[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: section 4 AIs [was: Update on punch list]
Thanks , Peter. I’ve spent the night handling other administrivia, so I surely appreciate you taking care of these. Ken From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] Ken, Rex’s edits have been included – there was just one intro para (towards start of 4.1.4, “Some of these implications….”) that I did not use. I also cleaned up the language a bit and made the edits RFC2119 conformant. I’ve now de-capitalized the referenced words I mentioned in previous mail and ensured that there is a corresponding AI bullet with appropriate RFC wording for each. I consider that faithful to Rex’s wishes and consider it finished. So, all that remains is: - (6) keep an eye out for pdf-ization snafu’s; - (9) (possibly) feedback or comments from Zoran; - (10) further discussion/comments on Kevin’s edits; - (11) revised compromise text for section 6 (conformance) I will draft something for (11) tomorrow, and then post the new WD to the list, and hand the Gold Copy over to you. Hopefully, we can then just concentrate our minds on (9) thru (11) until next Tuesday… Peter From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] Peter, Rex had the Architectural Implications revisions for section 4, and he sent his suggestions in an email on 6/27/2012, 11:10AM ET. It doesn’t appear that these were ever added to the Gold Copy. Rex didn’t look at text capitalization; it appears to only be in section 4.1 and I’ll have to deal with that. I suggest you cut in Rex’s AI suggestions and then at some point send the Gold Copy back to me to deal with the text. This is probably easier than you scanning for a dozen+ changes. Ken From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] Ken, Here’s what I’ve done so far (numbering as per your list): 1. I’ve checked for use of formal terms. a. I’ve made some changes (such as changing ‘needs to’ to ‘must’, to avoid confusion with formal term ‘Needs’) and have not tracked them in the text but noted them in the separate ‘untracked changes’ note; b. There are a couple of instances where we use a complex, qualified term (such as “remedial action”; “governance authority”, or “public authority”) but I do not think they would be confused with the ‘root’ term (‘action’ or ‘authority’ in these examples) 2. A couple of new references added; one deleted from reference list; one deleted from body of text (no accompanying or identifiable source) 3. Done 4. Changed my PoV on this – the highlight in these instances can indeed disappear (they only appear when the comments are hidden – I see this now…) 5. Ditto 6. Will keep an eye on this at pdf generation 7. Done 8. Done 9. I’ve pinged Zoran again with the revised text – will copy this also to list 10. I’ve integrated Kevin’s text on security as of the version he sent on Saturday 11. I will now make a fist of a revised compromise text for section 6 – more on this tomorrow 12. I’ve slightly modified the cover page abstract and added a phrase to section 1.1.2 I picked up a couple of other points: · MUST appears capitalized at lines 1594, 1600, 1605, 1643, 1692 (all in section 4.12 ‘Use of Service Description’) – should these be de-capitalized? Peter From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] The punch list consists of 12 items: the 9 I identified below, one each for finishing security and conformance, and the following that was mentioned at a recent call but missed in the minutes: 12. Add something to the introduction that draws attention to the RAF having engaged and strived for consistency with the activities noted in Appendix D. I remember having more eloquent words before but I don’t remember them now. This may be on the recording for two weeks ago. I may give it a shot. Ken From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] Comments inline From: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Ken Laskey 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[Peter:] Done, 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) Ken --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Kenneth Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]