PAR Evaluation Criteria for the Revision to 1003.1-2001 AUSTIN-299r1 1. INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE There must be widespread existing industry experience (User, Producer and General Interest) which represents a substantive portion of the scope of the PAR. This project revises an existing standard with widespread existing industry experience; the project does not add new material which does not have similar widespread experience. 2. BASE DOCUMENT There must be a base document with community support from which the work can be started. If there are several documents, then there must be evidence of the willingness of the affected parties to work together to generate a single standard. Any such document must be for use free of encumbrances. The base documents are the existing 1003.1 standard and the following documents from The Open Group: The Open Group Technical Standard Extended API Set Part 1 The Open Group Technical Standard Extended API Set Part 2 The Open Group Technical Standard Extended API Set Part 3 The Open Group Technical Standard Extended API Set Part 4 Representatives of the affected parties have agreed to work together to incorporate the updates. For new material, the material is copyright of one of the existing parties and there is no encumbrance, the resulting copyrights will be as per the existing 1003.1 standard. 3. REALISTIC SCOPE AND TIMELINE The scope of work must specify a realistic set of objectives, attainable by the specified completion date. Note that the completion date must be within a window which allows the produced standard to be accepted and useful. Such objectives should include: - Document outline - First Draft - First Ballot The draft timeline for the document (from the Austin Group) shows drafts available as follows: June 30 2006 Oct 31 2006 May 15 2007 Aug 1 2007 Dec 15th 2007 Mar 1 2008 With technical completion estimated as April 2008 Estimated PASC timelines based on the above are: Draft Outline: Complete, since based on the existing document First Draft: June 30 2006 (Based on a full-time technical editor from TOG) First Ballot: October 31 2006 Final Approval: April 2008 4. APPROPRIATENESS AND INDUSTRY ACCEPTANCE Is there evidence that developers of portable applications will use the results of the work? Not just "is it within PASC scope" but "does this bring sufficient value to the industry" or "does it sufficiently further the interests of the industry"? There is significant evidence that application developers have widely accepted the existing 1003.1 standard. Many implementors have already built systems which conform to 1003.1 standard and implementations already exist for the new additions. It is expected that the industry will implement the proposed standard. 5. COORDINATION PLAN For PARs affecting approved standards, a plan for coordination and integration of the work must be established. Extensions or modifications to approved standards should only be made after careful consideration of the impact on the community which relies on these stable, approved standards. PARs which propose extensions or modifications must indicate the other PASC standards work which they will affect. This project will be developed by the same people who developed the base standards to be revised. Coordination will be sought with the PASC SSWG-RT working group for matters related to the 1003.13 profiling standards. Coordination will also be sought with the ISO C committee Coordination is expected to be provided by common membership. 6. COMMUNITY COMMITMENT Submitters of a PAR must exhibit the community's commitment to participate in the work. These participants must include a Chair and Technical Editor, as well as a sufficient number of technical experts representing a reasonable balance of viewpoints, and the participants must be willing to support the secretarial function. Committed participants should have expertise in the subject matter or should be able to draw upon resource with that expertise. The identified participants must be prepared to begin work immediately upon the proposed project; PARs will not be sponsored if nobody will actively work the project for some time. Professional project management and TE services will be provided by The Open Group. Many Open Group members and other POSIX system vendors are committed to providing resources for the common revision project. The following have committed to working the project: IBM Corporation Red Hat Inc. Sun Microsystems, Inc. The Open Group LLC USENIX Association 7. WITHIN PASC SCOPE The PAR's proposed scope of work must be within the scope of PASC activities. All within scope. 8. REASONABLE RESOURCE IMPACT The time frame for the work specified in the PAR must be appropriate given the impact it will have on PASC resources (e.g. core personnel from other active PASC work groups, meeting space, etc.) The 1003.1 work group is the main group within PASC; resources are thus expected to be available and will not impact other projects. 9. TEST PLAN We do not intend to produce test methods in parallel with production of the documents, but it is expected that the existing test suites for POSIX will be extended if the business case exists. 