Groups - DRAFT-02-28-12-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee(2).odt uploaded

[Jeff Waters<jeff.waters@navy.mil>]

        Submitter's message
        Please review these minutes from the February 28th, 2012 meeting of the Infrastructure Framework subcommittee for approval at our meeting next week, subject to any specified changes. Thanks.
        
-- Jeff Waters

Document Name: DRAFT-02-28-12-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee(2).odt

---

Description
At the February 28th, 2012 meeting of the Infrastructure Framework
subcommittee, the members discussed the following topics:

1. TOPIC EMFW-21: Should we leave confidentiality, senderRole and
recipentRole without default lists? (Answer: For senderRole and
recipientRole, the resolution was to add a sentence or two to the
specification to reference NIEM and ICS as examples of sender and recipient
roles for guidance, but do not add them in as defaults for senderRole and
recipientRole. The DE shouldn't endorse a particular list when there are
many being considered by the community. For confidentiality, the resolution
was to change the schema and the specification to provide a two value
default: classified and unclassified. This will motivate further
consideration by users for their choice of lists.)

2. TOPIC EMFW-20: Should the DE specification attempt to enforce the
preservation of XML comments? (Answer: The DE specification is
appropriately silent on the use of XML comments. As with traditional XML
usage, comments can be used but preservation of comments is not an XML
requirement. For example, some parsers and applications of signature usage
do not preserve comments. Also the use of comments for substantive
purposes is non-standard and should be discouraged.)

3. TOPIC EMFW-19: Should the DE specification require that order of
elements be preserved beyond what is enforceable by XML schema validation?
(Answer: No. Order of elements is required by XML Schema for certain
elements, such as sequence, however it is not required by other elements,
such as elements which can repeat by specifying cardinality. It would
impose too much of a non-standard burden on parsers and systems to attempt
to preserve order beyond what XML Schema specifies. Also relying on order
for meaning is better handled by adding additional elements or attributes.)


4. TOPIC EMFW-18: Should the DE 2.0 data dictionary in the specification be
revised to clarify the use of defaults? (Answer: Yes. First,
StatusKindDefault and StatusKindValueList were left out of the data
dictionary unintentionally, so those should be added. Second, to better
explain defaults, a section 1.3.4 ?Value Lists and Defaults? will be added
to the specification with two paragraphs, one explaining Value Lists and
their benefits and the other explaining how defaults work. )
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link

---

Submitter: Jeff Waters
Group: EM Infrastructure Framework SC
Folder: Resources
Date submitted: 2012-02-28 10:11:49