Austin Group Minutes of the 8 May Teleconference 	Austin-168 Page 1 of 1
Submitted by Andrew Josey, The Open Group.              May 9, 2003

Attendees

Andrew Josey, The Open Group
Ulrich Drepper
Don Cragun , Sun, PASC OR
Nick Stoughton, USENIX, WG15 OR
Mark Brown, IBM, TOG OR 
Joanna Farley, Sun

The primary purpose of the call was to discuss the scope and purpose
of a proposed TC2 (technical corrigendum 2).

Andrew had circulated a strawman scope/purpose  which was essentially
the same as TC1.  The consensus agreed that the strawman was fine, there
was no reason for any change from what was done for TC1 and we should start
the process to submit the paperwork to IEEE.

Andrew noted that we need to do an initial sort of the
aardvark , into categories and circulate for comment, and that should
be followed by another telecon.

There was some discussion over the future of WG15, and the desire
for the ISO representation to continue - most probably by some appointee
from the SC22 level where the work will be transferred.

The call then picked up at the aardvark , concentrating on some items
that had been open for some time.

The materials are at:

http://www.opengroup.org/austin/aardvark/finaltext/

XCU
----
XCU ERN 5

Accept as marked

1.  We treat the original change request as an interpretation request
    (IR); not as a change to go into TC2 of the current standard.
2.  We respond to the IR saying:
	A. the standard is clear (and therefore you can't do this and
	    still conform),
	B. this issue will be forwarded to the sponsor for
	   consideration in the next revision (code words for the
	   standard is wrong), and
	C. have the sponsor indicate a future direction specifying that
	   the next revision of the standard should change XCU6, P820,
	   L31681-31683 from:
		"If either of the files dot or dot-dot are specified as
		the basename portion of an operand (that is, the final
		pathname component), rm shall write a diagnostic
		message to standard error and do nothing more with such
		operands."
	   to something like:
		"If either of the files dot or dot-dot are specified as
		the basename portion of an operand (that is, the final
		pathname component) or if an operand resolves to the
		root directory, rm shall write a diagnostic message to
		standard error and do nothing more with such operands."
The standard is clear/standard is wrong wording should allow
implementations to make this change if and when they choose to do so
sometime in the next five or so years.  No change would be required
until we start making changes to implement SUSv4, IEEE Std 1003.1-20xx
(xx >= 05), and ISO/IEC 9945-[1234]:20xx (xx >= 05).  I would like to
have this interpretation apply to XCU3, XCU4, XCU4v2, XCU5, and
POSIX.2-1992 as well but I'm not sure how to make that happen at this
point.

XSH
---

XSH ERN 72

Accept ( Agree with the suggested action)

XBD
------


XBD ERN 19
Accept as marked, number 1
suggest interpretations track

XBD ERN 20
Accept

XBD ERN 21
Accept


Next meeting
------------

The next meeting is proposed to be May 22 at the
regular timeslot.

Andrew will update the aardvark reports on the web site with the
latest information including new aardvark subsequently received.