Use of the information contained in this unapproved document is at your own risk
.Last update: 20 April,2001
1003.2 #189
_____________________________________________________________________________
Interpretation Number: xxxx
Topic: move batch job request
Relevant Sections: 8.2.3.7
PASC Interpretation Request: (Defect Report)
----------------------------
Date: 2000 June 16
Ref: XCU 38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Defect Report concerning (number and title of International Standard
or DIS final text, if applicable):
IEEE Std 1003.2d-1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Qualifier (e.g. error, omission, clarification required):
1
Error=1 , Omission=2, Clarification=3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 References in document (e.g. page, clause, figure, and/or table
numbers):
Unknown
(In the Austin Group D3, this is P151, L5382.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Nature of defect (complete, concise explanation of the perceived
problem):
All the job states specified by the standard except "running" have
a description of how a "move" request is handled. The "move of
running" case is amongst the most interesting (to the user) cases,
and it's an obvious omission, potentially leading to interpretation
requests later. (The purpose here is to get it fixed in the Austin
Group document to avoid a "real" interpretation later.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Solution proposed by the submitter (optional):
The current definition would appear to be "unspecified". That's
worth making explicit, if that was the intent. However, the batch
group should make it clear that that was the intent. (Pragmatically,
given the likelyhood that this could actually be accomplished,
something stronger may be indicated, such as "implementations need
not support moving of running jobs".)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interpretation response
------------------------
The standard is clear. Implementations must define any additional reason
for move to fail, and if it is not possible to move a running job,
that must be defined in the PCD.
Rationale
-------------
None.
Forwarded to Interpretations group: 19 June 2000
Proposed resolution: 25 July 2000
Finalised Interpretation: 29 August 2000