Metamodel for GIOP Compression Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Metamodel for GIOP Compression — Closed Issues

  • Acronym: ZIOP
  • Issues Count: 81
  • Description: Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board
Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
ZIOP-80 Attribute exception definition CORBA 2.4 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-81 Issue for components: No meta model for CIDL ? CORBA 2.5 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-79 1. Should a session component have a way to save and restore its private st CPP 1.1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-78 Components Issues - Chapter 69 ptc/99-10-04 CORBA 2.3.1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-77 INS name ? where do we get them from ? CORBA 2.4 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-76 Implementation of extended CCM features CPP 1.1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-75 CCM specification terms CPP 1.1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-74 Document OMG ptc/99-10-04 p.615-87 CPP 1.1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-72 Registering homes outside of the container CPP 1.1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-73 Federation of HomeFinders? CPP 1.1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-71 CCM Issue: Basic Level doesn't mention homes CORBA 2.3.1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-70 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 16 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-67 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 13.5 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-68 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 14 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-64 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 11 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-65 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 12 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-69 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 15 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-66 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 13 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-63 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 10 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-62 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 9 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-61 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 8 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-60 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 7 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-57 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 4 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-56 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 3 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-59 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 6 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-54 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 1 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-58 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 5 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-55 Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 2 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-53 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 22 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-52 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 21 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-48 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 17 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-50 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 19 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-46 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 15 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-45 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 14 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-47 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 16 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-49 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 18 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-43 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 11 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-44 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 13 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-51 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 20 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-42 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 10 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-38 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 6 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-40 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 8 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-37 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 5 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-39 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 7 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-36 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 4 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-33 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 1 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-41 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 9 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-35 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 3 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-34 Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 2 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-32 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 19 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-29 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 16 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-28 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 15 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-27 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 14 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-31 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 18 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-30 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 17 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-26 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 13 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-25 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 12 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-24 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 11 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-23 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 10 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-22 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 9 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-17 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 4 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-19 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 6 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-20 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 7 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-18 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 5 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-21 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 8 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-16 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 3 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-15 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 2 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-14 Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 1 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-12 Section 7.3.3.1 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-13 GIOP versions for ZIOP ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-11 replace at 7.4.1 section the following text ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-7 Sections 7.3.1.6 and 7.3.1.7 editorial ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-10 Sections 7.3.1.6 and 7.3.1.7 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-6 Section: 6.5 update content ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-8 Section 7.3.1.7 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Closed; No Change closed
ZIOP-9 Section: 7.3.1: ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-5 Section: Annex B ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-4 Remove Section: 7.5 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-3 Section: 7.4.1 ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-2 Section: 7.4.1 remove sentence ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed
ZIOP-1 ZIOP issue - compliance ZIOP 1.0b1 ZIOP 1.0 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

Attribute exception definition

  • Key: ZIOP-80
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3927
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Open Networks Engineering ( Jean-Christophe Dubois)
  • Summary:

    In 99-07-01 there was a extention of the atribute definition to enable users
    to define specific exceptions on GET/SET operations. This extension has
    disappear from 99-10-04. What is the reason for it? This extension seems to
    be quite usefull in particular if you consider component configuration
    phase.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4 — Tue, 3 Oct 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The attribute changes are contained in the core chapter ptc/99-10-03.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Issue for components: No meta model for CIDL ?

  • Key: ZIOP-81
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4575
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Humboldt-Universitaet ( Harald Boehme)
  • Summary:

    There is no meta model for the CIDL language from orbos/99-07-01 in
    orbos/99-07-02.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.5 — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

1. Should a session component have a way to save and restore its private st

  • Key: ZIOP-79
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3212
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Ed Cobb)
  • Summary:

    1. Should a session component have a way to save and restore its private state?
    Problem: The current component specification provides no way for the component programmer to explicitly save and restore its private state for session components.

  • Reported: CPP 1.1 — Wed, 12 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Components Issues - Chapter 69 ptc/99-10-04

  • Key: ZIOP-78
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3062
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Ed Cobb)
  • Summary:

    The following errors in the deployment chapter 69 need to be fixed as
    follows to align the IDL in the text with the final IDL published in
    Appendix A (orbos/99-08-08).

    1. In IDL on page 330, section 69.9.2 replace two occurences of
    raises InvalidLocation;
    with
    raises (InvalidLocation);
    and one occurence of
    raises UnknownImplId;
    with
    raises (UnknownImplId);
    2. In IDL on page 331, section 69.9.3 replace one occurence of
    raises InvalidLocation;
    with
    raises (InvalidLocation);
    and two occurences of
    raises InvalidAssembly;
    with
    raises (InvalidAssembly);
    3. In section 69.9.1.2 on pages 328 and 329, items 2 and 9 change
    Installation to ComponentInstallation

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Mon, 22 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change text as indicated below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

INS name ? where do we get them from ?

