<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Dan and all,</p>
<p>I've just started looking at the MCMS RFC, and have a few show
stoppers that need to be addressed ASAP.</p>
<p>Document check:</p>
MCMS Specification Document (RFC, normative) - space/18-02-01<br>
Inventory (ancillary) - space/18-02-06<br>
XMI (normative) - space/18-02-03<br>
C2MS zip file (XML schemas, normative) - space/18-02-05<br>
Cover letter (ancillary) - space/18-02-02<br>
C2MS MagicDraw archive (ancillary) - space/18-02-04<br>
<br>
1. Inventory - this is typically the first thing I review, to see
"what's what", and to make sure that I have a complete set of
documents and model files. You've made some assumptions that this
should be called version 1.0, for example in the name of the RFC,
and in the various URIs, that need to be changed.<br>
<br>
(a) Name of RFC should be Mission Control Message Specification
(MCMS) <font color="#ff0000"><i>Request for Comments (RFC)</i></font><br>
<br>
(b) Primary Specification URL should be
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.omg.org/spec/MCMS/">https://www.omg.org/spec/MCMS/</a><font color="#ff0000">RFC</font>/PDF<br>
<br>
(c) The URIs for your machine consumable files need to follow the
SMSC guidelines, and use a version IRI rather than /RFC/ (currently
/1.0/), per the instructions in the inventory template and spelled
out in <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://doc.omg.org/smsc/15-03-06">http://doc.omg.org/smsc/15-03-06</a>. This is clearly described
on our process templates page as well, which is available at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.omg.org/technology/template_download.htm">https://www.omg.org/technology/template_download.htm</a>. I'm guessing
what you need will be something like <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.omg.org/spec/MCMS/">https://www.omg.org/spec/MCMS/</a><font
color="#ff0000">20180201</font>/<xxx>, where xxx is the file
name, including extension.<br>
<br>
2. The RFC, as you note in your cover letter, is still in the form
of a NASA document, not in OMG's RFC format. Although permission to
publish this document is provided in a separate letter (that I had
to ask Juergen for), and although it's ok at the moment that this is
not an OMG document according to the P&P, there is information
missing as a result of not using the template (which is available at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://doc.omg.org/submission-template">http://doc.omg.org/submission-template</a>). In addition to what is
included in the template, we ask RFC submitters to include
additional information in a section "0", which describes the
background,justification for an RFC vs. RFP, examples of commercial
implementations, etc. This section "0" information is not part of
the final specification but provides the OMG Architecture Board some
support for why something should follow the RFC process, and the OMG
Business Committee with support that indicates the specification is
commercially viable and useful. While I think you likely meet these
requirements, the document on its own does not. For information on
what should be included, please take a look at the Policies and
Procedures document, which is available at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?pp/17-06-01.pdf">https://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?pp/17-06-01.pdf</a>, section 4. The
bullets under "1." in section 4.3 include the detail needed in
section "0" of the document. If you would rather not update the
document at this time as an OMG specification, which I understand
given how detailed it is and how large, etc., especially with
respect to the content typically included in section "0", then
please submit a separate document that addresses the requirements
specified in section 4.3 under that bullet "1.", some details of
which, such as IPR mode, will be applied to the task force that
finalizes the document.<br>
<br>
3. I can't open C2MS zip file (XML schemas, normative) -
space/18-02-05 - the archive is corrupted. Juergen had the same
issue with it that I did, fyi. Please resubmit this as soon as
possible.<br>
<br>
I'm sure I'll have more feedback for you as I review the actual
specification content, but I didn't want to let any time pass
without identifying these things, which hopefully you can deal with
quickly, namely, a new inventory, a document addressing the
requirements for an RFC as discussed in 2, above, and a revised zip
archive for the relevant XML schemas.<br>
<br>
Thanks and best regards,<br>
<br>
Elisa<br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>