10. ISO JTC1 BUSINESS CASE All projects which are expected to be progressed through any ISO JTC1 mechanism must have a business case which is submitted to JTC1 as part of the JTC1 New Project approval process. The pro forma business case definitions are attached as Appendix B. This section of the PAR Evaluation Criteria discusses the relationship between other criteria and the various sections of the pro forma. Market relevance (A.1) is related to criterion 4, Industry Acceptance. There must be a group of likely users of the proposed work; that is, people or organizations that are likely to acquire implementations of the standard. There must also be a group of vendors likely to implement the proposed standard. The group of users must be specifically identified. Regarding Regulatory Context (A.2), it seems likely that regulations of a single nation will be of little interest to ISO. The Related Work criteria (B.1, B.2, B.3) ask for a list of other standards or organizations. It appears that references to any accredited Standards Body or work thereof are acceptable; IEEE projects and documents, in particular, have been mentioned. The Mature Technology status (C.1) derives directly from criteria 1 and 2, Existing Industry Experience and Base Document. Given those criteria, the vast majority of PASC projects proposed for ISO progression should check the Yes box for this item. Other PAR evaluation criteria are designed to strongly discourage projects based on Prospective Technology (C.2); it is very unlikely that PASC would sponsor a project for which the answer to this criterion is Yes. PASC PMC Procedures Appendix B - JTC1 Business Case Pro Forma (Extracted from ISO JTC1 N4477) A. Business Relevance. That which identifies market place relevance in terms of what problem is being solved and or need being addressed. A.1. Market Requirement. When submitting a NP, the proposer shall identify the nature of the Market Requirement, assessing the extent to which it is essential, desirable or merely supportive of some other project. Indicate if this is Essential, Desirable, or Supportive. ISO/IEC 9945 Parts 1 through 4 is an important standard in use throughout the world, and this is a revision to keep it in use beyond Year 2008. This is an essential market requirement. Millions of dollars of applications are built upon this standard. A.2 Technical Regulation. If a Regulatory requirement is deemed to exist - e.g. for an area of public concern e.g. Information Security, Data protection, potentially leading to regulatory/public interest action based on the use of this voluntary international standard - the proposer shall identify this here. Indicate if this is Essential, Desirable, Supportive, or Not Relevant. Not Relevant B. Related Work. Aspects of the relationship of this NP to other areas of standardization work shall be identified in this section. Each of the three subcriteria should indicate whether the work is being performed for the identified purpose, Yes or No. B.1 Competition/Maintenance. If this NP is concerned with completing or maintaining existing standards, those concerned shall be identified here. Yes this is maintenance of ISO/IEC 9945 Parts 1 through 4. B.2 External Commitment. Groups, bodies, or fora external to JTC1 to which a commitment has been made by JTC for cooperation and or collaboration on this NP shall be identified here. IEEE PASC The Open Group B.3 External Std/Specification. If other activities creating standards or specifications in this topic area are known to exist or be planned, and which might be available to JTC1 as PAS, they shall be identified here. None. C. Technical Status. The proposer shall indicate here an assessment of the extent to which the proposed standard is supported by current technology. For each of the three possible statuses, the technology of the proposed NP should be rated Yes or No. C.1 Mature Technology. Indicate here the extent to which the technology is reasonably stable and ripe for standardization. Yes C.2 Prospective Technology. If the NP is anticipatory in nature based on expected or forecasted need, this shall be indicated here. No, it is a revision based on real need. C.3 Models/Tools. If the NP relates to the creation of supportive reference models or tools, this shall be indicated here. No. D. Any other aspects of background information justifying this NP shall be indicated here. This is a joint project between The Open Group, IEEE PASC and ISO SC22. See attached. PASC PMC Procedures Appendix C - Additional Requirements on PARs 1. SCOPE In accordance with PASC SEC resolution 9801-02 (SEC N705), any PAR proposing an amendment to 1003.1 or 1003.2 must contain within its scope the following statement: This standard will not change the base standard which it amends (including any existing amendments) in such a way as to cause implementations or strictly conforming applications to no longer conform. Exceptions may be granted to permit resolution of interpretations and technical corrigenda.