From spencerj@dg-rtp.dg.com Wed Oct 19 11:53:11 1994 Received: from dg-rtp.dg.com (dg-rtp.rtp.dg.com) by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA25422 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Wed, 19 Oct 1994 20:53:44 +0100 Received: from splinter.rtp.dg.com by dg-rtp.dg.com (5.4R2.01/dg-rtp-v02) id AA20740; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 15:53:38 -0400 Received: by splinter (5.4R3.00C/rtp-s04) id AA20292; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 15:53:12 -0400 From: spencerj@dg-rtp.dg.com (Jon Spencer) Message-Id: <9410191953.AA20292@splinter> Subject: dispositions to US comments (fwd) To: sc22wg15@dkuug.dk (WG15) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 94 15:53:11 EDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Re: Disposition of Comments for PDTR 14252 (part 1 of 2) The Disposition of Comments for PDTR 14252 is being distributed to WG15 in two segments. This first segment is the DoC for comments from the US. The second segment is the disposition of comments from SC22, which will be send out immediately following this message. This DoC, together with any additional modifications that may be generated at the editorial meeting to be held Thursday, October 20, will be presented to the WG15 meeting at Whistler, along with a recommendation (to be developed at the editorial meeting). Jon F. Spencer spencerj@rtp.dg.com (uunet!rtp.dg.com!spencerj) Data General Corp. Phone : (919)248-6246 62 T.W. Alexander Dr, MS #119 FAX : (919)248-6108 or 6352 or 5942 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Office RTP 116/3 Reality is an illusion - perception is what counts. There is no amount of success that can compensate for failure at home. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- United States Comments concerning PDTR 14252 on "Guide to the POSIX Open System Environment", doc. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 22 N 1596, alias IEEE P1003.0 Draft 16.1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 202 Entire Document c 2 2. Sect Entire Document. Editorial Comments - Typos PROBLEM: Typos in document. ACTION: Page 203, line 4: modify from: "... by users who wants ..." should be to: "... by users who want ..." Page 207, line 162: modify from: "Attempts to exclude options in implementations becomes ..." to: "Attempts to exclude options in implementations become ..." Page 211, lines 337, 344: delete the phrase such as the work being done by POSC Page 213, line 6: modify from: "both AEPs and platforms profiles." should be to: "both AEPs and platform profiles." DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: Page 203, line 4: modify from: "... by users who wants ..." should be to: "... by users who want ..." Page 207, line 162: modify from: "Attempts to exclude options in implementations becomes ..." to: "Attempts to exclude options in implementations become ..." Page 211, lines 337, 344: delete the phrase such as the work being done by POSC Page 213, line 6: modify from: "both AEPs and platforms profiles." should be to: "both AEPs and platform profiles." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 0 c 2 2. Sect General COMMENT Problem: There is an inconsistency in the format used to reference standards in the tables. For example see Table 4-6, pg 74, line 1209 and line 1211. In one case the 'name' of the standard is given, and in the other it is not. This inconsistency is pervasive throughout the document. The name, however, is a helpful cue to the reader as to the significance of the specification and should be used where available. ACTION: Add brief names to standards tables where such names are available and space is available. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: Add brief names to standards tables where such names are available and space is available. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 0 c 1 1. Sect General COMMENT Problem: It is my understanding that 'P1003.x' refers to the working group and '1003.x' refers to the actual documents. The OSE document refers to both the working group and the document with 'P1003.x'. ACTION: Please verify the correct way to reference the working groups and documents and make the necessary changes to the text (i.e. 'P1003.x' refers to the working group and '1003.x' refers to the actual documents). DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: Please verify the correct way to reference the working groups and documents and make the necessary changes to the text (i.e. 'P1003.x' refers to the working group and '1003.x' refers to the actual documents). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 201 3.y o 5 5 Section 3.y OBJECTION. page 21, line 1 to end PROBLEM: There is much inconsistency in the use of the term "service", throughout Section 3, per the definition in Section 2. The confusion caused by the usage is so pervasive that it is not reasonable to identify each of them. The following list of terms and their incorrect usage in Section 3 illustrates the pervasive nature of the inconsistencies. Section page line 3 21 1 3 21 29 3.1 22 37 3.2.3 32 364 3.3 34 413 3.2.3 32 365 4 39 1 4.n.5.1 40 54 4.1 41 103 (title) 4.2 50 385 (title) 4.2.4 52 431 (title) 4.2.4.1 52 447 (title) 4.2.4.1 52 457 4.2.4.1.2 54 539 (title) 4.2.6 63 838 (title) 4.2.6.1 63 839 (title) - and many others The text and the definition are inconsistant, but it is the definition which requires modification. The service is the *functionality* provided at the interface, not the *method* by which the functionality is provided. The method of provision is a characteristic of the standard selected, and may change as new standards are selected. ACTION: modify section 2.2.2.45 service, pg. 18 line 254 to read as follows: service: The functionality which is provided to ... DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGES TO DOCUMENT: modify section 2.2.2.45 service, pg. 18 line 254 to read as follows: service: The functionality which is provided to ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 211 gen c 4 PROBLEM: Index is too thin, too light, at only 5% of the size of the text. ACTION: Add the following term to the index: scope of concensus A complete set of index references will generated when the document moves to international ballot. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: Add the following term to the index: scope of concensus A complete set of index references will generated when the document moves to international ballot. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POSIX .0 Section 3 Comments and Objections ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.1 c 30 30. Sect 3.1 COMMENT. p.22, line 36: Problem: Title is inconsistent. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In section 3.1, on p.22, line 36, delete the hyphen from the title. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 201 3.1 o 6 6 Section 3.1 OBJECTION. page 23, line 81: PROBLEM: OSE standards that define functionality are exempted by the text, and should be included. ACTION: modify section 3.1, pg. 23 line 81 to read as follows: OSE standards specify methods to access services at interfaces, and do not specify service implementation. However, where the standard must refer ... DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGES TO DOCUMENT: modify section 3.1, pg. 23 line 81 to read as follows: OSE standards specify methods to access services at interfaces, and do not specify service implementation. However, where the standard must refer ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 201 3.1 o 7 7 Section 3.1 OBJECTION. page 23, line 88: PROBLEM: The text suggests scalability applies only to a single platform. Scalability also applies to systems that dribute processing across multiple platforms. The matter of complexity is irrelevant to scalability. Note: distributed system scalability is a separate issue and is addressed in the text which follows on lines 97 through 107. ACTION: modify to read ... to allow inclusion of platforms with varying speed, throughput, and implementation architecture (e.g. multiprocessing)." DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGES TO DOCUMENT: modify to read ... to allow inclusion of platforms with varying speed, throughput, and implementation architecture (e.g. multiprocessing)." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 201 3.2 o 10 10 Section 3.2 OBJECTION. page 24, line 80: PROBLEM: This entire section, 3.2, deals with the POSIX OSE while the text of the section is generalized to all OSEs. The details described in Section 3.2 apply to POSIX OSEs but may not be correct for non-POSIX OSEs. ACTION: None: The requested changes are implemented in Draft 16.1. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGES TO DOCUMENT: None: The requested changes are implemented in Draft 16.1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.1 c 31 31. Sect 3.1 COMMENT. p.24, line 109: Problem: Sentence is missing text. ACTION: In section 3.1 on p.24, line 109, insert the phrase "the application regardless of" between "to" and "the". DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In section 3.1 on p.24, line 109, insert the phrase "the application regardless of" between "to" and "the". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 201 3.1 o 8 8 Section 3.1 OBJECTION. page 24, line 114 PROBLEM: Interface definitions do not completely define an application platform. They may define the aspects of that platform that are relevant to OSE. ACTION: Modify section 3.1 page 24, line 114 as follows: Insert the following between the" and "application": "means by which a service is obtained from an". DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGES TO DOCUMENT: Modify section 3.1 page 24, line 114 as follows: Insert the following between the" and "application": "means by which a service is obtained from an". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.1 o 32 32. Sect 3.1 OBJECTION. p.24, line 114-115: Problem: The sentence "The interface specifications are the complete definition of the application platform" is not true. The interface specifications are at best the boundary between the application and the application platform. ACTION: In section 3.1, in p.24, line 114-115: Modify the sentence to read "The interface specifications should provide a complete definition of the behavior of the application platform at those interfaces. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In section 3.1, in p.24, line 114-115: Modify the sentence to read "The interface specifications should provide a complete definition of the behavior of the application platform at those interfaces. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.1 c 33 33. Sect 3.1 COMMENT. p.24, line 115-116: Problem: Bad grammar and no value added in the last sentence of this paragraph. ACTION: In sect 3.1, on p.24, line 115-116, delete the last sentence. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.1, on p.24, line 115-116, delete the last sentence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 209 3.1 o 4 4 Section 3.1 OBJECTION p. 24 lines: 117-123 PROBLEM: This paragraph on ``Functional Requirements of the User'' is unclear or ambiguous. I'm not sure :-) The entire section (3.1) seems to be a statement of the objectives of an OSE, based on the principles of portability and interoperability. This objective seems self-referential. It is possible to achieve application portability and interoperability in a variety of ways. The additional requirements place further constraints on the solution. For example, it is possible to achieve portability by selecting a single vendor or implementation of the technology. The added requirement for Accomodation of Standards provides for multi-vendor solutions. In the case of the obejctive cited, some could claim that portability and interoperability is achieved when the portable functionality includes only operating system services, while others would require portable graphical user interface, data storage and communications services. This objective explicitly states that the user of the information system which is the final authority with respect to completeness of the services required, and that broader, rather than narrower scope of functionality is required. ACTION: In section 3.1, on p. 24 substitute for the last sentence on lines: 121-123. The user of the information system is the final authority with respect to completeness of the services required to achieve full portability. In particular, the range of services required is broader than those traditionally identified as operating system services. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In section 3.1, on p. 24 substitute for the last sentence on lines: 121-123. The user of the information system is the final authority with respect to completeness of the services required to achieve full portability. In particular, the range of services required is broader than those traditionally identified as operating system services. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.1 c 34 34. Sect 3.1 COMMENT. p.24, line 120: Problem: Inconsistent adjective to portability. ACTION: In section 3.1 on . p.24, line 120, change software to application software. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In section 3.1 on . p.24, line 120, change software to application software. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 203 3.1 c 3 3 Sect 3.2 EDITORIAL COMMENT page 25 line 155 PROBLEM: "the basic elements" has been changed to "the OSE reference model", so the reference to "these" in the next sentence is now incorrect. ACTION: In sect 3.2 on page 25 line 155, replace "These include ..." with "The model identifies ...". DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.2 on page 25 line 155, replace "These include ..." with "The model identifies ...". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.2 c 36 36. Sect 3.2 COMMENT. p.25, line 160-161: Problem: Sentence is awkward. ACTION: In sect 3.2, on p.25, line 160-161, A more detailed discussion of each service category is provided in section 4. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.2, on p.25, line 160-161, A more detailed discussion of each service category is provided in section 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.2 c 37 37. Sect 3.2 COMMENT. p.26, line 181: Problem: Sentence is redundant. ACTION: In sect 3.2 on p.26, line 181, delete "the" and second occurrence of "discussion"; add an "s" to "EEI". DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.2 on p.26, line 181, delete "the" and second occurrence of "discussion"; add an "s" to "EEI". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.2 c 38 38. Sect 3.2 COMMENT. p.26, line 197: Problem: Parenthetical statement adds no value to the discussion. ACTION: In sect 3.2 on p.26, line 197 delete "(i.e., "things")". DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.2 on p.26, line 197 delete "(i.e., "things")". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 201 3.2.1 c 11 11 Section 3.2.1 COMMENT. page 28, line 249: PROBLEM: The reference to an "average person" is misleading. It is impossible, in a practical sense, to identify even a single person who exhibits all the arithmetic averages for human factors. ACTION: In Section 3.2.1 on page 28, line 249 Replace "average" by "typical". DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGES TO DOCUMENT: In Section 3.2.1 on page 28, line 249 Replace "average" by "typical". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.2.2 c 40 40. Sect 3.2.2 COMMENT. p.28, line 256-258: Problem: These two sentences are awkward as separate paragraphs. ACTION: In sect 3.2.2, on p.28, line 256-258 combine two sentences into one paragraph. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.2.2, on p.28, line 256-258 combine two sentences into one paragraph. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 208 3.2 c 5 5. Section 3.2.2.2 COMMENT. Page 30, Line 313 Problem: "Communications Services, including communications services" is redundant and not particularly informative. If there is no lower-level concept it makes sense to list, nothing should be listed. ACTION: In section 3.2.2.2, on page 30, line 313 this bullet should say just "Communication Services". DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In section 3.2.2.2, on page 30, line 313 this bullet should say just "Communication Services". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ @ 205 3.2.2.2 c 41 41. Sect 3.2.2.2 COMMENT. p.31, line 323: Problem: Wordy intro. ACTION: In sect 3.2.2.2, on p.31, line 323, modify the first sentence to read "These four categories of API services describe the range. . ." DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.2.2.2, on p.31, line 323, modify the first sentence to read "These four categories of API services describe the range. . ." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.2.3 c 42 42. Sect 3.2.3 COMMENT. p.32, line 368-369: Problem: The phrase 'and can be thought of as having been "translated" into,' adds no value to the discussion. ACTION: In sect 3.2.3, on p.32, line 368-369: modify the phrase '... the API is dependant upon, and can be thought of as having been "translated" into, communication ... ' to read ... the API is dependant upon communication ... DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.2.3, on p.32, line 368-369: modify the phrase '... the API is dependant upon, and can be thought of as having been "translated" into, communication ... ' to read ... the API is dependant upon communication ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 207 3.2 o 1 1. Sect 3.2.4 OBJECTION. page 33, line 393 PROBLEM: The graphic (Figure 3-5) incorrectly labels the interconnection between the two application platforms. ACTION: In sect 3.2.4 on page 33, line 393, re-label Communications Services API inside the perceived application platform as communications Services EEI DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGES TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.2.4 on page 33, line 393, re-label Communications Services API inside the perceived application platform as communications Services EEI ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.2.4 c 43 43. Sect 3.2.4 COMMENT. p.33, line 401: Problem: Redundant use of "for example" as it is already stated in line 398. ACTION: In sect 3.2.4, on p.33, line 401 delete the phrase "For example,". DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.2.4, on p.33, line 401 delete the phrase "For example,". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.3 c 44 44. Sect 3.3 COMMENT. p.34, line 413-421: Problem: This paragraph doesn't add value to the discussion and actually hurts the argument. ACTION: In sect 3.3, on p.34, line 413-421: reword the paragraph to read "Applications may use services that are distributed among a number of different computers. This implies that one application may use many POSIX services." DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.3, on p.34, line 413-421: reword the paragraph to read "Applications may use services that are distributed among a number of different computers. This implies that one application may use many POSIX services." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.4 c 46 46. Sect 3.4 COMMENT. p.34, Line 439: Problem: "Therefore" implies cause and effect, which doesn't appear to be the case between these two paragraphs. ACTION: In sect 3.4 on p.34, Line 439: delete the "Therefore,". DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.4 on p.34, Line 439: delete the "Therefore,". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.4.1.1 c 47 47. Sect 3.4.1.1 COMMENT. p.35, Line 449: Problem: Current wording implies a continuum, however, in this clause should be describing the general concept. The idea of a continuum is important. It would be difficult to imagine a perfectly open forum, i.e. one that has absolutely no barriers to participation. The openness of a forum can only be judged in a relative sense. If the criteria cited included only completely open forums, it is possible that none would qualify. ACTION: In sect 3.4.1.1 on p.35, Line 449 replace the second sentence in the paragraph with: The fewer the barriers to participation, and the greater the number of contituencies represented, the more open is the forum. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.4.1.1 on p.35, Line 449 replace the second sentence in the paragraph with: The fewer the barriers to participation, and the greater the number of contituencies represented, the more open is the forum. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 201 3.4.1.1 o 12 12 Section 3.4.1.1 OBJECTION. page 35, line 450: PROBLEM: The concept of openness as applied to standards remains unaffected by whether all affected constituencies are represented. The matter for concern is that they may be represented, not that they actually are. ACTION: In Section 3.4.1.1 on page 35, line 450 replace "are" by "may be". DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGES TO DOCUMENT: In Section 3.4.1.1 on page 35, line 450 replace "are" by "may be". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 201 3.4.1.2 c 13 13 Section 3.4.1.2 COMMENT. page 35, line 457: PROBLEM: The text implies there is a standards life cycle. The only one with which I am familiar came from X3. ACTION: Replace Section 3.4.1.2 page 35, line 457-459 with the following text: Most standards follow a sequence from approved development, through draft, and so on to approved standard, in a process which has been defined by the standards development body. The progression and expected completion date for the final specification need to be taken into account. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGES TO DOCUMENT: Replace Section 3.4.1.2 page 35, line 457-459 with the following text: Most standards follow a sequence from approved development, through draft, and so on to approved standard, in a process which has been defined by the standards development body. The progression and expected completion date for the final specification need to be taken into account. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.4.1.2 c 48 48. Sect 3.4.1.2 COMMENT. p.35, Line 460-461: Problem: Tense inconsistent with rest of document. ACTION: In sect 3.4.1.2, on p.35, Line 460-461: reword to read ". . .choices are required among standards, those approved or close to approval are favored". DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.4.1.2, on p.35, Line 460-461: reword to read ". . .choices are required among standards, those approved or close to approval are favored". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.4.1.3 c 49 49. Sect 3.4.1.3 COMMENT. p.35, Line 463: Problem: Use of the second "This" is inappropriate. ACTION: In sect 3.4.1.3, on p.35, Line 463: change the second "This concept ..." to "The concept of stability ...". DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.4.1.3, on p.35, Line 463: change the second "This concept ..." to "The concept of stability ...". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.4.1.4 c 50 50. Sect 3.4.1.4 COMMENT. p.35, Line 470: Problem: The phrase "Formal standards development bodies" differs from the defined phrase in this document. ACTION: In sect 3.4.1.4, on p.35, Line 470: change to "Accredited standards development bodies". DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.4.1.4, on p.35, Line 470: change to "Accredited standards development bodies". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 201 3.4.2.2 o 14 14 Section 3.4.2.2 OBJECTION. page 37, line 514: PROBLEM: It is inappropriate for an IEEE guide to include as references, for inclusion in a model, those documents that fail to meet key factors in standards selection (refer to Section 3.4). 1. Openness - often there are obstacles to participation that are much more harsh than those of traditional voluntary standards organizations 2. Stage of Development - often organizations do not exhibit sound management principles for the control of their requirements definition process and engineering development process 3. Stability - often the processes are uncontrolled from the perspective of the organization's members and as such design changes are frequent 4. Geographic Scope of Consensus - often the scope of geographic applicability is not a consideration in specifications developed outside the formal standards process 5. Functional Scope Addressed Within this Guide - since this document is the product of a formal standards organization, its scope should remain limited to formal standards 6. Consistency with ISO/IEC 9945-1 - often specifications that are potentially related to the scope of the guide do not even address their relationship to 9945-1 7. Availability for Unencumbered Implementation - often there are encumbrances that are barriers to implementation ACTION: In Section 3.4.2.2 on page 37, line 514 Substantial investment of time and resource is made after an organization commits itself to a specification, and such committment should be carefully considered. The following concepts identify some of the criteria used to select standards for inclusion in the POSIX OSE. Other organizations may find these criteria useful as well, in situations where no clear cut selection is available, and judgement is required. