<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I have quickly skimmed the document, and engaged in an exchange with Sam Cooper to make sure I am accurately representing the MO viewpoint.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>There is a fundamental problem with the document, in that Richard has taken the brief at face value and only compared the MAL to the SEDS, ignoring the objectives/capabilities of the wider MO framework.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I’m not sure that me adding detailed comments to those already raised by Sam with Richard will add much value – as Sam is much closer to the issues. Ramon and Peter are already in receipt of Sam’s comments.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As I see it, the key issue is that SEDS explicitly includes basic Parameter and Command services, but does not provide the means to express any other services.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The MAL does not include these services, as the MO approach is to enable the specification of MO Application Services in terms of the MAL.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>SEDS could provide a means to define the Parameters and Commands for a given deployment of the MO M&C Service (not currently well supported within MO) – but it doesn’t solve this problem more generically for other services.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Also neither standard currently provides a means to express how components are linked together in an actual deployment.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The upshot of this is that while SEDS might allow for the specification of interfaces roughly equivalent to the MO M&C Parameter and Action services, it is problematic for it to cover other services. This is even true for the Alert [Event] service included within M&C – and hence specification of Event packets. There is no provision within SEDS to express more complex service level interactions (such as scheduling services).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The current draft draws no recommendations or conclusions as yet, and given the likelihood that there will be a major revision to address Sam’s points, it is probably premature to draw any at this point.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Roger<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>