ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34N0952

ISO/IEC logo


Information Technology --
Document Description and Processing Languages

TITLE: SC34 response to List of Issues with the Alignment of the JTC 1 Processes
SOURCE: Mr. Keld Jørn Simonsen; Mr. Dave Welsh
STATUS: Comments and analysis
ACTION: To be forwarded to JTC 1 SWG Directives
DATE: 2007-12-11
DISTRIBUTION: SC34 and Liaisons

Dr. James David Mason
(ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Chairman)
Y-12 National Security Complex
Bldg. 9113, M.S. 8208
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8208 U.S.A.
Telephone: +1 865 574-6973
Facsimile: +1 865 574-1896
Network: [email protected]

Mr. G. Ken Holman
(ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Secretariat - Standards Council of Canada)
Crane Softwrights Ltd.
Box 266,
Telephone: +1 613 489-0999
Facsimile: +1 613 489-0995
Network: [email protected]


Document Title: SC34 response to List of Issues with the Alignment of the JTC 1 Processes

In ISO/IEC JTC 1 N 8666 there is a list of Issues and Questions Regarding the Alignment of JTC 1 Processes. SC 34 has given input to these questions below.

  1. Inconsistencies within the Directives in dealing with these procedures. Should the inconsistencies be maintained (intentional vs. accidental inconsistencies)?

Response: We recommend that inconsistencies between fast-track and PAS be removed. In the following we therefore give responses that pertain to both sets of processes.

a. What information should be provided to National Bodies with any proposal (NP, Fast Track, PAS)?

Response: We leave NP out of the question for now. For PAS / Fast Track processing when the proposed specification is distributed, a explanatory report of what is and is not the actual specification and a separate concept maintenance plan should be supplied, and an overall description of all documents and their status written by the JTC 1 secretariat should also be supplied.

Is the information needed by National Bodies the same for all?

Response: Yes for PAS / Fast Track

Does each process have separate requirements?

Response: Only during the phase of the establishment of the credentials of the submitter. After that, it should be the same process.

Where separate requirements exist, please list them.

Response: None.

Should the explanatory report be used in both the PAS and Fast Track processes and should it be aligned with information requested on the NP form?

Response: Yes that sounds like a good idea.

b. Should the possibility of document withdrawal be aligned between PAS and Fast Track processes?

Response: Yes. Withdrawal by the submittor should be possible after the DIS ballot has finished.

    c. How should the 30 Day Review Period be addressed?

    Response: The 30 day review period should be removed, as it has not led to anything useful, even with problematic fast-tracks.

    d. How should the discrepancies in the acceptance criteria (voting process) (clause 9 and clause be addressed?

    Response: They should be aligned both for internal and external projects in favor of the Clause 9 wording, and ensure that the voting forms (Annex G) are also consistent with Clause 9.

e. Should maintenance requirements be aligned between the PAS and Fast Track processes? Should these requirements be strengthened?

Response: Yes they should be aligned. It should always be needed that a JTC 1 group would be involved. The originator should also be involved, in a cooperate effort respecting each of the set of procedures of the participating organizations, and gathering all experts of the involved organisations in joint meetings, along the rules stipulated in SC34 N0587.

  1. Should the commenting in the enquiry stage (if applicable) and approval
    stages of all three processes be aligned? What type of comments should be
    allowed in each stage of the processes? Are the voting forms (G10 and G18)
    and electronic balloting system consistent with the voting processes?

Response: We should remove unneccessary differences. The forms should be removed as all voting now is done online, and the forms next to an online voting system are merely a source for confusion.

  1. Is the information required for PAS Submitter Recognition adequate? For
    example, please see items 1 and 4 contained in JTC 1 N 8632, French
    Contribution on the Potential Alignment of PAS and Fast Track Processes.

    Response: no comment.

  1. Should we align the a.)JTC 1 Fast Track Process and b.) JTC 1 PAS Process
    with the ISO and IEC Fast Track Process? For example, if the BRM
    following the DIS ballot results in the modification of the document, should
    the document be balloted as an FDIS? If so, how do we align the processes?
    For example, please see JTC 1 N 8634, which proposes the alignment of the
    JTC 1 Fast Track and PAS processes.

    Response: There is already a de facto FDIS ballot in the 30 days reconsideration period after the BRM.

  1. Should we harmonize the initiation of all three JTC 1 processes? For example, NPs require National Body votes for approval. Please see the third chapter of JTC 1 N 8625.

    Response: Yes to harmonization in concept. A clear equivalence of the different stages in each of the processes is desirable.

NOTE: The Fast Track Process creates both International Standards and Technical Reports Type Three.

Response: PAS should also be allowed to create TR type 3.

NOTE: The PAS Process in JTC 1 is different than the PAS Process in ISO and IEC, and alignment of the two processes is not intended.