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGES TO DOCUMENT: In Section 3.4.2.2 on page 37, line 514 Substantial investment of time and resource is made after an organization commits itself to a specification, and such committment should be carefully considered. The following concepts identify some of the criteria used to select standards for inclusion in the POSIX OSE. Other organizations may find these criteria useful as well, in situations where no clear cut selection is available, and judgement is required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 217 gen o 1 PROBLEM: The document acknowledges a "real world" and "defacto standards" without providing the definitions. It is recognized, however, this document is not a standard, but a guide to user organizations (and others) in identifying standards which address the objectives listed in section 3.1. Where no standards exist, we provide guidance in identifying and selecting specifications which have not been formally balloted, but which have some concensus. Use of these public specifications is suggested only where the alternatives are to (1) adopt one vendors proprietary specifications or (2) stop work and wait for the standards community to deliver a specification. This is a pressing problem for many users. A de facto standard is one which has been widely accepted in practical use by the users. This may include widely used formal standards, consortia documents, or product offerings that are widely used. a very useful form of specification is one which is both a de facto and a formal standard. ACTION: On pg 37, lines 514-516, replace existing text with Approved (as opposed to draft) specifications (widely adopted, but not formal standards) developed and/or maintainted in an open forum including consortia specifications or certain de facto standards. Add text to pg. 37, between 518 and 519, A defacto standard is one which has been widely accepted in practical use by users. This may include widely used formal standards, consortia documents or product offerings that are widely used. a very useful form of specification is one which is both a de facto and a formal standard. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: On pg 37, lines 514-516, replace existing text with Approved (as opposed to draft) specifications (widely adopted, but not formal standards) developed and/or maintainted in an open forum including consortia specifications or certain de facto standards. Add text to pg. 37, between 518 and 519, A defacto standard is one which has been widely accepted in practical use by users. This may include widely used formal standards, consortia documents or product offerings that are widely used. a very useful form of specification is one which is both a de facto and a formal standard. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.4.2.2 c 51 51. Sect 3.4.2.2 COMMENT. p.37, Line 515: Problem: Use of undefined term "formal standards". ACTION: In sect 3.4.2.2, on p.37, Line 515: modify to read ... formal, balloted standards ... DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.4.2.2, on p.37, Line 515: modify to read ... formal, balloted standards ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.4.2.2 c 52 52. Sect 3.4.2.2 COMMENT. p.37, Line 516-518: Problem: Parenthetical comments add no value. ACTION: In sect 3.4.2.2, on p.37, Line 516-518: delete parenthetical comments DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.4.2.2, on p.37, Line 516-518: delete parenthetical comments ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.5 c 53 53. Sect 3.5 EDITORIAL COMMENT. p.37, Line 524: Problem: Font size is inconsistent. ACTION: In sect 3.5, on p.37, Lines 524 and 536: make font consistent with other clause titles. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.5, on p.37, Lines 524 and 536: make font consistent with other clause titles. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 209 3.5 o 5 5 Section 3.5 OBJECTION p. 37 lines: 524-535 Problem: This section is titled POSIX Profiles, yet it NEVER mentions the word POSIX anywhere within it. The text seems to address a simple introduction to profiling concepts within Section 3. ACTION: In section 3.5 on p. 37 lines: 524, change the title to read POSIX OSE Profiles. Append the following sentence to the first paragraph (line 527) POSIX OSE profiles are those which restrict themselves to standards providing services at the interfaces identified in the POSIX OSE reference model. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO THE DOCUMENT: In section 3.5 on p. 37 lines: 524, change the title to read POSIX OSE Profiles. Append the following sentence to the first paragraph (line 527) POSIX OSE profiles are those which restrict themselves to standards providing services at the interfaces identified in the POSIX OSE reference model. