Comments on ebXML Messaging Services 3.0 Conformance Profiles PublicReview 01

I'm offering these comments on your specification as a member of the
OASIS Technical Advisory Board.

Comment numbers in square brackets. References are to the PDF.

[1] Technical Lines 30 and references

I'm confused by normative references in a non-normative supplement.
This could be explained better in the abstract and the introduction.

[2] Minor Editorial

Line 177 last characters are "RM V23" which should be "RM V2/3" to be
consistent with the rest.

Line 178 change "excepts" to "except".

Line 228 delete "to be considered"

Line 237 delete "an already pervasive"

Table after line 253 Security, no bullet at second line.

Line 279 change "Fore" to "For".

Line 360 keep table heading with table.

Line 400 table V2 Reliability and others - why does font change in
middle? I presume this is to match some format in another document, but
it's confusing.

[3] Technical lines 201-203ff

The keyword MUST is used in ordinary text; also a normative requirement
in a non-normative specification is confusing. RFC2119 does not require
that the case be all upper. See lines 269, 411, and do a global search.

The nature of the apparent requirement e.g. Reliability in table after
line 253 is diminished by not making clear the normative and required
nature in keeping with the terminology. In the Security section of that
table, bullet four, "attachments required." is also inconsistent with
typical statements.

[4] Technical Line 412ff

This is well chosen - good job.

[5] Technical line 450-456

Spacing is strange; a URI is generally done in one of the shaded
format.  AFter Line 455 add "but such profile is not defined here."

[6] Appendix A Table after 482

There is no guidance on how to define mandatory, optional etc. Should
this have a reference?  If not, it should be better described as to
what values and content.

-- 

William Cox

Email: 

Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com

+1 862 485 3696 mobile

+1 908 277 3460 fax