Proposed resolution:

This issue is a duplicate of LWG 2869.

[ 2017-02-03, Daniel comments ]

This issue unintentionally became added a second time, it should be considered as a pure duplicate of LWG 2869. By a wit of fortuity, both issues can also be transformed into each other by transposing the last two digits of the issue numbers.

The contents of <codecvt> are underspecified, and will take a reasonable amount of work to identify and correct all of the issues. There appears to be a general feeling that this is not the best way to address unicode transcoding in the first place, and this library component should be retired to Annex D, along side <strstream>, until a suitable replacement is standardized

Proposed change: Deprecate and move the whole of clause [locale.stdcvt] to Annex D.