windows-xp/Source/XPSP1/NT/base/subsys/posix/ballot/1003.rsp

The following is the response to the ballot resolutions for P1003.3,
Draft 11.0 Part 2.  I apologize if the form of the response is
incorrect. In brief, we reject without additional comment the 4 objections
that were rejected in the resolution of the item.

| ------------------------------------------------------------
| Part 2 Section(s) 4.2.3.2-4.2.3.4 Page(s) 85-86 Line(s) 214-240
| Balloter: Gregory W. Goddard (206) 867-3629 ...!uunet!microsoft!markl
| Identification: 0122 Position on Submittal: OBJECTION
| 
|     Assertions 3, 4, 6 are classified incorrectly.  Since there is no
|     portable way of modifying a process' list of supplementary group
|     ID's, testing the information returned by this call is questionable
|     if _SC_NGROUPS_MAX is greater than zero.  Since there is no portable
|     way to set the number of supplementary group id's in a process,
|     verifying that the information returned by getgroups() is correct
|     can not be done portably.
| 
| Required Action:
|     Change assertions 3, 4, and 6 to (B) or (D) assertions.
| 
| RESOLUTION:DISCUSSION:
|         Change to C type assertions with the condition:
|         
|         "If the implementation provides a mechanism to create a list of
|          supplementary Ids for a process"
| 
| TR3:
|   I see no reason for changing this text.
| 
|   POSIX.1 defines NGROUPS_MAX as an option.  POSIX.1 does not define
|   the method of implementing NGROUPS_MAX.  Therefore, according to
|   our definition for "conditional features" the method of implementing
|   NGROUPS_MAX is not a conditional feature.
| 
|   This is a PCTS installation procedure.
| 
| RESOLUTION:REJECT:
| 
| ** RESPONSE: REJECT 
| 
| ------------------------------------------------------------
| Part 2 Section(s) 4.7.1.2 Page(s) 101 Line(s) 621-624
| Balloter: Gregory W. Goddard (206) 867-3629 ...!uunet!microsoft!markl
| Identification: 0123 Position on Submittal: OBJECTION
| 
|     Assertions 3 and 4 are classified incorrectly.  Since there is no
|     portable way of establishing the controlling terminal for a process,
|     there is no way to verify the correctness of this function.
| 
| Required Action:
|     Change assertions 3 and 4 to (B) or (D) assertions.
| 
| RESOLUTION:DISCUSSION:
| TR1:
|         Change to C type assertions with the condition "If the implementation
|         provides a method for allocating a controling terminal:"
| 
| TR3:
|         The process should already have a controlling terminal.  The PCTS doesn't
|         have to establish a process with a different controlling
|         terminal to check these assertions.
| 
| RESOLUTION:REJECT:
|    1) REJECT the resolution with no additional comments.  We will then
| 
| ** RESPONSE: REJECT 
| 
| ------------------------------------------------------------
| Part 2 Section(s) 5.1.2.2 Page(s) 110 Line(s) 104-105
| Balloter: Gregory W. Goddard (206) 867-3629 ...!uunet!microsoft!markl
| Identification: 0124 Position on Submittal: OBJECTION
| 
|     Assertion 8 is classified incorrectly.  Since there is no portable
|     way of causing the underlying directory to be read, there is no way
|     to test when the st_atime field of the directory should be marked
|     for update.
| 
| Required Action:
|     Change assertion 8 (B) or (D) assertions.
| 
| RESOLUTION:REJECT:
|         It is at least known that a call to opendir() followed by a call
|   to readdir() will cause the underlying directory to be read.
|
| ** RESPONSE: REJECT 
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------
| Part 2 Section(s) 5.6.1.1 Page(s) 149 Line(s) 1232-1237
| Balloter: Gregory W. Goddard (206) 867-3629 ...!uunet!microsoft!markl
| Identification: 0126 Position on Submittal: OBJECTION
| 
|     Assertions 4 and 5 are classified incorrectly.  Since there is no
|     portable way of creating a character special file or a block special
|     file, there is no portable way to test these assertions.
| 
| Required Action:
|     Change assertions 4 and 5 to (B) or (D) assertions.
| 
| RESOLUTION:REJECT:
|         It is inconceivable that a POSIX.a conforming system does not have
|         a character special file and a block special file. There is no
|         requirement for the PCTS to create these only for the PCTS to
|         know the address of them.
| 
| ** RESPONSE: REJECT 
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------