[Ccsds-omg-liaison] C2MS 1.0 FTF Initial Review

Sat Mar 9 05:43:07 UTC 2019

Opening comments on C2MS 1.0 FTF, I have not conferred with other reviewers.

This was a huge undertaking for your group, bringing an existing spec into the OMG processes, and trying to merge onto the Autobahn.  It’s been a rocky road with the legalities, but now we’re down to the nuts and bolts, and this is *almost* there.  I think there may be a misunderstanding of what the OMG processes are, and why they exist, however.  I hope this clears things up.

There’s work to be done, I’m happy to discuss steps forward.

dtc-19-02-08.pdf		C2MS RTF
Voting lists look coherent, no one to be dropped for missing votes

General notes:  Most issue’s Revised Text says: “n/a; will provide change bar version in Word”  This is really not how this is supposed to work.  The issue in Jira should include the exact changes being proposed, so that the members voting on them know what the exact proposal *is*.  These stand on their own.  You came close a few times (C2MS-6) with the Resolution Summary, but most of them do not get to that level of detail, instead they describe the desired changes at a high level.

This is for three reasons:
1) So that the members voting know exactly what they are voting on.  Reading the Jira issues, I can’t tell what was actually voted on.
2) So that the AB reviewers can ensure that what was voted on is what was changed in the document.  This is to prevent errors from creeping in, and to ensure that there is traceability and transparency at all times.
3) So that the OMG editorial staff has a clean list of changes to use as a list of tasks to execute.

None of these goals can be achieved when the issue just punts this to a Word document.

I’m not sure how the voters knew what they were voting on, but it made the review exceedingly difficult and uncertain, and I am not sure how the editors will accomplish what they need to do.

For instance, C2MS-18: This issue’s change is not included in document.  I know it says ‘OMG Editors’ will take care of it, but… not really.  OMG editing staff is instructed to only make changes that a task force lays out clearly and cleanly.  They are not editors in the traditional sense.

I tried to do my best with the review, but this was essentially an inadvertent end run around the OMG processes.

Other notes:
Image files: When changing images, you must provide the images as separate files, SVG is highly preferred.

http is deprecated in favor of https for all sites that support it.  Considering that most sites now do, consider https as the default, and use http if and only if the site does not support it.  The omg.org site supports https, so any references to OMG URIs (such as in the XMI file) should be converted.

dtc-19-02-09.pdf		C2MS Clean
Missing document number on title page
Can’t really do much else with this document without the issue Revised Text blocks.

dtc-19-02-10.pdf		C2MS Changebar
General notes:  Ignoring as much as I can where Word created bogus changebar markers, formatting changes, etc, unless indicated by an issue’s resolution.

Missing document number on title page
pg 4		Section 5.1: Change not tracked by issue.  Non-content, editorial
pg 14		Table 6-6, 6-7: Listed as being related to C2MS-17, but that’s for use of color.  Were these in color originally, or is this a misapplication of an issue #?
pg 18		Table 6-8: as above
pg 20		Table 6-9: as above  (this continues throughout document, not listing remainder)
pg 54		Sec 8.1, first line: “and any extensions” added marked as C2MS-10, which mentions neither 8.1 nor Message Headers, instead mentioning 7.8.1 and Mnemonic Value Request Messages.  Did you mean C2MS-12?
pg 78		Table 8-20 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?
pg 85		Table 8-26 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?
pg 92		Table 8-32 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?
pg 96		Table 8-37 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?
pg 98		Section 8.5.1 - I’m not sure how the text maps to the Resolution Summary in C2MS-23
pg 101	Section 8.5.1.1 - This table 8.40 maps to C2MS-23 fairly straightforwardly, so I guess I have to assume the rest is correct as well, but I have no way to check any modifications against what was voted on.
pg 169	Table 8-89 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?
pg 174	Table 8-94 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?
pg 183	Table 8-99 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?
pg 192	Table 8-104 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?
pg 199	Table 8-109 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?
pg 209	Table 8-114 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?
pg 216	Table 8-119 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?
pg 226	Table 8-126 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?
pg 233	Table 8-131 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?
pg 239	Table 8-136 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?
pg 252	Table 8-146 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?
pg 256	Table 8-150 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?
pg 266	Table 8-156 C2MS-8 REQUEST-ID: Shouldn’t this have a Value/Desc of U16?

THE FOLLOWING ISSUES HAVE NO MARKINGS IN THE CHANGEBAR:

C2MS-12
C2MS-16
C2MS-25
C2MS-36

This is a problem.

dtc-19-02-12.zip		C2MS zip file for XML schemas (Zip File)
See comment above regarding OMG URIs and http(s)

dtc-19-02-13.mdzip	C2MS MagicDraw (.mdzip) for UML model
Validates and opens.

dtc-19-02-14.xml		C2MS XMI of the model file for UML model in the specification
See comment above regarding OMG URIs and http(s)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/ccsds-omg-liaison/attachments/20190308/e18443ee/attachment.html>