XDP Public Comments July 11, XDS comments list XDP Comments from Eric Poiseau11eric XDP comment log attached22felhofer XDP comments from GE33John.Moehrke Compressed content44Jürgen Kerstna Send Document Set45Jürgen Kerstna XDP public comments56Isabelle Gibaud XDP Comment67Karima XDP Comments - RJ Horn78rjhorn XDP comments (attachment)89rstevens Actors used in XDP/XDS-SD are confusing910smm Split XDP into two profiles911smm XDP comments - Moore912smm Comment on XDP1013Vassil Comments on XDP1114witting XDP comments with attachment1115witting

XDP Public Comments July 11, XDP Comments Summary 15 messages containing 90 comments 11 authors (vendors and users, NA, Europe) From 6/26 to 7/6 Viewed from 20 to 62 times Priority (after correction) HighMediumLowTotal Number of comments After merging

XDP Public Comments July 11, Profiles, XDP and XDM? Yes The network point-to-point transactions, and the media-based exchange seem to be forced together in the same profile. Create separate profiles (e.g. XDP for networked exchange, and XDM for Media exchange). This profile contains two different use-cases that are solved with two different solutions. This should be two different profiles, or the solution should be the same. Please clearly state that there can be only ONE submission set in ONE exchange. Having both point to point and media exchange in ONE profile may bring confusion here. Thus I am supporting the proposition of Steve to split this profile into two profiles.

XDP Public Comments July 11, Zipped ? No Reword 3.33? Yes transport is missing, a variety of conflicts and duplication, etc. Lots of confusing english. Proposed rewrite attached: Add Zipped Simplify/correct the wording Replace annex R by copy of DICOM annex Remove annex T

XDP Public Comments July 11, Compress option on media? No Does XDP ITI-33 supports, allows or makes any constraints to compressed content? If Portable Media Creator would like to compress a XML document before writing on to external media, is that possible/valid/out of the scope of the XDP profile? How would that be done? Would the simple part document be of the MIME type application/zip? How would Portable Media Importer handle such file?

XDP Public Comments July 11, Go back to Provide & Register? No “Provide and Register” is almost identical to “Send Document Set”. They have a scattering of minor differences. This is very confusing. The net of all the changes seems to just be allowing the Document Recipient to not register. Eliminate the “Send Document Set” and instead permit “Provide and Register” to go a “Document Recipient”. A “Document Recipient” does not have to perform a “Register Documents”, and can respond using internally generated results.

XDP Public Comments July 11, Remove “multipart” document? No The “multipart document” defined in Volume 1 should be encoded as a single blob that is byte for byte the MIME encoding. Disassembling it into individual file subcomponents on the media results in problems for digital signatures, preserving hash values, etc. It introduces serious reconstruction ambiguity issues. For example, an XML document encoded using XOP also uses MIME encoding. Restructuring MIME encoded documents is highly risky and could have unpredictable results as we bring in new applications that also use MIME encoding. Remove from this supplement. This involves lots of scattered edits and revisions to all the figures. Make it clear that the MIME-encoded blob is a single file on the media.

XDP Public Comments July 11, Reword intro/use cases? Yes This section is really hard to read. It starts off with a number of negative statements (profile is not intended to address;.. others scenarios may be only partially supported…”. Then, it says: Specifically:.. and jumps into bulleted items. I can’t tell if these are designed to be supported or not. Then, you get to line 355 that starts with “Precondition”. The indentation for those 4 paragraphs confuses me. Are these part of the preceding bullet item? I am lost in this section; I cannot tell what you are trying to communicate.

XDP Public Comments July 11, Re-organize the section 3.32? Yes You are in the middle of transaction 32 and then digress with updates to transaction 14 and then return to transaction 14. This is very confusing; place this text where it belongs in the supplement. That is, it begins at the beginning of the Volume 2 part of the supplement and leave it to the reader to integrate the changes. We should not get in the business of moving sections around in supplements that we think are appropriate reading “now”. Otherwise, I cannot read your supplements with confidence; I will always be afraid you tucked a change to section X in some obscure part of the document that my developers skipped because they did not care about your obscure notes.

XDP Public Comments July 11, Other topics Explain better the signature: DSG vs. S/MIME, corruption detection thanks to hash vs. Signature Reword the annex E with PIX: not clear Reword the URI aspects Be more precise for the « import » constraints on the Recipient / Importer Detail the case with both XDS and XDP

XDP Public Comments July 11, Done Collect, sort, document all PCs Create a new draft trial-use version Select the non controversial typos (46/90) Modify the document with these typos Reject the evident « NO » PCs (4/90) Present the main PCs (19/90) Propose a choice for each one

XDP Public Comments July 11, To Do Review the corrected document (46 typos) Decide on the main PCs (19 PCs, 12 subj) If proposed choices accepted: –Split into two profiles XDP and XDM (easy for Vol 2, to do for Vol 1) –Reword section 3.33 –Reword intro/use cases –Reword not clear parts Process the other PCs (21/90) – details -