PLEASE PROOF: WD3.3 of 29500-2, OPC

Rex Jaeschke rex at
Wed Jan 10 23:02:49 CET 2018

I just spoke with Aarti about this spec, and here is our latest thinking: 


Given that there is a lot to do yet with this spec, and that Aarti will only
get one detailed review from her internal people, we'll need a far cleaner
spec before she can ask them to look at it. And by my estimate, that won't
happen until at least after the March F2F meeting.


So, I propose that I give ownership of the spec back to Murata-san, so he
can address more of the issues raised in the comments. Then we refine the
spec further on the next teleconference.


If coming out of the March F2F, the spec is in very good shape, we might be
able to have a 2-month CD ballot before the September F2F.






From: Rex Jaeschke [mailto:rex at] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 3:46 PM
To: SC 34 WG4 (e-SC34-WG4 at
<e-SC34-WG4 at>
Subject: PLEASE PROOF: WD3.3 of 29500-2, OPC


Attached is WD3.3 of the OPC Spec.


Once I got it back from Murata-san, here's what I did:


1.	I adopted all edits from WD3.2 and prior that had been resolved, so
they no longer show as tracked changes.
2.	I kept all the comments that do not appear to have been resolved.
3.	All Murata-san's edits proposed since WD3.2 are shown as tracked


I propose that at the March F2F meeting, we walk through this document and
accept/reject the proposed edits, and resolve the issues raised in comments.


Our most-recent discussion of a time line for this spec was to have a
complete version at the end of the March 2018 meeting, and after minor
changes from the F2F meeitng, to send it out for a 2-month CD ballot,
closing before the June F2F. I now think this is quite unrealistic. There is
a lot of work to do yet, and the decisions we make in March will need to be
applied to the spec and then reviewed in the following teleconferences. We
migth have a shot at getting a near-final draft for review of the June


Murata-san has long pushed to get rid of informative Annex G [formerly H],
"Guidelines for Meeting Conformance", while I pushed for keeping it. And
while we agreed to keep it, it still needed serious work to make it
complete. Unfortunately, in its current state, many of its links and
bookmarks are now badly broken, and will be non-trivial to reconstruct. So,
reluctantly, I am dropping my objection to removing this Annex. As such, I
have *not* done any work on repairing/updating this annex. If we drop this
annex, we'll need to decide what to do about all the [M], [O], and [S]
markers spread throughout the normative text.


In DR 13-0002, Murata-san proposed the addition of a new informative Annex,
"Guidelines for Format Designers" (see". As I cannot
access this link, I have not added this annex. Murata-san, can you please
circulate this proposed text?


As Caroline will likely not attend the March meeting, I'd like to give her
time to review and submit feedback before then. Likewise for Aarti's experts
(who likely will not attend that meeting).


We'll have a big job in March resolving all the open issues, so the more
preparation you can do before then, the better. And, of course, we can do
serious work on this on our January 31 teleconference.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the sc34wg4 mailing list