Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:59:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@watson.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/ufs/ufs ufs_acl.c Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1011027165734.13538B-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200110271946.f9RJkXe88069@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I, needless to say, agree on all points, and would be interested in participating in such an effort. There exists a posix1e discussion mailing list, which I run off one of my boxes, and has a relevant set of subscribers. However, I don't normally participate in IEEE standards processes, so probably am not the right person to guide that process. However, informal agreement was reached with regards to a number of disambiguations and extensions between the SGI developers, Linux developers, and myself, and I think we have the ground to build on if we want to. Could you say a little more about any standards processes that might be accessible through or sponsored by USENIX, which I have had more dealings with in the past? Also, we reached informal agreement that I would be the editor of a new "revision" to "POSIX.1e", attempting to capture our modifications, but I haven't had the opportunity to work on that as yet. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, Garrett Wollman wrote: > <<On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:42:43 -0400 (EDT), "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@watson.org> said: > > > just say "We're POSIX.1e compliant... sorta kinda maybe" ? > > We can't even say that, since POSIX.1e officially unexists. > > I have hope that the people working on this will eventually get > together with Nick Stoughton (USENIX standards liaison) and PASC (the > POSIX people) to charter a new .1e effort (which by IEEE rules will > have to be called something else). > > The problem with .1e was that its scope was too large, and the group > was unable to come to concensus on some of the interfaces which were > included in that scope. A new effort, if chartered, would presumably > restrict its scope to just those interfaces on which concensus has > already been achieved. > > -GAWollman > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1011027165734.13538B-100000>