China National Body have been paid special attention to the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 ballot. Great work have been done and during the process we found it is a very complex technology which needs further more time to establish testing environment for thoroughly and deeply evaluation. We think the fast-track procedure is not suitable for this DIS.
We requested an extension to the ballot period for the DIS29500 for another 6 months in the letter to ISO/IEC JTC1 secretariat as well as ITTF. We still keep to our position that more time is necessary and essential to conduct a credible and responsible evaluation.
ge
Proposed Disposition of DIS 29500 Comment CN-0001 (Modified: 2008-01-08) Fast-Track processing is governed by the ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, which state in §13.3: "The period for combined DIS (or DAM) voting shall be six months. This shall consist of a 30-day JTC 1 National Body review period followed by a five-month ballot." Further, this 6-month processing time is consistent with ISO/IEC Fast-Track processing. As such, neither the Project Editor nor the Ballot Resolution Meeting has the ability to extend the ballot period. DIS 29500 is indeed a large specification. However, there is precedent for ISO/IEC specifications totalling thousands of pages. Examples include: ISO Standards for the Exchange of Product model data (STEP): o ISO 10303-210:2001 4,515 pages o ISO 10303-214:2003 3,529 pages o ISO 10303-212:2001 2,808 pages o ISO 10303-218:2004 1,837 pages MPEG 2 Standard (ISO/IEC 13818) 1,558 pages MPEG 4 Standard (ISO/IEC 14496) 4,415 pages ODA 1,244 pages POSIX (ISO/IEC 9945) 3,549 pages Please note other standards following similar processes, such as the PDF format, a specification of over 1300 pages, which was submitted to ISO in June 2007 and ratified as ISO 32000 in December 2007. We note that China did not provide any comments in a 30 day JTC1 national bodies review period of DIS 29500 in the Jan. 5- Feb. 5, 2007 contradiction period before the actual 5 months ballot. In consideration of the size of the specification, interim draft versions of the specification were publicly posted on the Ecma web site during development of ECMA-376 as early as May 2006. SC 34 (which has liaison status with Ecma) was invited to access and review these drafts, which led to contributions from Relax NG and NVDL experts in SC 34. (See http://www.ecma- international.org/news/TC45_current_work/TC45-2006-50_06Sept28.htm .) The size of DIS 29500 is a consequence of the goal of compatibility with a large corpus of existing documents, which requires that the specification address a large number of topics. Many topics are documented in great detail as an aid to implementers, which further increases the size of the DIS. Ecma actively solicited feedback from the community in the development of ECMA-376, and much of the detail was provided in response to specific requests for additional information and clarification. We therefore believe that preserving this level of detail is in the best interest of the community. Nonetheless, Ecma has sought to make the specification as easy to review as possible, by providing a high-level overview of the fundamentals as Part 1 (173 pages) and a thorough primer in Part 3 (472 pages). A careful review of these sections provides the reader with the context to review the details of part 4 as efficiently as possible. The JTC 1 Special Working Group/Directives meets regularly to review the Directives and discuss proposed amendments for JTC 1 approval. The Project Editor suggests that National Bodies share their concerns with SWG/Directives or directly with JTC 1 as a National Body Contribution.
Unsolvable comment
I’ve recategorized this as a Wrecking Amendment, as it is requiring that the proposal be rejected, or at least postponed, unconditionally.
I think this a a valid argument for China since they large character set to work with. However, delaying this for another 6 months is too long and I suggest delaying this for 3 months to China evaluate this.
It might be a valid argument for china to raise but it complelty out of place here in the comments on DIS 29500. It is an argument that China should raise for instance at a JCT1 meeting but not on a set of ballot comments. It is unsolvable as such in the ballot resolution proces and won’t be discussed at the ballot resolution meeting.
Also see the BRM FAQ written by Alex Brown for this.
http://adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry071116-060533