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:
Following are the items I found.
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
Are all references included in section 1.6? Are any references in section 1.6 no longer used?
Figure 4: missing relationship between Delegate and Actor.[Peter:]
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
Line 1858: remove highlight[Peter:]
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
Add Kevin Smith to Acknowledgements[Peter:]
Was there decision to drop CFA completely or just move it to Appendix where it is?[Peter:]
Yes, we agreed to drop completely
Revise RM-ODP text. Give Zoran heads up for rationale.[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