeffrey S. Haemer) Newsgroups: comp.std.unix Subject: Standards Update, IEEE 1003.0: POSIX Guide Message-ID: <447@usenix.ORG> Date: 22 Aug 90 16:07:45 GMT Sender: std-unix@usenix.ORG Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net Organization: USENIX Standards Watchdog Committee Lines: 114 Approved: jsq@usenix.org (Moderator, John Quarterman) X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net From: Jeffrey S. Haemer An Update on UNIX*-Related Standards Activities August, 1990 USENIX Standards Watchdog Committee Jeffrey S. Haemer , Report Editor IEEE 1003.0: POSIX Guide Kevin Lewis reports on the July 16-20 meeting in Danvers, Massachusetts: Dot Zero's rite of passage For the first time in plenary, the group walked through the entire guide (221 pages), fine-tuning verbiage. This walk-through takes Dot Zero across a threshold: instead of soliciting content to fill up empty sections, we are now filtering the text we have. I'm proud we've gotten this far. I remember when we started this journey, virtually from scratch. By the time we finished the walk-through, we had found that we needed more structure and parameters: rules to make our walk-throughs more productive. I ended my last report with the statement, ``let's see if we have the self-discipline to get there.'' Here is where some of that self-discipline comes in... we'll see at the next meeting who abides by the rules we have agreed upon. New Volunteers for OS and UI Sections Two other good things happened in Danvers. Tricia Oberndorf is now in charge of the operating system section of the guide. Tricia is project leader for the Navy's Next Generation Computer Resources Operating System Software Working Group (whew!), which has chosen POSIX as its base standard. Heretofore, Jim Isaak had been the section leader. Now that he has greater duties to fulfill, as part of the TCOS ruling class. Tricia has graciously stepped forward to fill his shoes. In addition to this noble deed, Martha (``Marti'') Sczcur (pronounced ``seezur''), from NASA, and Ruth Klein, from AT&T, have picked up the user interface section, which, up until the April, Utah meeting, had lain untouched for almost two years. These are welcome resources. Both of these welcome volunteers made significant contributions, to the user-interface section of the recently published draft 8 -- __________ * UNIXTM is a Registered Trademark of UNIX System Laboratories in the United States and other countries. August, 1990 Standards Update IEEE 1003.0: POSIX Guide - 2 - contributions woefully lacking in draft 7, What Will We Cut and What's a Profile? Toward the end of my last report, I stated that Dot Zero still faced hard decisions in two areas: guide content and profiles. I think guide content questions will resolve themselves as we move toward the mock ballot. Deadlines, like moving your household, have a tendency to make you throw away stuff that you otherwise might have kept. Given our goal of an early 1991 mock ballot, I think we will see a change in our ``pack rat'' mentality. You might be wondering what might find itself on the editing-room floor. I can offer two sections: Data Interchange and Graphics, whose demise might come about due to a lack of interest by anyone in the committee to contribute to them and move them along. There also seems to be a lot of redundancy. Good examples of this are the sections I am responsible for: Introduction and Scope. The guide seems to say the same thing in each of these sections but struggles to make it sound different. The fine tuning efforts will root this out. We're still debating profiles, but a consensus is forming around the term POSIX profile. Dot Zero agrees we must define such a profile, but its elements still elude us. (This gets into the debate about whether a ``true'' POSIX profile needs to include 1003.1. Right now, there is only one POSIX standard, and it would seem to make sense that a POSIX profile should include it. However, there are convincing arguments to the contrary, such as a profile that specifies 1003.2 (shell and tools) compliance on DOS machines, which cannot support 1003.1. I think POSIX profiles should include some POSIX standard, but not any specific one.)_ Also, should Dot Zero make mandatory rules for profile writers, or just offer basic guidelines? These two topics will serve as the focus for much of our discussion in the October, Seattle meeting. For uniform resolution of our debates about profiles, we will meet and coordinate with representatives of the other working groups, particularly the profile groups. (Right now, that's real-time, supercomputing, multiprocessing, and transaction processing.) This will also help ensure that we hear all issues and key points of view. The primary debate here focuses on whether Dot Zero should attempt to put ``teeth'' into the guide. Does Dot Zero, because of its goal in providing guidance to profile writers, have any say about the legitimacy of current or future profiling efforts? How extensive should this guidance be? How does Dot Zero provide guidance in an area where it lacks technical expertise? These kinds of questions frame the debate. [Editor: What do you think the answers are to these questions? Speak up. If you don't go, and don't have anyone else to tell, at least tell Kevin.] August, 1990 Standards Update IEEE 1003.0: POSIX Guide Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 49