Fwd: CAP spec questions

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hi EM-Msgers, Elysa, Mary, Art

Since we voted as a subcommittee to recommend CAP v1.2 to the TC for 
a vote for Committee Draft and a 60-Day Public Review at next week's 
meeting, we can approach this a few ways. However, I think we should 
take this up either at a special meeting, which I don't favor, or 
during our next regularly scheduled meeting, postponing a TC vote 
until we resolve these issues. I am specifically not comfortable with 
the second point in the collected changes below:

-add the phrase "one or more Signature elements" as Jacob recommends;

-change the schema to specify that only 1 (one) EncryptedData element 
is allowed, AND change 3.3.2 Security Note appropriately (we need the 
language here);

-move the DateTime Data Type to the Normative References section;

-change specification of <status> in Data Dictionary on page 14 to 
read ", exercise Identifier SHOULD appear in <note>"; and

-change specification of <note> to read "The message note is 
primarily intended for use with <status> Exercise and <msgType> 
Error." (just making the order reflect the order they occur in the 
document).

Art: current document says  "The message note is primarily intended 
for use with Cancel and Error alert message types." Cancel doesn't 
mention note. Is there a reason to mention Cancel?

Question to all: Should we go through Data Dictionary and either put 
periods at end of all sentences, or leave as is? (If no one has 
brought it up before now, it certainly isn't earth-shattering, but we 
might as well be consistent.)

If we were to have a special meeting, I would prefer it tomorrow or 
Wednesday. I was hoping that our timing would be pristinely 
serendipitous, but...?

Cheers,
Rex


Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:27:57 -0400
From: Jacob Westfall <jake@jpw.biz>
To: rexb@starbourne.com
Subject: CAP spec questions
Organization: JPW
X-Nonspam: Statistical 65%

Hi,
	Some spec editing questions regarding CAP 1.2.  I've been 
going through and cleaning up the draft 04 of the CAP 1.2 spec, 
fixing the table of contents, correcting puncuation, whitespce, 
numbering, etc.  Nothing substantive, all editorial fixes but will it 
need to be voted on again when this cleanup is done?

In the revision history at the bottom, should this capture revisions 
to past versions like 1.0 and 1.1 or is it just revisions to 1.2 
itself?

The DateTime Data Type is currently in the Terminology section but I 
thought it might belong in the Normative References section since we 
are stating that this Data Type formatting must be used in the 
appropriate element values, thereby being normative.

I noticed 2 potential errors in doing this further review.

The first is that section 3.3.3 on Security and Encryption states 
that only 1 EncryptedData element is allowed and 1 Signature element. 
This is wrong, it should be 1 EncryptedData and multiple Signature 
elements.  So wording could be added to say "one or more Signature 
elements".  The schema should also be updated to reflect that only 1 
EncryptedData element be allowed but keep the multiple Signature 
elements that is already in there now.

The second is page 14 element name status.  For status "Exercise" it 
says "exercise identifier should appear in <note>".  This probably 
should be "SHOULD" instead.  It would also mean updating the text for 
the note element to reflect that "The message note is primarily 
intended for use with <msgType> Error and <status> Exercise"

Again all minor changes and not really substantive but I wanted to 
know how best to handle them.  Thanks,

--
jake@jpw.biz
--

-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670