[Ccsds-omg-liaison] RE: AB review of the GMES FTF report

[Andzik, Rob]

Thanks for the feedback Vincent. We will work frantically this week and see if we can get the changes in prior to the meeting.

WRT 12757, we will have Juergen create the new issue and pass around a quick vote.

WRT 12754: This issue was not raised when the RTF was charted however we did discuss it in detail during an FTF meeting in Orlando. The general consensus was that a means to retrieve the list of available configuration files is needed. If it is not explicitly defined in the specification, implementers would be left to define their own ways to achieve this. While it could be covered in a later RTF, our concern is that it would be too late.

WRT XSD: We will create a new issue for this and make the appropriate corrects.

Best Regards,

-- Rob


________________________________
From: hugues.vincent [mailto:hugues.vincent at fr.thalesgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 2:46 AM
To: ab at omg.org; space at omg.org; gems-ftf at omg.org
Subject: AB review of the GMES FTF report

All,
Here are my preliminary comments on the GMES FTF report (documents numbers dtc/08-11-14 to 19).
Even if I'm asking for several changes either in the report or in the submission itself, I appreciated the good work performed in this FTF (I'm well aware of how tedious such a work can be).
Among my requests, two leads to new issues. The decisions wrt these two issues have to be voted upon by the FTF before reported them in the report and before the meeting.

General remark on the Beta2 document with change bars
The template for the revised specification with change bar has not been used. Indeed, the specific tagging of issues has not been used and has to be used. See an example of this in dtc/2008-03-07 and feel free to ask to Andrew how to deal with that style in Framemaker if you need to. This oversight made the cross-checking particularly cumbersome. In fact, I can't be sure that all modification performed in the document has been required by an issue.
Front page of the report: remove the two revised specifications (clean and with change bars) from the "accompanying documents" list.
Table of contents of the report: the status of the issues must the reality (all "Pending issues" fortunately are, in fact, resolved).
Page 3 of the report
1st §, change ". are list ." to ". are listed . "
If Dave Overeem voted no to issue 12757 then its vote have to be "Mixed Yex/No" in the voting record (please keep the comment, which is useful).
The comment says that something is noted in issue 12757 wrt a new issue to be covered by a RTF . That's indeed in a note in the resolution of this issue. Yet where is the new issue? A new issue has to be issued with a new number, marked as deferred to the RTF and voted upon by the FTF.
Issue "12753"
The report says: "In the first row (not counting the header row) of the table in section 8.1.9.2. Change '<See Table XXX> to <See Table 8.2>." The change has to appear in the Beta2 document.
The report says: "In the last row of the table in section 8.1.9.2. Change <See Table XXX> to <See Table 8.4>". First, it was not "XXX" and second, you forgot section 8.1.9.1.
Issue "12754"
Why are these new APIs needed? Were they requested by the RFP? Did their lack impede implementation? If no, an FTF is not allowed to make such strong modifications.
The figure 6.3, which is required to be modified, is not marked as modified. Since there are no issue tags, I can't do anything but doubt. Thus please, make it noticeable that the figure has been modified (by crossing out the old version for instance).
Moreover this figure is unreadable even when zooming at 200% where it's getting blurred. Thus please include the new version in landscape to allow a larger view.
There are now two tables 8.11. Please rename the last one as well as the following tables accordingly.
Issue 12757
Table 8.2. I don't understand the new sentence: "Uses the format of the time parameter specified in:" (in what?).
FYI: that was a rather bad idea to points out modifications through their line number since many modifications have been made before and since there are no issue tag! I guess it's right and so, I don't ask for a change of the report.
Issue 12758
In section 6.3, figure 6.3 may or may not have been replaced. The figure is blurred, no change bar, no issue tag: who knows? Thus please, make it noticeable that the figure has been modified (by crossing out the old version for instance), and include the new version in landscape to allow a larger view.
In 6.3.3.6, subsection valid_state has to be removed in the Beta2 version.
In 7.1.1.18 and 7.2.4.2, the line with valid_state has to be removed in the Beta2 version.
Issue 12765
I counted 13 pipes added in the Beta2 version and only 10 references of modified line appears in the report. Please enhance the report.
Issue 12770
In section 8.1.2, the figure has been replaced properly but neither the old version nor the fact that this version has been replaced appears in the non-clean version. Please make it noticeable.
Issue 12967
AFAIK, Mr Victor Giddings does not work for the OMG but for OIS.
Revised text in the report does not match the Beta 2 version. Since I guess that it's the report version which the FTF voted upon, this is this version that should appear in the Beta2 version.
Issue 12968
Please make the modification noticeable (cross out the figure for instance).
XSD file
The header of the XSD file (i.e. the xsd:schema part) dopes not match with the section  7.1.1 of the Beta2 document (with change bars) and the XSD file version is the good one (no references to www.rtlogics.com)
Thus, please direct a new issue for you submission about that modification, make it vote by the FTF and change the Beta2 document.

Best regards,
Hugues VINCENT

R&T Team Leader
SC2 - Software Core for Computer-based systems
THALES Division Land & Joint Systems
Tel. +33 (0)1 69 41 55 66
hugues.vincent (at) fr.thalesgroup.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/ccsds-omg-liaison/attachments/20081201/3a87a34b/attachment.html