1. TAB Report to Board 31 July 2014

2. Completed Work 2014 “Keyword Guidelines for OASIS Specifications and Standards” Systematic review of all 1 st PRs + documentation to guide reviewers [comment?]-tagged HTML files for PR TAB public page and resources Open Standards Cup final selections

3. Public Reviews At Board request, TAB made PRs a 2013/2014 priority - 4 WS-BRSP Profiles- BDX Location - 3 Bindings for OBIX- CAMP v1.1 - 1 Encodings for OBIX- DSS Extension - Trust Elevation Framework- 12 KMIP CSDs/CNDs - MQTT and NIST Cybersecurity Framework - OBIX v1.1 - 5 PKCS CSDs- SAML Conformance Clause - TOSCA v1.0- TGF v2.0 - 2 XACML Profiles

4. Public Reviews > 700 comments issued on 39 public reviews Review methodology TAB only reviewed 1 st PR Reivewed per TAB’s PR Checklist Comments tracked in JIRA & Excel exports made available Applied categorization at high-level

5. Issue categories Normative: e.g normative vs. non-normative, use of formal keywords Reference: e.g. incorrect, missing Style: e.g. formatting errors Technical: e.g. terminology, completeness Structure: e.g. misuse of sections & parts Conformance: e.g. referencing of normative content, relation to implementations, etc. Process: e.g. consistency with TC Process rules

6. Sample comments Conformance: “The conformance clauses are too vague for implementers to attempt conformance with the specification. For example, 2.3, leaves many terms undefined and/or unclear.” “The "table list" in the conformance clause has only one element...So if "an implementation may choose to implement and conform to one or more", then "Each of them is optional to implement" is just not true: this single list element is mandatory to support.”

7. Sample comments References: “Normative Reference currently reads. The correct citation is as reported by http://www.w3.org/2002/01/tr-automation/tr- biblio-ui” “RFC 2630 is listed in non-normative references but is cited as a normative document in the definitions. Also RFC 2630 has been obsoleted by RFC3369, RFC3370, and RFC3369 has been obsoleted by RFC3852.”

8. Sample comments Technical: “In the Process flow of Use Case 5, some apparent actors are used (see upper case words POLICY_AUTHOR, ATTRIBUTE_PROVIDER ) that have not been defined in the Actors section.” “The paragraph under 17 Security Considerations reads. These are the only two uses of "principal" in the document. Both are requirements (MUST) and yet are undefined in the document.”

9. Analyzing the comments

11. Next steps Careful not to infer too much into data Caveats: differing levels of review from one to next, consolidation of comments, etc. Drill into the top categories – style, reference, normative – to see if there is more to learn Identify where best practice advice to editors might be of value

12. Work in progress Conformance Clauses Guidelines upgrade Specification Editors Best Practices Guidelines Public review comment handling procedures and templates

13. Board Process Advisory / Consultation Work ? Public review comment handling procedures and templates

14. New Work Charter Guidelines …