  • Key: ZIOP-77
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3940
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Open Networks Engineering ( Jean-Christophe Dubois)
  • Summary:

    In 99-10-04 chapter 62.4.1.4 (The Event Interface) in the paragraph
    describing obtain_channel() and listen() the name passed to these methods
    are supposed to be an INS name. Where do we get them from?

    It seems to me that it should be the port name that should be passed and the
    container job would be to link it with an INS name (that it gets through
    container specific configuration) and then get the corresponding Admin
    interface.

    If this is what is intended we might want to make it more clear in the text.

  • Reported: CORBA 2.4 — Wed, 4 Oct 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Same as issue 3937.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Implementation of extended CCM features

  • Key: ZIOP-76
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3873
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    This section indicates that the Language Mappings are to be provided as errata. I have searched high and low in the OMG web site to find these mappings and have not found a single bit of info on them. I need these mappings to accurately design and implement the extended CCM features.

  • Reported: CPP 1.1 — Tue, 19 Sep 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    close no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

CCM specification terms

  • Key: ZIOP-75
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3652
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Laboratoire d`Informatique Fondamentale de Lille ( Raphael Marvie)
  • Summary:

    In the first versions of the CCM specification terms such as
    ComponentBAse, ComponentHome, ... have been used. More recently these
    terms have been changed to CCMObject, CCMHome... Shouldn't all the
    interfaces of the ccm module be changed this way in order to be
    homogeneous in their naming?

    Why is there CCMContext (with CCM prefix) and SessionContext without
    CCM prefix ?

    Thus SessionComponent, EnterpriseComponent, SessionContext, ... would
    become CCMSessionObject, CCMEnterpriseObject, CCMSessionContext ...

  • Reported: CPP 1.1 — Tue, 23 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    close, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Document OMG ptc/99-10-04 p.615-87

  • Key: ZIOP-74
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3646
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Laboratoire d`Informatique Fondamentale de Lille ( Raphael Marvie)
  • Summary:

    2. Document OMG ptc/99-10-04 p.615-87. In the last paragraph of the
    illustrative example, it is said that: "The implementations of
    operations for navigation, executor activation, object reference
    creation and management, and other mechanical functions are either
    generated or supplied by the container."
    Don't you think this is dangerous in a multi vendor context? Let say
    a component implementation rely on the container to provide these
    operations. What will happend if this component is deployed in a
    container which considers that component implementations include
    the generated code providing these operations? (Same feeling as in
    remark 2.)

  • Reported: CPP 1.1 — Tue, 23 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    close issue, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Registering homes outside of the container

  • Key: ZIOP-72
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3214
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Ed Cobb)
  • Summary:

    Problem: The current specification does not provide an interface for registering homes that can be used outside of the container. Should it?

  • Reported: CPP 1.1 — Wed, 12 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    close, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Federation of HomeFinders?

  • Key: ZIOP-73
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3215
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Ed Cobb)
  • Summary:

    Problem: Can home finders be federated?

  • Reported: CPP 1.1 — Wed, 12 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No, HomeFinder cannot be federated. Clients can use the Naming Service instead, which is federated.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

CCM Issue: Basic Level doesn't mention homes

  • Key: ZIOP-71
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3064
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Dan Frantz)
  • Summary:

    There is nothing in the FTF documents about leveling with
    respect to homes. Basic CCM does not allow components to inherit from
    other components. Why is there no similar restriction for homes?

  • Reported: CORBA 2.3.1 — Thu, 2 Dec 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    There is no basic and extended distinction for homes as there is for components.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 16

  • Key: ZIOP-70
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14421
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    All Clauses
    Comment:
    ISO standard documents are described with "shall", "should" and "may".
    Proposed Change
    Define this with "shall", "should" and "may"

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 13.5

  • Key: ZIOP-67
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14418
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    8.2.9.1 Code fragment
    Comment:
    It is unclear if this description is normative or informative.
    Proposed change:
    Make distinction between normative and informative.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to clarify that this code fragment is a normative implicit definition

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 14

  • Key: ZIOP-68
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14419
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Annex A
    Comment:
    This annex .defines OMG and related companies's copyright and patent condition. But ISO defines another copyright and patent condition.
    Proposed Change
    Remove Annex a or make it informative Annex

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to make Annex A an informative Annex

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 11

  • Key: ZIOP-64
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14415
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    3.1 Normative Reference
    Comment:
    ZIP is referred to http://www.pkware.com/products/enterprise/white_paper/annnote.txt
    Proposed change:
    Refer to public document. Otherwise ZIP should be removed.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    According to section 6.12.1 (note on Tools), the exact nature of a zip file format is tool
    and platform dependent.
    Thus the single reference in 14.3.3 should be made informal, and the reference [ZIP]
    needs to be removed.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 12

