Please note: My
stating "issue closed" or "issue still open" below is not meant to be
controversial - rather, it is my way of ensuring that I communciate 100% clearly
what I believe the status of the issue to be so that no one comes back later if
I have comments on text and says "you should not have stated that the issue was
closed". Many of the "issue still open" below are because the PD stated that
additional text need to be added or existing text updated, but the new/updated
text was not provided. My assumption here is that we cannot consider an issue
closed if the new/updated text is not provided.
If our procedures
are such that an issue can be closed if new/updated text is not provided in the
PD, and the new/updated text can be commented on when it is added (and a new
issue created then if necessary), then please consider feedback below of "Concur with PD,
exact wording still pending - issue still open." to mean that the issue
should then be closed.
Clear as mud? For me
too.;)
Here they
are:
ISSUE 6: Concur with
PD - issue closed.
ISSUE 7: Recommend
removing entire paragraph, which is consistent with there the PD was heading
(details probably not appropriate for an RM, as they are too
implementation-specific). This recommend should be clarified with editor before
closing issue.
ISSUE 9: Concur with PD, exact wording
still pending - issue still open.
ISSUE 10: Concur with PD - issue
closed.
ISSUE 11: PD indicates further action
needed on this - issue still open.
ISSUE 12: Concur with PD's suggestion of
referencing the definition of context provided as PD for issue #105. However,
may have minor comments on Issue #105's definition - will provide later for
Issue 105. Issue 12 is closed.
ISSUE 13: PD indicates further action
needed on this - issue still open.
ISSUE 14: Concur with PD, exact wording
still pending - issue still open.
ISSUE 15: Do not concur with PD. Believe
we should still provide a "lighter" example that is not related to supersonic
jet speeds and flow dynamics, for maximum possible chance of reader
comprehension. Issue still open.
ISSUE 16: Concur with PD, exact wording
still pending - issue still
open.
ISSUE 17: PD refered to an invalid issue #
(07-01). Need proper reference - issue still
open.
ISSUE 18: Concur with PD, exact wording
still pending - issue still open.
ISSUE 19: Concur
with PD - issue
closed.
ISSUE 21: Do not concur with PD, as it did
not not address the comment which was that we should clarify what we mean by
"standard, reference-able format". For example, do we mean data exchange format
(XML, EDI, etc.)? Do we mean a data standard that is created by a community of
interest (COI), regardless of whether it is expressed in XML, EDI, etc. (or
multiple formats)? Issue still open.
ISSUE 22: Concur
with PD - issue closed.
ISSUE 23: Do not concur with PD, as I am
not certain why we are talking about resources here rather than services.
Perhaps we need a section on resources and their relation to services, if that
is pertinent for our work. Issue still open.
ISSUE 26: Concur with PD, exact wording at
cited location in spec still pending - issue still
open.
ISSUE 27: Do not concur with PD because do
not concur with proposed definition of contract. The proposed definition does
not reference the fact that a contract requires 2 or more parties, as it
does on line 186 (Service Consumer and service). It is also too close to
the definition for policy. There was a link provided to the most recent
Semantics section, but providing this did not address the original issue which
was for line 186. Issue still open.
ISSUE 28: Concur
with PD - issue
closed.