Subject: [Pwg-Announce] Last Call - MFD Service Model Requirements

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 21:05:38 +0000 (UTC)

This is a reminder that the MFD Service Model Requirements document is in PWG last call, and that this last call nominally expires next week. Although this is a requirements document rather than a specification, failure to satisfy the PWG process on this document will act to stall progress on the multiple MFD Service specifications now being worked on. We sincerely request that members provide comments on this document or, if there are no comments, a simple statement that the document has been read. 

Many thanks, 

The MFD Working Group 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: [email-masked] 
To: [email-masked] 
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:33:45 PM 
Subject: [Pwg-Announce] Last Call - MFD Service Model Requirements 

All, 

This is an announcement to begin the Last Call process for the "Multifunction Device Service Model Requirements" statement. This document is a "clear statement of requirements for the standard to be produced" and is required by the PWG Process (ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/pwg-process-30.pdf) in conjunction with generating a standard. There will be, in fact, some ten MFD Service Model standards. Two of these have had the requirements statements incorporated in the standard and have already been advanced to PWG Candidate Standard. The MFD Working Group has decided that an integrated requirements statement would not only be more efficient, but would best reflect the consistent approach to modeling the different MFD imaging and ancillary services. The Last Call will close on Friday July 9. 

Please review this document, accessible at ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/wd-mfdreq10-20100609 and provide your comments (or statement of no comments) to the MFD mail list ([email-masked]). As identified in the PWG Process Document, the "requirements statement is important as it leads to a clear, common understanding of the goals, provides a guide for developing the standard, and can be used as a final test to measure the completeness of the resulting specification." All comments will be addressed and resolved prior to the statement being put up for ballot. Note that PWG approval of this requirements statement is required before the remaining MFD specifications can be approved. 

Thanks, 

Bill Wagner/Peter Zehler 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner , and is 
believed to be clean. 
_______________________________________________ 
pwg-announce mailing list 
[email-masked] 
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/pwg-announce 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________
pwg-announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/pwg-announce

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:10:50 -0400

Hi Bill,

Here are some additional comments I have, some of which might overlap with 
Jerry's:

Line 113-117 Table of Content
        Please resolve all the "ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED "

Terminology Section:
        <service>DocumentData 
                -  the definition uses the term "Digital Document" which 
should also be defined in this section.
        JobTicket 
                - should be removed, it's redundant here because 
<service>JobTicket has all detailed definition for a JobTicket.
        Element (first occurrence) 
                - should be removed. The second occurrence of this term 
has more detail and is consistent with what's in the current "MFD Overall"

Section 5.2, first paragraph, line 383:
        Second sentence: Remove the first, duplicated "the" and replace 
with "of".

Section 5.3.4.3, Processing Step 5:
        Remove "the" from "a the".

Section 6.3.1, line 625:
        Remove "on" from "on in".

Section 6.3.2, line 630:
        Is the "System" referring to the MFD System Object and Service, or 
simply the entire MFD system? If it's the MFD System Object and Servcie, 
we agreed in the last meeting that System object does not have 
job-oriented function. Let's change "Each Service and the System" to "Each 
Service in the System". 

Section 6.3.3, requirement #2:
        Remove "the" from "the a".

Section 9, the 2nd sentence:
        I think it's better to change it to: "Future MFD services should 
consider the local site security policies for

        1) the use of industry standard security protocols (e.g. 
WS-Security), 
        2) compliance to Industry securitiy standards for Imanging and 
Hardcopy Devices,
 
        in providing the desire level of MFD operational and information 
security.

Regards,
-Nancy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Chen, PWG Vice-Chair
Principal Engineer
Solutions and Technology
Oki Data
2000 Bishops Gate Blvd.
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
Phone: (856)222-7006
Email: [email-masked]

[email-masked] 
Sent by: [email-masked]
07/02/2010 05:05 PM

To
[email-masked]
cc

Subject
[Pwg-Announce] Last Call - MFD Service Model Requirements

This is a reminder that the MFD Service Model Requirements document is in 
PWG last call, and that this last call nominally expires next week. 
Although this is a requirements document rather than a specification, 
failure to satisfy the PWG process on this document will act to stall 
progress on the multiple MFD Service specifications now being worked on. 
We sincerely request that members provide comments on this document or, if 
there are no comments, a simple statement that the document has been read.

Many thanks,

The MFD Working Group

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:33:45 PM
Subject: [Pwg-Announce] Last Call - MFD Service Model Requirements

All,

This is an announcement to begin the Last Call process for the 
"Multifunction Device Service Model Requirements" statement. This document 
is a "clear statement of requirements for the standard to be produced" and 
is required by the PWG Process (
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/pwg-process-30.pdf) in conjunction with 
generating a standard. There will be, in fact, some ten MFD Service Model 
standards. Two of these have had the requirements statements incorporated 
in the standard and have already been advanced to PWG Candidate Standard. 
The MFD Working Group has decided that an integrated requirements 
statement would not only be more efficient, but would best reflect the 
consistent approach to modeling the different MFD imaging and ancillary 
services. The Last Call will close on Friday July 9.

Please review this document, accessible at 
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/wd-mfdreq10-20100609 and provide your 
comments (or statement of no comments) to the MFD mail list ([email-masked]). 
As identified in the PWG Process Document, the "requirements statement is 
important as it leads to a clear, common understanding of the goals, 
provides a guide for developing the standard, and can be used as a final 
test to measure the completeness of the resulting specification." All 
comments will be addressed and resolved prior to the statement being put 
up for ballot. Note that PWG approval of this requirements statement is 
required before the remaining MFD specifications can be approved.

Thanks,

Bill Wagner/Peter Zehler