SC22/WG20 N869 From: Ann Bennett [nwallace@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 8:59 PM Subject: Re: Future of DTR 14652 Matt, This is what J4/WG4 has proposed for the reference to DTR 14652, as worked out with the concerned people in the Japan national body: 1) retain the normative reference to DTR 14652; add a note on how it can be obtained (this probably means noting the N number; it satisfies both the Japan national body and at least one national body that voted YES on the FCD containing the reference) 2) include the referenced content of 14652 as a normative annex to the COBOL standard (normative rather than informative because that satisfies the Japan national body) 3) add a note in the annex stating that the annex and the DTR 14652 "tolower" specification are the same. Technically, this is overkill but it seems politically necessary (or expedient). (Arnold: an assignment has been made to Mr. Wataru Takagi of Hitachi to obtain the "tolower" text of DTR 14652 and prepare an annex for the COBOL standard.) I hope this will be satisfactory to everyone. _ Ann Bennett, IBM Internet: nwallace@us.ibm.com Intranet: Ann Bennett/Santa Teresa/IBM Tel: +1 408 463-4344 -- Fax: +1 408 463-3873 Matthew Deane on 09/10/2001 01:37:53 PM To: "'Arnold Winkler'" , Ann Bennett/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS cc: "'John Hill'" Subject: Future of DTR 14652 Dear Ann and Arnold, Per the JTC 1/SC 22 US TAG teleconference, I am following up with you both regarding DTR 14652. As you know, the DTR was not approved by JTC 1 and was sent back to SC 22 for further recommendations. The immediate options are to submit a revised DTR to JTC 1 for approval, send it back to the PDTR stage, or cancel the project. After listening to the teleconference discussion, my take is that it appears that Arnold believes the best action is to cancel the project, or at the very least send it back to PDTR since it clearly needs more work. As FCD 1989 normatively references 14652, and is rapidly progressing towards FDIS, Anne would be against the cancellation of the project and also the delay caused by sending it back to PDTR. This is a tough issue and one that we could not resolve during the limited time at last week's meeting. I heard two possible solutions during the meeting: * Take the relevant parts of 14652 and put them into an informative annex in 1989. This would be useful, especially if 14652 was cancelled. * Make 14652 a registration authority standard as Arnold mentioned the problems with keeping the standard up to date with constant changes and additions. Without getting too into detail as to what each of these solutions would entail, might either of them appear acceptable to you? Are there other possible ways to solve this problem? Best regards, Matt