  • Key: ZIOP-65
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14416
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    6.11 Figure 6.2
    Comment:
    The diagram looks like class diagram. However, its syntax is ambiguous. For example, Inheritance arrowhead is solid black triangle. Generally, Inheritance arrowhead is hollow triangle. Besides, there are dashed lines without definition.
    Proposed change:
    Replace the diagram with class diagram.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accommodated by deletion of the Figure, since it is not referred to in the text of the
    document

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 15

  • Key: ZIOP-69
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14420
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Annex B,C
    Comment:
    This is ISO standard, thus it is unnecessary OMG's procedure. Leave them as OMG document only.
    Proposed Change
    Remove Annex D and C from ISO standard.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to remove Annex B and Annex C from both the ISO Standard and the OMG specification (for
    consistency)

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 13

  • Key: ZIOP-66
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14417
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    8.2.6, 8.2.7 Figure 8.1, Figure 8.2
    Comment:
    Syntax for the composition structure diagram is ambiguous. For example, there are gray dashed arrows, however, the legends only show gray solid arrow.
    Proposed change:
    The Fig 8.1 and 8.2 should be represented using the symbol of the legend."

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The light grey dashed arrows are a fourth type, and are used to represent correspondence
    form the composition example to one of the diagram elements.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 10

  • Key: ZIOP-63
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14414
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    3.1 Normative Reference
    Comment:
    There are reference to UML 1.5, MOF 1.4 and XMI.
    Proposed change:
    ISO/IEC 19502:2005 Information technology – Meta Object Facility (MOF)
    ISO/IEC 19501:2005 Information technology - Unified Modeling Language (UML)
    ISO/IEC 19503:2005 Information technology – XML Metadata Interchange (XMI)

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed to add the three references

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 9

  • Key: ZIOP-62
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14413
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    1 Scope
    Comment:
    There are many references to PIM/PSM. However, those definitions aren't prescribed.
    Proposed change:
    Add reference to MDA prescription. http://www.omg.org/docs/omg/03-06-1/pdf

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed to add refernce to MDA Guide version 1.0.1, and to use it in abbreviation
    definitions for PIM and PSM

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 8

  • Key: ZIOP-61
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14412
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    1 Scope
    Comment:
    There is a reference to EJB. This should be referred as normative reference. Furthermore, this refers to private web page (http://java.sun.com/products/ejb/javadocs-1.1-fr).
    Proposed change:
    This reference should move to clause "Normative Reference" and refer to public specification, such as JCP. Furthermore, referred version number should be designated.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree that the reference should be changed to use the JCP url for JSR 950 - EJB 1.1 spec
    final release with errata

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 7

  • Key: ZIOP-60
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14411
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Introduction 3rd paragraph
    Comment:
    Since this document is submitted as PAS, it is better to reference ISO/IEC standard in addition to OMG standard.
    Proposed change:
    Add " or this standard (ISO/IEC 19500)" at the end of the first sentence..

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to clarify the references

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 4

  • Key: ZIOP-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14408
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Introduction 3rd paragraph
    Comment:
    1) The second "Part2" seems to be "Part3" instead.
    2) Mixed use of "RM-ODP" and "RM ODP" is confusing.
    Proposed change:
    1) The second "Part2" should be replaced with "Part3".
    2) "RM ODP" should be replaced with "RM-ODP" where applicable..

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept proposed change.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 3

  • Key: ZIOP-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14407
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Foreword 6th paragraph
    Comment
    1) The year of the standard's issuance need to be corrected.
    2) The names in the second half of two referenced standards start with "-" and need to be removed.
    Proposed change:
    1) The year within the title of RM-ODP Part2 and 3 should be replaced with 1996, like following.
    ITU-T Recommendation X.902(1995)|ISO/IEC 10746-2:1996
    ITU-T Recommendation X.903(1995)|ISO/IEC 10746-3:1996

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    accept proposed change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 6

  • Key: ZIOP-59
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14410
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Introduction Last paragraph
    Comment:
    There is no sentence included with respect to annexes of this standard.
    Proposed change:
    Add text that says this standard includes normative and non-normative annexes.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to add proposed sentence, however Annex B and C are to be removed, and the Annex A is non
    -normative

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 1

  • Key: ZIOP-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14405
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Source: Japan NB, Severity te
    Summary:
    Japan will approve this DIS if the te comment jp 8, 11, 14 will be satisfactorily resolved
    Resolution:
    If the te comments JP 8, 11, 14 were accepted in the approved resolutions. See resolutions to OMG Issues

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    All of the comments JP 8, 11, and 14, were resolved in the approved resolutions. See
    resolutions to OMG Issues

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 5

  • Key: ZIOP-58
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14409
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Introduction Structure of this standard
    Comment:
    1) This chapter numbers in Structure of this standard are not consistent with actual chapter numbers.
    Proposed change:
    1) Revise the chapter numbers..

