Issue 5686: Conformance section (smart-transducers-rtf) Source: Alcatel-Lucent (Dr. Julien Maisonneuve, Ph.D., julien.maisonneuve@alcatel-lucent.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The conformance section of the Smart Transducers specification (chapter 3 requirements and IDL) is not shaped right. It should be expressed in terms of discrete mandatory or optional conformance points. The name Conformance points is better suited that requirement as this may be confused with the RFP requirements. There are too many options to choose from in optional conformance points, you should probably identify a few option sets that make sense from a practical point of view. Putting the Consolidated IDL in a separate chapter would also improve clarity. Also, it is customary to include a section (in the introduction) describing how the submission adresses the mandatory and optional points in the RFP. In general take an other submission as an example of how conformance statements are usually structured. Resolution: see above Revised Text: Actions taken: October 14, 2002: received issue Discussion: The term “requirement” is replaced with “conformance point”. It is our intention to have a minimal set of mandatory conformance points in order to allow very cheap hardware as platform for an ST. Since most of the optional conformance points can be implemented (and also be used) individually the tradeoff between the desired field of application and the availability of resources will determine the set of optional requirements that should be implemented. Although there are some of the optional compliance points that are especially intended for master-nodes or gateway-nodes we don’t want to forbid implementing them also in a slave node by subdividing this part of the specification into compliance points for slaves, master-nodes, and gatewaynodes. The IDL is moved to a separate chapter (as it already has happened in the available specification formal/2003-01-01). The section that describes how the submission addresses to the mandatory and optional points in the RFP has been removed between the versions ptc/2001-12- 07 and ptc/2002-05-01 by the OMG. It is believed that at this stage of the standardization process it is not necessary to reinsert it again. End of Annotations:===== Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:26:24 +0200 (MEST) From: Julien Maisonneuve To: issues@omg.org cc: Thomas Losert Subject: [OMG] Smart Transducers RTF X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) The conformance section of the Smart Transducers specification (chapter 3 requirements and IDL) is not shaped right. It should be expressed in terms of discrete mandatory or optional conformance points. The name Conformance points is better suited that requirement as this may be confused with the RFP requirements. There are too many options to choose from in optional conformance points, you should probably identify a few option sets that make sense from a practical point of view. Putting the Consolidated IDL in a separate chapter would also improve clarity. Also, it is customary to include a section (in the introduction) describing how the submission adresses the mandatory and optional points in the RFP. In general take an other submission as an example of how conformance statements are usually structured. Bets regards, Julien Maisonneuve. -- Julien Maisonneuve, PhD, AMTS Control Software Unit B1-346 Alcatel Research & Innovation Alcanet: 2111 1577 Route de Nozay Tel: +33 1 6963 1577 91461 Marcoussis cedex Fax: +33 1 6963 1359 FRANCE Julien.Maisonneuve@alcatel.fr