Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!usenix!jsq From: jsh@usenix.org (Jeffrey S. Haemer) Newsgroups: comp.std.unix Subject: Standards Update, IEEE 1003.3: Test Methods Message-ID: <568@usenix.ORG> Date: 1 Oct 90 18:42:48 GMT Sender: jsq@usenix.ORG Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net Organization: USENIX Standards Watchdog Committee Lines: 129 Approved: jsq@usenix.org (Moderator, John Quarterman) X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net Submitted-by: jsh@usenix.org (Jeffrey S. Haemer) An Update on UNIX1-Related Standards Activities October 1, 1990 USENIX Standards Watchdog Committee Jeffrey S. Haemer, Report Editor IEEE 1003.3: Test Methods Doris Lebovits reports on the July 16-20 meeting in Danvers, MA: Overview Dot three's job is to do test methods for all of the other 1003 standards. The group's work, whose first parts are now in ballot, specifies the requirements for OS conformance testing for our industry and for NIST. This makes our balloting group, our technical reviewers, and our schedules worth watching. Pay attention, also, to what comes out of the Steering Committee on Conformance Testing (SCCT). Their projects and decisions will be interesting and important. This was the working group's seventeenth meeting. As usual, we reviewed the ballot status of P1003.1 test methods, worked on P1003.2 test methods and reviewed steering committee activities. Technical reviews were done on parts I and II and the group developed assertions for part III. Participants from the usual companies attended (AT&T, NIST, OSF, Mindcraft, IBM, DEC, HP, Data General, Cray Research, Unisys, Perennial, and Unisoft, Ltd.), as did an assortment of P1003.2 members (see below). Document structure Currently, our evolving document has three parts: Part I is generic test methods, Part II is test methods for measuring P1003.1 conformance, including test assertions, and Part III contains test methods and assertions for measuring P1003.2 conformance. After the ballot, each part will become a separate standard. Part I will be published as IEEE P1003.3, Part II as IEEE P1003.3.1, and Part III as IEEE P1003.3.2. __________ 1. UNIXTM is a Registered Trademark of UNIX System Laboratories in the United States and other countries. October 1, 1990 Standards Update IEEE 1003.3: Test Methods - 2 - Ballot status Draft 11 of the current ballot, which was recirculated to the (approximately) ninety-member balloting group late in February, closed balloting March 23. Of the respondents, 19 disapproved with substantive negative comments. This met the two-thirds response requirement, but falls short of the needed two-thirds approval. A recirculation ballot for P1003.3 Draft 12, which is the revision of Part I of Draft 11, began August 28 and is expected to close September 28, 1990. The recirculation of P1003.3.1 Draft 12 (Part II) will be conducted at a later date. On the first and last days, the technical reviewers worked on ballot objections to Part I and Part II. All Part I objections and most Part II objections were resolved. The definition of an untested assertion was reviewed and a permanent rationale will be included in Part I. P1003.2 verification This was our fifth meeting working on the verification standard for the P1003.2 standard. The assertion writing and review were done jointly with the P1003.2 working group. The whole P1003.3 and P1003.2 working groups worked jointly on defining test assertions based on P1003.2 Draft 10. They worked in three small breakout groups. The joint group (P1003.2 plus P1003.3) also met in plenary session several times to discuss progress and small-group issues. Progress was slow in the beginning, since most of the P1003.2 working group were not familiar with test assertions. but by the end of the week we had discussed and resolved several issues. Some examples: - Do we need to state assertions in P1003.3.2 explicitly that duplicate P1003.3.1? (Yes.) - Must we test locale variables for every locale-sensitive interface? (They should be tested when their behavior is clearly stated for a utility.) - Should assertions for multiple operands be consistent? (Yes.) Lowell Johnson (Unisys) is Secretary of the P1003.2 Test Methods activities, and Andrew Twigger (Unisoft Ltd) is Technical Editor. Ray Wilkes, the former Chair, has changed jobs and is no longer able to attend regularly, so Roger Martin is actively looking for a replacement. October 1, 1990 Standards Update IEEE 1003.3: Test Methods - 3 - Steering Committee on Conformance Testing (SCCT) The SCCT is supposed to alleviate the increasing dot-three work load that all the other proliferating groups are creating. Their job is coordinating the activities of all test-methods groups, monitoring their conformance to test methods, and writing Project Authorization Requests (PARs). Currently, its members are Roger Martin (NIST, Steering Committee Chair), Anita Mundkur (HP), Andrew Twigger (Unisoft Ltd), Bruce Weiner (Mindcraft), Lowell Johnson (Unisys) and the newest member, John Williams (GM). That there is a new member in the steering committee is very important, especially because John is from GM, the largest user voice other than the U.S. government. The steering committee did not have anything for the working group to review. It is still documenting procedures, and Roger is still clarifying which standards the working group will address. October 1, 1990 Standards Update IEEE 1003.3: Test Methods Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 162