Timetable --------- The Company Review starts on August 6th 2004, and finishes on August 20 2004, and is open to all members of The Open Group. The timetable is as follows: Review materials available 30 July Company review start 6 August Company review end 20 August Change Request review meeting 23 August Recommendations posted for ballot 24 August Ballot of recommendations 25 August - 1 September Address unresolved issues w/c 6 September 'Sanity check' draft review 13 September Board approval by teleconference/email COE Platform V2 Certification Program Approved 30 Sep All materials are available in pdf format, and the commenting format is the aardvark format. They are now available at http://www.opengroup.org/gesforum/doc-review/ To submit comments you can either complete the web form at http://www.opengroup.org/gesforum/doc-review/bugreport.html or if you prefer to make bulk comments send them by email to oggesforum-review@opengroup.org (mail sent to that address will be sent to all members of the GES Forum reflector) Information on the aardvark comment format follows below regards Andrew ------------ AARDVARK Aardvark is the X/Open bug eater. It is used to collect written comments on specific review documents. Review comments or `bugs' should be phrased wherever possible in terms of specific wording changes. Bugs submitted in this way can then be more easily discussed at relevant working group meetings, or voted on by email. Aardvark automatically processes and collates bugs from appropriately formatted email messages. This allows all bugs from many sources relating to a single document to be collated and presented in page order in a single Change Request Report. To use Aardvark follow this procedure: Send your issues by electronic mail to the appropriate group in the following format : Subject: BUG in where is one of COE_Linux_PS COE_Linux_Gov_PS COE_Linux_Specs_PS COE_Linux_Platform_v1_CSQ COE_Certpolicy-1.1L @ page line section objection|comment|editorial [comment] Problem: Explain why here. Be sure to add sufficient explanation for someone not familiar with the problem to be able to make a decision. Action: Be specific. For example: Change "leftmost character" to "first character in the string" (You can normally trust the editor to take care of formatting issues in such changes, including use of the correct font et cetera, unless there is something out of the ordinary) NOTE that page and line numbers must not include spaces: 1-2,3,5-6 is valid, but 1-2 3 5-6 is interpreted as 1-2. PLease DO NOT USE TABS, nor indent your text unnecessarily. Multiple comments on one document should be submitted in a single message. Simply separate each comment by a blank line, then start again from the `@ page ...' line. The `@' character must be at the beginning of a new line and be followed by a space. In the special case where you wish to raise a single issue which has similar ramifications at many places in the document, but which can be discussed together, it is helpful if you state the first instance with @ page and list later instances in the bug report without an @ symbol, for example: @ page 344 line 62 section printf objection Also scanf Problem: Terms used in printf, scanf, and similar interface specs are not consistent. In various places the terms "conversion letter", "conversion specifier", and "conversion character" are used interchangeably. I believe the correct term is "conversion character", as defined on page 344, line 59. Action: Here and also at page 344 line 52 section printf objection page 344 line 53 section printf objection page 346 line 92 section printf objection page 381 line 40-41 section scanf objection page 382 line 43 section scanf objection Change "specifier" or "conversion specifier(s)" or "conversion letter" to "conversion character(s)" If all goes well, Aardvark sends you a message confirming the number of bugs it was able to process from your message. Malformed "@" lines are rejected; if this happens, Aardvark tries to send you email telling you which lines it could not process. The following are examples of invalid aardvark: @ page 373 line many section objection line "many" is not valid @ page 0 line 0 section objection section not specified @ page 606 line all section objection line "all" not valid Please include line numbers and a section reference (either numeric or interface name). Bug Categorization There may be cases where the originator feels unable to provide text, for example where a clarification is requested. In such cases there are two possibilities: - write down one of the possible alternatives. This at least serves to illustrate your concern. - contact someone else, in advance, who may be able to suggest some wording. Wording can be improved at the resolution meeting, but there will not be time to create new wording, and no possibility of subsequent off-line text generation. To emphasize: CHANGE REQUESTS WITHOUT EXPLICIT EDITING INSTRUCTIONS WILL BE REJECTED. 1. Objections You should only classify an issue as an "objection" if you would vote against approval of the submission if that issue is not resolved. Any objection which is not supported by rationale, or which does not provide a responsive proposal for resolution, will be deemed invalid, and reclassified as a "comment". 2. Comments If you wish to raise an issue where you believe that a better solution is available, but the issue would not, on its own, cause you to vote against approval of the submission if the issue were not resolved, you should classify it as a "comment". 3. Editorials Issues marked as editorial will not be discussed, they are included in this mechanism as a simple way to bring such matters to the sponsors attention. (If you see someone else classifying an issue as editorial, and you believe it DOES need discussion or clarification, you should resubmit the point yourself, with a different classification.) Note that it could be helpful for you to include a company identifier and sequence number (eg X/Open 25) in the optional "comment" field within square brackets ([]) at the end of the @page line for later cross referencing, as Aardvark consolidates the input from all sources into a single numbered list. -------------------------- end of file ----------------------------------- ----- Andrew Josey The Open Group Director of Certification Apex Plaza,Forbury Road, Email: a-dot-josey-at-opengroup.org Reading,Berks.RG1 1AX,England