UPR 1.0 FTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

UPR — Scope should not refer to the UPR RFC

  • Key: UPR-7
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Subclause 1.3 ends with the sentence: "The contributors believe that this is a vendor specific concern that would best be served by a longer term RFP, should there be interest, if and when the UPR RFC is finalized." This is not appropriate for a standard specification document.

    The "RFC" is an OMG process, which is now actually over. It is the beta specification resulting from that process that is now being finalized. But the specification will not even become available in non-beta form unless it is finalized, so it also doesn't make sense for the document to refer to "if and when...[it] is finalized."

    The sentence should be removed.

  • Reported: UPR 1.0b1 — Sat, 9 Feb 2019 00:34 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UPR 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Inappropriate statement on RFC/RFP

    The statement, "The contributors believe that this is a vendor specific concern that would best be served by a longer term RFP, should there be interest, if and when the UPR RFC is finalized." was addressed to the ADTF and AB prior to adoption of the specification. And it is no longer appropriate to include in the current specification, hence need to be removed.

  • Updated: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 17:59 GMT