Section 2.3.58: is it a way to extend the standard? if yes, this is not clear in the "extending the standard" part
Page 88 - fifth line (MIME): please reference the IETF standards: RFC 2045, RFC 2046, RFC 2047, RFC 4288, RFC 4289 and RFC 2049
Page 85 - third paragraph: "the reqs for each of the AttributeDefinition's fields are below: " what about the type of the Definition (i.e. the subclass of AttributeDefinition it belongs to)?
Page 18 - First bullet: "the second failed due to a observing an incorrect value": I can't parse.
- Page 18 - Third bullet: was determined by A second "
- Page 30 - "shows the conceptual relationship between the types " -> among the types
Section 3.1:
Section 2.3.56:
Page 66 - last paragraph: "it is expected that implementations." This sentence is not clear; is it or not mandatory to follow these rules?
Section 2.3.13: the class Attribute Definition does need to be Identifiable (Base Classifier = Identifiable)
Section 2.3.13: 1st paragraph: "an attribute column within RE/RM tool": I don't understand, please explain, what's RE/RM? what's attribute column?
Section 2.5.2 - last paragraph thereof: I could find the file named "TesIF SAL PSM.xsl". Next, why is it a .xsl file?
Section 2.5 - third paragraph: "In this PSM (50) instance": this is not clear what is mandatory. Is 50 mandatory or is it a number which is implementation-dependent ?
Section 2.4.3: say that this section is non-normative
Page 93: penultimate paragraph ("The TesIFToolExtensionType exists "): this paragraph is not clear. in which cases there are items that could not be handled with the standard attributes?
Section 2.3.8: this class doesn't hold anything!? What could be the interest of such a class? Moreover, what is the point of this when there is a capability of extension in this spec?
Section 2.3.4.1.4: The 1st paragraph speaks twice about "the" document: which document?
One file is not introduced in the text and need to be: the xml file holding the default normative attribute. For instance, in the 2.3.57.
Figure 2-1: avoid to advertise too heavily enterprises’ work
the extensibility needs to be introduced here
first paragraph: "Test processes for software systems" -> for C4I systems
Page 17 - Figure 1-1: The "requirement R1" and "Requirement R2" balloons use the notation for "expected result" while they are not expected results
Please clearly specify that the symbols you are introducing for the example are just there for the sake of explanation and that you don't intend to standardize a graphical notation (this is not a UML profile).
line "Test Model" - column "UTP Term": what does mean "See the UTP Model" ?
Cause-effect model:
Page 37 - first paragraph (a bullet): "package that Test Specific classesPackage TestIF" can’t be parsed
Figure 2-3: SUT is not a TestIF wording
Section 1.8 - last sub-bullet of the Interchange bullet: I don't understand this sentence
please avoid to advertise too heavily enterprises’ work particularly when they are not members of the OMG