IEEE PASC Guidelines for Interpretations Groups

A Guide to Understanding the Process

Author: Andrew Josey, PASC Functional Chair Interpretations

Purpose: This document is intended to clarify the IEEE PASC Interpretations process. This document quotes from PASC/WG15 POSIX Interpretations Process - Guidelines Document reference SEC N434r3 1994.

Audience: Users of IEEE Standards and Interpretations

Introduction

Occasionally, questions may arise regarding the meaning of portions of standards as they relate to specific applications. When the need for interpretations is brought to the attention of the IEEE, the Institute will initiate action to prepare appropriate responses. Since IEEE Standards represent a consensus of all concerned interests, it is important to ensure that any interpretation has also received the concurrence of a balance of interests. For this reason, the IEEE and the members of its technical committees are not able to provide an instant response to interpretation requests except in those cases where the matter has previously received format consideration.

Interpretations Process Guidelines

Interpretation requests are reviewed and evaluated by an official interpretations group. The Interpretations groups follow a set of guidelines to ensure requests are processed appropriately.

There are three over-riding rules related to interpretations:

Rule 1) THE STANDARD IS WHAT IT SAYS. The words actually approved by the balloting group reflect the requirements set forth by that document. If the words are substantively wrong, then a corrective amendment via the balloting process is the proper response. Interpretations must be a comment on what the standard actually does say, not what it should say, nor what it says incorrectly. These are mechanisms for quick revision of the standard, and these must be used to make changes to "how things should be".
Rule 2) If THERE IS AMBIGUITY in what the standard calls for; then interpretations must favour a looser conformance requirement rather than a more restrictive one. This will allow some "weirdnix" implementations to conform to a current standard. Again, corrective action can be taken via a rapid amendment process and eliminate this ambiguity with the full backing of the consensus process.
Rule 3) If THERE IS A CONTRADICTION between two sections of the standard, and there is reason to believe that one part is correct, then the rationale should be elucidated and the IEEE errata correction process applied. (i.e. the response recorded as an "errata" and the corrected text added to the IEEE errata sheet for the standard by the IEEE project editor.)

Pro-forma responses

In order to follow the guidelines, PASC interpretations group make use of the following pro-forma responses in order to guarantee uniformity of the process. Note, stating the conformance implications is important, and offers a way to distinguish between requirements placed on implementations, applications, and test methods.

THE UNAMBIGUOUS SITUATION:
"The standard clearly states....,and conforming implementations must conform to this"
THE "DEFECT" SITUATION (i.e. the balloting group appears to have gotten it wrong):
"The standards states..., and conforming implementations must conform to this. However, concerns have been raised about this which are being referred to the sponsor."
THE AMBIGUOUS SITUATION:
"The standard is unclear on this issue, and no conformance distinction can be made between alternative implementations based on this. This is being referred to the sponsor."
THE UNADDRESSED ISSUE:
"The standard does not speak to this issue, and as such no conformance distinction can be made between alternative implementations based on this. This is being referred to the sponsor."
CONFLICT BETWEEN BASE STANDARD AND A TEST METHOD STANDARD:
"The test method standard clearly indicates that a conforming test suite must... However, the base standard indicates that such a result reflects a non-conforming implementation. Therefore a conforming test suite, will not correctly report the conformance of an implementation of the base standard in this case. The results of a conforming test suite in this case should not be used to determine the conformance of an implementation of the base standard. This situation is being referred to the sponsor(s)."
CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO LANGUAGE BINDINGS:
"The xxx language binding and the yyy language binding require different behaviour of conforming implementations. This situation is being referred to the sponsor(s)."
CONDITIONAL INTERPRETATION BASED ON OTHER STANDARD(S):
"The required behaviour of this xxx standard is dependent on the requirements of the yyy standard. If yyy requires aaa then xxx requires bbb, whereas if yyy requires ccc then xxx requires ddd. A request for interpretation of the yyy standard is being forwarded to the yyy committee."
SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO PREVIOUS INTERPRETATION:
"This request is substantially identical to interpretation #aaa, and the resolution of that interpretation applies in this case."
SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO PRIOR REQUEST, BUT WITH CRITICAL NEW PERSPECTIVE:
"This request is substantially identical to interpretation #aaa, however in considering it appears that the previous interpretation should be superseded. The current interpretation for this situation, (which does affect the previous conclusion) is...". In this case an attempt should be made to notify the previous requester.
REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF A DIFFERENT DOCUMENT (draft..):
"This request is for interpretation of xxx, the approved standard is yyy, the requester is asked to re-submit this request if the question(s) are still pertinate to the approved standard."
REQUEST IS UNCLEAR (after attempt to contact requester for clarification):
"This request is not sufficiently clear to permit an appropriate interpretation. The Requester is asked to submit a rephrased or more specific request." (Some rationale, specific issue, or point of ambiguity should warrant comment in feedback to the requester.)