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accommodate by deletion of “Structure of this Standard” unnumbered subsection. This
    subsection is not required.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 3 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 2

  • Key: ZIOP-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14406
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Foreword 5th paragraph
    Comment:
    1) The reference to JTC1 is not correct.
    2) The JTC1 subcommittee referenced in this standard is SC32. It seems there is no reference to the reference.
    Proposed change:
    1)"ISO/IEC/TC JTC1" should be replaced with "ISO/IEC JTC1"
    2) Remove reference to SC32.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept proposed change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 22

  • Key: ZIOP-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14404
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    All Clauses
    Comment:
    ISO standard documents are described with "shall", "should" and "may".
    Proposed Change
    Define this with "shall", "should" and "may"

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Specification uses RFC 2119 Terminology

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 21

  • Key: ZIOP-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14403
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Annex C, D
    Comment:
    This is ISO standard, thus it is unnecessary OMG's procedure. Leave them as OMG document only.
    Proposed Change
    Remove Annex C and D from ISO standard.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to remove Annex C and Annex D from both the ISO Standard and the OMG specification (for
    consistency)

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 17

  • Key: ZIOP-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14399
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    7.6.6.3 p.31, p.32
    Comment:
    There are sentences each of which begins with "See …".
    However, the reference pointers are ambiguous for those who are not familiar with the CORBA work.
    Proposed change:
    Replace the references as mentioned above.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to change to proper OMG normative references, and to add to normative
    references clause. OMG is an Authorized Reference Originator
    Replace all the numbered reference text to Firewall spec , showing in the document as
    “(ptc/04-03-01)” with the “[FIREWALL]” reference tag.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 19

  • Key: ZIOP-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14401
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Introduction p.xviii (Last paragraph)
    Comment:
    There is no sentence included with respect to annexes of this standard.
    Proposed change:
    Add a sentence which says that this standard includes normative and non-normative annexes.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to add proposed sentence

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 15

  • Key: ZIOP-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14397
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Location:
    7.6.4.4 p.29
    Comment:
    The reference pointer of the "Unreliable Multicast" is necessary for the convenience of the readers.
    Proposed change:
    Replace the "Unreliable Multicast" with "in clause 11 of ISO/IEC 19500-2, Unreliable Multicast"..

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to add reference to clause 11:

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 14

  • Key: ZIOP-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14396
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Location:
    7.6.4.3 p 28
    Comment:
    There is a phrase that "see the CORBA/TC Interworking specification". However, we can't find the place.
    Proposed change:
    Where is this clause ?.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to add proper reference to OMG spec

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 16

  • Key: ZIOP-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14398
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    7.6.6 p.30
    Comment:
    We can't find where the DCE ESIOP is. There is no clause which names DCE ESIOP in ISO/IEC 19500-2.
    What document are CORBA services included in?
    Proposed change:
    Modify the sentence

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to fix by removing deprecated references to DCE ESIOP components

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 18

  • Key: ZIOP-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14400
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Location:
    3.1 p 2
    Forward p xv
    Comment:
    The year of ITU-T recommendation is different from that of ISO/IEC. The former is 1995, and the latter is 1996.
    Proposed change:
    The correct expressions of the Normative references are as follows:
    ITU-T Recommendation X.902 (1995)| ISO/IEC 10746-2:1996,
    ITU-T Recommendation X.903 (1995)| ISO/IEC 10746-3:1996,

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to proposed change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 11

  • Key: ZIOP-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14393
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    6.3.4
    Comment:
    When referring to clause(s) in other parts of ISO/IEC 19500 from within ISO/IEC 19500-2, it is clearer to explicitly provide the clause number and part number of the standard, rather stating like "this standard(Part 1).
    Proposed change:
    Replace "in the Interface Repository clause of this standard (Part1)" with "in clause 14 of ISO/IEC 19500-1, Interface Repository clause of CORBA interfaces"..

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to refer to clause in 19500-1 as “Part 1 of this Specification” which will hold for both OMG and ISO
    versions of text.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 13

  • Key: ZIOP-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14395
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    7.6.3 p.27, l.24
    7.6.9 p.33
    Comment:
    We use the term 'clause' when we need to point to the other sections.
    Proposed change:
    Replace "see Section 9.7.3" with "see clause 9.7.3".
    Replace "see Section 9.3" with "see clause 9.3".

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    agree to proposed change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 20

  • Key: ZIOP-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14402
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Annex B
    Comment:
    This annex .defines OMG and related companies's copyright and patent condition. But ISO defines another copyright and patent condition.
    Proposed Change
    Remove Annex B or make it informative Annex

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to make Annex B an informative Annex

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 10

  • Key: ZIOP-42
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14392
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    6.2
    Comment:
    ISO documents are not a book but consist of several parts of documents.
    Proposed change:
    Correct the expression of the phrase "ORB Interface clause of this book(Part1)" , such as "clause 8 of ISO/IEC 19500-1, ORB Interface"..

