OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm-ra message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RAF punch list - Ken's

Thanks Peter,

I'm in the midst f having a bit of whiplash listening to the remarkable extent to which NATO is rather suddenly willing to act to implement change. So my head is spinning a bit.

I confess that I found Section 6 a little confusing, especially in the reference to architectural implications sections and the "targets."  I think what I sent would actually be easier to understand because it specifies both the requirements for the reference architectures (which use the architectural implications as checklists) and reference architecture producers (whose reference architectures should be as interoperable as possible--leaving it to the producers to be responsible for that).

That said, I would not object to adopting Peter's effort, though I would like to see the disclaimer about guaranteeing interoperability toned down or dropped. As it is, it sounds like permission to disregard the RAF although I am sure that is not what was intended.  I suggest that we let practice tell us how well or not interoperability is achieved.


On 7/31/2012 11:52 PM, Peter F Brown wrote:

Comments inline


From: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Ken Laskey
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July, 2012 18:39
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RAF punch list - Ken's


Following are the items I found.


1.       Section 1.5 says “first mention ... use a bold font”. At end it says, “Where a more colloquial or informal meaning is intended, these words are used without special emphasis.”  After first use, how do we know when we mean the term in its formal sense? [Peter:]  I think this is now moot, as we avoid mixing informal and formal uses of terms – but worth a check

2.       Are all references included in section 1.6? Are any references in section 1.6 no longer used?

3.       Figure 4: missing relationship between Delegate and Actor.[Peter:]  OK

4.       Line 973: remove highlight[Peter:]  Disagree: the highlight is using in indicating what section of text has been changed, in absence of formal “tracked change”. There are multiple instances of this issue and they will all be removed (along with all tracked changes) from the clean, authoritative, version as required by TC Admin

5.       Line 1858: remove highlight[Peter:]  idem

6.       Figure 33 label mixed in with following text.[Peter:]  Appears in the pdf CLEAN copy I see, but not the tracked version: this can happen if the word document is opened with tracked changes on and user accepts to “update all fields” when document is opened.[Peter:]  Ill keep an eye on this for final submission

7.       Add Kevin Smith to Acknowledgements[Peter:]  OK

8.       Was there decision to drop CFA completely or just move it to Appendix where it is?[Peter:]  Yes, we agreed to drop completely

9.       Revise RM-ODP text. Give Zoran heads up for rationale.[Peter:]  Agreed


Anything else?[Peter:]  Kevin’s updated security text; Agree whether we need a new conformance text along lines of Rex’s suggested template or whether the edits I did in [Peter:] section 6, page 116, are sufficient at this stage (we don’t need conformance for a specification, only for a Candidate Standard)




Dr. Kenneth Laskey

MITRE Corporation, M/S H305              phone: 703-983-7934

7515 Colshire Drive                                    fax:        703-983-1379

McLean VA 22102-7508


Rex Brooks
1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Phone: 510-898-0670

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]