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 201 3.5 o 16 16 Section 3.5 OBJECTION. page 37, line 525: PROBLEM: The use of the term "base standard" in this sentence is inconsistent with the definition in Section 2. ACTION: In Section 3.5 on page 37, line 525, replace "are collected into" by "contribute to". DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGES TO DOCUMENT: In Section 3.5 on page 37, line 525, replace "are collected into" by "contribute to". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 201 3.5 o 17 17 Section 3.5 OBJECTION. page 37, line 533: PROBLEM: The OSE itself does not help to characterize functionality. The POSIX OSE model does that. ACTION: In section 3.5 on page 37, line 533, replace "OSE" by "POSIX OSE model". DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGES TO DOCUMENT: In section 3.5 on page 37, line 533, replace "OSE" by "POSIX OSE model". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 208 3.6 e 6 6. Sect. 3.6 EDITORIAL COMMENT. Page 37, Line 536 Problem: At this point the acronym "PII" has not been defined in the main text, although it has been in the Terms Definition section. ACTION: It should be written out in full in this section, probably in the section title. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: Expand the PII acronym on both line 536 and 543 to Platform Internal Interfaces. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ @ 205 3.6 c 54 54. Sect 3.6 COMMENT. p.37, Line 536: DISPOSITION: accept ACTION: In sect 3.6, on p.37, Line 536 and 543: Expand the acronym PII to Platform Internal Interfaces. as in 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.6, on p.37, Line 536 and 543: Expand the acronym PII to Platform Internal Interfaces. as in 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 3.6 o 55 55. Sect 3.6 OBJECTION. p.37, Line 538-539: Problem: A new concept is introduced that is beyond the objectives of the application platform, namely, "platform interoperability". ACTION: In sect 3.6, on p.37, Line 538-539: modify to read "and application interoperability". DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 3.6, on p.37, Line 538-539: modify to read "and application interoperability". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 209 4.0 o 6 6 Section 4 OBJECTION p. 39 lines: 1-2 PROBLEM: The text makes a general hand wave to ``objectives identified in this guide.'' What objectives? The 3.1 objectives? The Scope? ACTION: In section 4, on p. 39 lines: 1-2, modify the text to read as follows: ... objectives identified in section 3.1 of this guide. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In section 4, on p. 39 lines: 1-2, modify the text to read as follows: ... objectives identified in section 3.1 of this guide. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 219 (b124c24) 4.0 o 1 #24 Sect 4 et al OBJECTION page 40-41, line 48, 74-84: PROBLEM: It is not clear what authority mandates when something is a "public specification, or being listed with a "P" designation in any and all sections. However, it is recognized that this document is not a standard, but a guide to user organizations (and others) in identifying standards which address the objectives listed in section 3.1. Where no standards exist, we provide guidance in identifying and selecting specifications which have not been formally balloted, but which have some concensus. Use of these public specifications is suggested only where the alternatives are to (1) adopt one vendors proprietary specifications or (2) stop work and wait for the standards community to deliver a specification. This is a pressing problem for many users. The process, selection criteria, precendence order, etc. suggested within the guide are not mandated for use by any individual or organization. The guidance in this document is the result of substantial discussion among people who have had standard selection responsibility for their organizations, and is no more or less than expert advice. See rationale document number 1 ACTION: In section 4.0, on pg. 41 line 79, delete the word all and insert consortia after government. On line 84, insert the following sentence before the sentence that starts with The risks must... There is also risk because such specifications are not approved by an accredited SDO. DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO THE DOCUMENT: In section 4.0, on pg. 41 line 79, delete the word all and insert consortia after government. On line 84, insert the following sentence before the sentence that starts with The risks must... There is also risk because such specifications are not approved by an accredited SDO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ 205 5 c 120 56. Sect 4.1.1 COMMENT. p.42, Line 122: Problem: Phrase "is not standards conforming" is awkward. ACTION: In sect 4.1.1, on p.42, Line 122: reword to read ". . .code that does not conform to the standard." DISPOSITION: Accept CHANGE TO DOCUMENT: In sect 4.1.1, on p.42, Line 122: reword to read ". . .code that does not conform to the standard." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ballot resolution Ballots: 20 - Fritz Schulz Objections/Comments 53/38 Ballot resolution Ballots: 20 - Fritz Schulz Objections/Comments 53/38 page 16 3/10/94 page 17 3/10/94