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to change reference to a neutral designation for 19500-1 as “Part 1 of this Specification” which will
    hold for both OMG and ISO versions of text. Use of clause names in other spec references rather than
    clause numbers is more robust to amendments/corrigenda on the references external specification.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 6

  • Key: ZIOP-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14388
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    4.2
    In 'repository', the sentence tells to 'see' the other terms. However, there is no 'implementation repository' in the definitions list.
    Proposed change:
    Modify the definition of this 'repository' or add the reference to the definition of 'implementation repository', which is mentioned in the clause 6.1.4 of ISO/IEC 19500-1.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree that there is no specialized definition of the word repository as used in this spec

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 8

  • Key: ZIOP-40
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14390
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    4.2
    Comment:
    It seems that the definition of a 'request' is circular.
    Proposed change:
    Modify the definition which is not circular. A candidate is " A message issued by a client to cause a service to be performed."..

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to proposed change of definition text

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 5

  • Key: ZIOP-37
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14387
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Location:
    4.1
    Comment:
    As the terms 'transparency', 'domain' and 'service' are used in clause 7, and these terms are important for the concept of interoperability, it is preferable to explain the difference or resemblance of usage between the RM-ODP and this CORBA in the document. One way to do this is to define the meaning of the terms. The term 'domain' is defined in clause 4.2. However, other terms are not defined in this document. Where are the definitions of 'transparency' and 'service' ?
    Proposed change:
    If the terms are already defined in the other documents, make a reference to the documents in which the terms are defined. Otherwise, define these terms in this document..

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add “transparency” and “service” to the list of terms defined in ODP Reference Model 10746-2

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 7

  • Key: ZIOP-39
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14389
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Location:
    4.2
    Comment:
    There are misspellings in the definitions list.
    Proposed change:
    Correct the word 'wiat' to 'wait' in the definition of the "synchronous request".
    Correct the word 'tow' to 'two' in the definition of the 'interoperability'..

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    agree to proposed changes

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 4

  • Key: ZIOP-36
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14386
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Location:
    4.1 1st line
    Comment:
    The delimiter between X and 902 is not a comma but a dot, and the part number following a document number should be connected by a hyphen.
    Proposed change:
    X,902 should be X.902 and 10746.2 should be 10746-2..

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    agree to proposed change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 1

  • Key: ZIOP-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14383
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Japan will approve this DIS if the te comment jp 20 will be satisfactorily resolved
    Resolution:
    If the te commentsJP17 were accepted in the approved resolutions. See resolutions to OMG Issues

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The comment JP20 was resolved in the approved resolutions. See resolutions to OMG
    Issues

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 9

  • Key: ZIOP-41
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14391
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Clause 5
    Comment:
    The term ESIOP plays important roles in the document.
    Proposed change:
    ESIOP should be added in the symbols.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to add ESIOP to symbols

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 3

  • Key: ZIOP-35
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14385
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Clause 2 2nd paragraph
    Comment:
    What does ESIOP mean? There are no descriptions on it.
    Proposed Change:
    Change 'additional ESIOPs' to 'additional Environment-Specific Inter-ORB Protocols(ESIOPs)'

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to proposed change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 2 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 2

  • Key: ZIOP-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14384
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Comment:
    This document is revision for 19500-2:2003. Therefore, status of the old document is ambiguous.
    Proposed Change
    It is desirable to withdraw the old standard (19500-2:2003) to avoid confusion, if possible.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify upon publication by ISO that This PAS specification is intended to supersede the
    2003 version

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 19

  • Key: ZIOP-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14382
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    All Clauses
    Comment:
    ISO standard documents are described with "shall", "should" and "may".
    Proposed Change
    Define this with "shall", "should" and "may"

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change the title of clause 4 to the following:

    4 Additional information

    Add a new sub section header at beginning of clause 4:

    4.1 Outline of specification contents

    Add new subsection to end of section 4:

    4.2 Keywords for Requirement statements”
    The keywords "must", "must not", "shall", "shall not", "should", "should not", and "may” in this
    specification are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].“

    Add the following reference in the normative references - section 3.2:
    [RFC2119] IETF RFC2119, “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels”, S. Bradner,
    March 1997. Available from http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 16

  • Key: ZIOP-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14379
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Clause 8.5.2 and other places Table 8.1
    Comment:
    1) There are places where the reference to Part 2 is describe like the following:
    "See CORBA, Part 2: ORB Interoperability Architecture clause".
    Proposed Change
    Change the text of referring to other part of the standard throughout the document to:
    "See ISO/IEC 19500-2 Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) specification - Part 2: Interoperability"
    or
    "See ISO/IEC 19500-2 CORBA specification Part 2: Interoperability"
    or
    "See Part 2 of this standard"

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to second proposed change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 15

