Re: comments on cpp/a 0.0

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Chris,

I agree with most of the comments except for:

Section 2:  Let's leave things in the order given in the "RFC" template.  I
assume that the reason for using the RFC template is to position the
specifications to be moved to IETF if ebXML does not renew its charter.

   Incidentally, I'm not rushing to replace the TBD by a list of names.
   That list can easily get out of date and offend people by omissions. I
   suggest that we wait until Version 1.0 is nearly complete and then look
   back to decide what names to include.

Lines 40-60:  Some of this verbiage may be able to be lifted from the TP
Requirements document.

General:  Lets try to steal from the TP Requirements spec. before stealing
from the TRP spec.

287-297, sect. 9, Terminology:  I would like to develop our own terminology
list that stays in the CPP/CPA specification.  We can also feed it to the
TA Glossary.  I agree to putting it with the "RFC2119" text. A starting
point is the glossary that is in the TP Requirements document.

Additional note on terminology:  We are coming to the point of having to
byte the bullet on the word "optional", which appears all over the 0.0
draft.  If we want to fully comply with RFC2119, all instances of
"optional" in this book will have to be replaced by other verbage which
expresses cardinality 0-1 or 0-n. Roget's does not have a simple English
word that is a good alternative to "optional".

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> on 11/10/2000 06:36:48 PM

To:   "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>
cc:
Subject:  comments on cpp/a 0.0



All,

Here are some editorial comments on the recently
released (10/21?) v0.0 of cpp/a spec.

Also, a suggestion that we follow the same process for
distributing versions of the document as we have (tried;-)
in TR&P. specs should be named with the version of current
draft followed by the date. If "ownership" needs to be
transferred, do it directly so as not to pollute the
list with (potentially) conflicting versions. If two
people post the document to the list on the same day, they
should append their initials to the document name
so that the two can be distinguished.

e.g. we're working on cpp-cpa-spec-0.1 now, (with 0.0 as
the baseline) so if it were to be revised and released to
the list tomorrow, it would be named: cpp-cpa-spec-0.1-11112000.

suggest we use int'l date representation. Nov 12 would be
12112000...

Cheers,

Chris

17 - suggest that we adopt the same or similar wording for the Status
as has TR&P for the Message Service spec.

section 2 - I would much prefer that ALL of the ebXML specs relocate
this section (ebXML Participants) to an appendix or at least the
last section of the document. Rik keeps saying he wants it up
front, but it looks amaturish to me.

40-60 - suggest that what is currently section 3 - Preface - should in fact
be the contents of sect 4 - Introduction to be consistent with the other
specs.

40-60 - we need to add verbiage to address "what is, and what are the
motivations
for" a CPP.

171-177 - suggest we adopt the same language as has been developed for
TR&P Message Service spec for the corresponding section

general - in fact, other than the Intro itself, we might be able to
steal directly from TR&P for sections 3-5.

287-297 - sect 9 - Terminology - this should be stuff for the TA Glossary
OR it belongs in the same section as MUST/SHALL/etc... RFC2119

section 10 would seem to me to belong in the section (5) entitled
Summary of Contents of this Document.