  • Key: ZIOP-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14378
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Clause 7.3 1st paragraph
    Comment:
    1) There is a stand-alone term "1998" in the second line of this paragraph.
    Proposed Change
    1) Change the standard name to "ISO/IEC 14882:2003" or "ISO/IEC 14882:1998" or remove this number from the text.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to proposed change to incorporate reference from normative references

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 14

  • Key: ZIOP-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14377
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Location:
    All Clauses
    Comment:
    1) Both terms, "OMG IDL" and "IDL," are used in the document, and this usage is not consistent.
    Proposed Change
    1) It is suggested to use "OMG IDL" for the first appearance, and with the text explaining that IDL hereafter means OMG IDL, use just IDL for the rest of the document.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to proposed change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 18

  • Key: ZIOP-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14381
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Annex C, D
    Comment:
    This is ISO standard, thus it is unnecessary OMG's procedure. Leave them as OMG document only.
    Proposed Change
    Remove Annex C and D from ISO standard.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to remove Annex C and Annex D from both the ISO Standard and the OMG specification (for
    consistency)

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 17

  • Key: ZIOP-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14380
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Annex B
    Comment:
    This annex .defines OMG and related companies's copyright and patent condition. But ISO defines another copyright and patent condition.
    Proposed Change
    Remove Annex B or make it informative Annex
    Resolution:

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to make Annex B an informative Annex

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 13

  • Key: ZIOP-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14376
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Location:
    Clause 5
    Comment:
    1) OMA is mentioned but no reference to OMA document is included.
    Proposed Change
    Add the reference to Object Management Architecture Guide

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to add reference to OMG OMA Guide

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 12

  • Key: ZIOP-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14375
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Location:
    Forword 5th paragraph
    Comment:
    1) This document does not have definitions clause.
    Proposed Change
    1) It is suggested to create definitions clause that covers at least major concepts for this standard

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Do not agree to proposed change, since the terms are all defined implicitly by the text in
    the body of the document as they are first introduced.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 11

  • Key: ZIOP-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14374
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Location:
    Clause 4
    Comment:
    This is a multipart standard, and this clause title is "4 Part1 Document". It is confusing.
    Proposed Change
    Delete unnecessary "Part1".

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    agree to proposed change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 10

  • Key: ZIOP-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14373
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Location:
    Clause 4
    Comment:
    1) There seems to be duplication between "structure of this standard" section of Introduction and clause 4, and therefore it is better to make text simpler.
    Proposed Change
    1) Structure of this standard section of Introduction and clause 4 should be merged and placed in one place.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accommodated by removal of Structure of Standard subsection from Issue 14369.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 9

  • Key: ZIOP-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14372
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Clause 3 Bullet items
    Comment:
    1) The year of the standard's issuance need to be corrected.
    Proposed Change
    1) The years within the title of RM-ODP Part 2 and 3 should be replaced with 1996, like the following.
    o ITU-T Recommendation X.902 (1995) | ISO/IEC 10746-2:1996
    o ITU-T Recommendation X.903 (1995) | ISO/IEC 10746-3:1996

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept proposed change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 4

  • Key: ZIOP-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14367
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Introduction 3rd paragraph
    Comment:
    1) The second "Part 2" seems to be "Part 3" instead.
    2) Mixed use of "RM-ODP" and "RM ODP" is confusing.
    Proposed Change
    1) The second "Part 2" should be replaced with "Part 3."
    2) "RM ODP" should be replaced with "RM-ODP" where applicable.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept proposed change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 6

  • Key: ZIOP-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14369
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Introduction Structure of this standard
    Comment:
    1) The chapter numbers in Structure of this standard are not consistent with actual chapter numbers.
    Proposed Change
    1) Revise the chapter numbers.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accommodate by deletion of “Structure of this Standard” unnumbered subsection. This
    subsection is not required.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 7

  • Key: ZIOP-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14370
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Introduction last paragraph
    Comment:
    1) There is no sentence included with respect to annexes of this standard.
    Proposed Change
    1) Add text that says this standard includes normative and non-normative annexes.
    Resolution:

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to add proposed sentence, however Annex B and C are to be removed, and the Annex A is non
    -normative

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 5

  • Key: ZIOP-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14368
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Introduction context of CORBA last para
    Comment:
    1) Since this document is submitted as PAS, it is better to reference ISO/IEC standard in addition to OMG standard
    Proposed Change
    1) Add ", or this standard (ISO/IEC 19500)" at the end of the first sentence.
    Resolution:

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    accept proposed changes

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 8

  • Key: ZIOP-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14371
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Location:
    Clause 2
    Comment:
    1) It would be better to have reference to programming language C++ standard, since it is used in mapping examples.
    2) It would be better to have reference to programming language C standard too.
    Proposed Change
    1) Add the reference to C++, which is ISO/IEC 14882:2003, somewhere in the document.
    See also a comment on Clause 7.3.
    2) Add the reference to C, which is ISO/IEC 9899:1999, somewhere in the document.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree to proposed change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 3

  • Key: ZIOP-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14366
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Location:
    Forword 6th paragraph
    Comment:
    1) The year of the standard's issurance need to be corrected.
    2) The names in the second half of four referenced standards start with "-" and need to be removed.
    3) ISO/IEC 19500-3 needs to be added in the list of relevant standards.
    Proposed Change
    1) The years within the title of RM-ODP Part 2 and 3 should be replaced with 1996, like the following.
    o ITU-T Recommendation X.902 (1995) | ISO/IEC 10746-2:1996
    o ITU-T Recommendation X.903 (1995) | ISO/IEC 10746-3:1996
    2) Starting "-"s need to be removed.
    3) Add the following to the list of related standards.
    ISO/IEC 19500-3, Information Technology - Open Distributed Processing - CORBA Specification Part 3: CORBA Components

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept proposed change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 2

  • Key: ZIOP-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14365
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Source: Japan NB, Severity ed
    Summary:
    Location:
    Forword 5th paragraph
    Comment:
    1) The reference to JTC1 is not correct.
    2) The JTC1 Subcommittee referenced in this standard should be SC7 instead of SC32.
    Proposed Change
    1) "ISO/IEC/TC JTC1" should be replaced with "ISO/IEC JTC1."
    2) "Subcommittee SC 32, Data Management" should be replaced with "Subcommittee SC 7, Software and Systems Engineering."
    Resolution:
    Revised Text:

    Disposition:

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    To be consistent with resolution of similar comment on part 3 (OMG Issue 14406),
    1)”ISO/IEC/TC JTC1” should be replaced with “ISO/IEC JTC1”
    2) Remove reference to SC32.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Japan CORBA Part 1 PAS Ballot Comments - comment 1

  • Key: ZIOP-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14364
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Source: Japan NB, Severity te
    Summary:
    Japan will approve this DIS if the TH comments will accept.
    Resolution:
    If The TH comments JP17 were accepted in the approved resolutions. See resolutions to OMG Issues
    Revised Text:

    Disposition: Duplicate of xxxxxx

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section 7.3.3.1

  • Key: ZIOP-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13801
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    the spec defines the following in idl, the reason should be a normal long (not unsigned), some compression libraries do have a negative error number > /** > * Exception thrown when an error occurs during a compress or decompress > * operation. > */ > exception CompressionException >

    { > unsigned long reason; > string description; > }

    ; >

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change datatype of the reason member of CompressionException from “unsigned long” to “long”

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

GIOP versions for ZIOP

  • Key: ZIOP-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13864
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Red Hat ( Robert Kukura)
  • Summary:

    Section 7.4.1 of the beta 1 spec states "GIOP compression can be applied to send or receive GIOP 1.2 messages and includes fragmented messages." There is no other mention of the GIOP versions to which ZIOP can apply. I believe it should apply to subsequent GIOP versions as well, and recommend changing the quoted text to something like "GIOP compression can be applied to send or receive GIOP 1.2 and higher messages and includes fragmented messages."

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Thu, 9 Apr 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Update section as proposed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

replace at 7.4.1 section the following text

  • Key: ZIOP-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13658
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Telefonica I+D ( Alvaro Vega)
  • Summary:

    "... is replaced by the CompressionData structure, which contains the
    according Message compressed. The length in the GIOP MessageHeader is
    updated to reflect the new message length, the other fields are
    unchanged.

    // PIDL: ZIOP body in ZIOP Message
    module ZIOP {
    struct CompressionData

    { Compression::CompressorId compressor; unsigned long original_length; Compression::Buffer data; }

    ;
    };
    "

    to:
    "...is replaced by the CompressionData structure, which contains the
    following items encoded in this order:

    · compressor: contains a identifier which indicates the compressor
    algorithm used in current ZIOP message.
    · original_length: contains a unsigned long value which represents the
    GIOP body length of the current GIOP message without apply any
    compression.
    · data: is a octet sequence which contains the compressed Message."

    About the following sentence, I'm sure if is correct:

    "The length in the GIOP MessageHeader is updated to reflect the new
    message length, the other fields are unchanged."

    "The length in the GIOP Header is updated to reflect the new message
    length, the other fields are unchanged as it was described below."

    And the following IDL code could be moved before this paragraph:

    // PIDL: ZIOP body in ZIOP Message
    module ZIOP {
    struct CompressionData

    { Compression::CompressorId compressor; unsigned long original_length; Compression::Buffer data; }

    ;
    };

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Wed, 4 Mar 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Update the text as proposed in section 7.4.1

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Sections 7.3.1.6 and 7.3.1.7 editorial

  • Key: ZIOP-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13472
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Telefonica I+D ( Alvaro Vega)
  • Summary:

    The words "..this compresso during.." must be changed by "..this
    compressor during.."

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix typo as recommended

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Sections 7.3.1.6 and 7.3.1.7

  • Key: ZIOP-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13475
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Red Hat ( Robert Kukura)
  • Summary:

    Could be improved adding some words:

    • "..compressor during compression *of input data* "
    • "..compressor during decompression *of output data* "
  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The beta 1 spec now explicitly refers to the source/target argument of the
    compress operation. Adding input/output doesn't clarify things to my idea,
    there is no input/output in the IDL. To clarify these sections I propose to
    change "side" into "argument" in section 7.3.1.6 and 7.3.1.7

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 6.5 update content

  • Key: ZIOP-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13471
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Telefonica I+D ( Alvaro Vega)
  • Summary:

    The content of this paragraph could be updated as follows:
    "This specification describes the ZIOP pluggable protocol implemented in
    TIDorbJ and TIDorbC++ by Telefonica I+D and TAO by Remedy IT."

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add TIDorbJ as proposed to section 6.5

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section 7.3.1.7

  • Key: ZIOP-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13473
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Telefonica I+D ( Alvaro Vega)
  • Summary:

    The words "this compressor during compression" must be changed by "this
    compressor during decompression

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The compressed_bytes/decompressed_bytes are added to calculate the ratio.
    The ratio should be calculated based on the original bytes and the
    compressed bytes of the compress operation. It doesn't make sense to use the
    bytes of the decompression, there is then no relationship to the compress.
    Also the decompress is unrelated to the compression level, only the compress
    is related to the compression level. The number decompressed_bytes is
    really the source bytes of the compress operation.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 7.3.1:

  • Key: ZIOP-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13474
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Red Hat ( Robert Kukura)
  • Summary:

    compression_ratio must be changed from unsigned long to float? I agree,
    more precision.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change datatype of Compression::CompressionRatio typedef from long to float. Also the calculation of the ratio is changed to compressed_length/original_length

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: Annex B

  • Key: ZIOP-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13470
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Telefonica I+D ( Alvaro Vega)
  • Summary:

    "TBD by OMG" must be replaced with the Policy ID numbers provided by
    Andrew Watson

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Official Policy Ids have been requested to the OMG and have been assigned.
    ZIOP::COMPRESSION_ENABLING_POLICY_ID = 64
    ZIOP::COMPRESSOR_ID_LEVEL_LIST_POLICY_ID = 65
    ZIOP::COMPRESSION_LOW_VALUE_POLICY_ID = 66
    ZIOP::COMPRESSION_MIN_RATIO_POLICY_ID = 67
    Revised Text:

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Remove Section: 7.5

  • Key: ZIOP-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13469
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Telefonica I+D ( Alvaro Vega)
  • Summary:

    This section was in response to OMG Request for Proposal. Only argues
    why compression can not be considered at Security Layer, and it doesn't
    introduces or describes any other technical issue about ZIOP. Maybe at
    this stage could be removed also.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Removed section 7.5

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 7.4.1

  • Key: ZIOP-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13468
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Telefonica I+D ( Alvaro Vega)
  • Summary:

    Change "ZIPOP" to ZIOP at this sentence: " is not required for ZIPOP at all."

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Because of issue 13467 this sentence has been removed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 7.4.1 remove sentence

  • Key: ZIOP-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13467
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Telefonica I+D ( Alvaro Vega)
  • Summary:

    Maybe the following sentence could be removed:
    "The ServiceContext list can't be used to transfer that a GIOP
    message contains compressed data because a GIOP fragment doesn't contain
    a ServiceContext list."
    because I think that in this stage we only need describe what is ZIOP,
    instead of what is not and why not.

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove text as proposed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

ZIOP issue - compliance

  • Key: ZIOP-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13344
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Real-Time Innovations ( Dave Stringer)
  • Summary:

    Specification: GIOP Compression (ZIOP)

    Section: 7.4.1 and 2

    Description:

    Section 7.4.1 includes “To allow interoperability between a ZIOP and a non ZIOP party the client ORB that supports ZIOP will send only ZIOP messages to servers which have been declared to accept ZIOP messages.”

    Is the decision to declare, one for the server implementer or for the ORB implementer?

    Section 2 “Conformance”, offers “two optional conformance” points and then goes on to assert that at least one of these must be supported. This isn’t the usual meaning of “optional”, perhaps “alternate” would be a better word.

    The second alternate would appear not to provide interoperable compression. E.g. interoperability with an ORB conforming to the first alternative.

    If indeed, it is the intention that ZIOP, in some form, is mandatory (not optional) then how are existing implementations viewed? If they implement GIOP 1.2 but do not implement ZIOP, are they compliant or not?

  • Reported: ZIOP 1.0b1 — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — ZIOP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change 7.4.1 to just mention client/server
    Change 2 to be more closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT