Finland votes NO for the progression of Final Committee Draft on ODMA Functions - Part 1: Notification, Selection and Dispatching Function (7N1299r1) General comments: The document is not technically nor editorially mature. The text is not readable enough for us to make proper improvement comments on the technical solutions. Detailed comments: 1. Clause 1.1., page 5, second bullet list: "This function does not specify how access control can be used." The standard should at least specify how and where access control is integrated. If access control mechanism is not specified in this standard, a reference to other standards should be provided. 2. Clause 5. Use of nd labels. We do not see any useful reason for these labels and therefore we recommend that the labels are deleted. 3. Clauses 5.3, 5.4 These clauses are unreadable because of the use of un-informative formulation rules. The rules given are trivial or not understandable at the level of discussion. Furthermore, the enterprise viewpoint should discuss activities of the community, not actions. The level of description appears to retrieve details from program code. An example of an activity is definition of a new notification type. Interesting information is missing. For example, - system behaviour when contradicting filters are defined, and - who is allowed to define new filters. 4. Clause 5, later parts of the document. The term "type" is inconsistently used. 5. Figures 3 and 4 in clause 5. a) Actor symbol (human) is misleading. b) UML UseCase is an activity, not an action. c) <> notation is not explained. d) Figure 4 misuses UML notation. e) Relationship between NotificationTypesRegistration and consumer is misleading. d) If use case method is exploited, the use cases should be described. 6. Clauses 5, 6, ... The standard would be more readable of one object modelling notation were used. 7. Clause 6, Figure 6 The figure is not informative. What is "Information relation type"? The figure includes concepts related to separate concerns and the abstraction levels of the concepts vary. What is the relationship between potentialDestinationSet and requestedDestinationSet? The text and the figure do not match. 8. Clause 6 We do not understand the goal of the specification style. Is there any semantical content rules for the information? Short statements in normal English or/and a set of proper figures would be more informative. 9. Clause 7, Figure 7 Two server interfaces seem to be bound together in lower left corner. Meaning of the colour codes is not defined. 10. Clause 7.1 Readability concern: there should be some explanation at the beginning of the clause. 11. Clause 7.2., first two sentences. "This computational object is an example ..." Explain though conformance levels. See an example from ODP Trading function. "This text does not form an integral part of this specification." Does this mean the whole of clause 7.2.? Is there any prescriptions in this standard? 12. Clause 7.2.1.1., para 1, last sentence What does "federation of dispatchers" mean? 13. Clause 7.2.1.1., par. 5 Priorities should be defined for a working system. 14. Clause 7.3.1.1., and other similar clauses The purpose of computational viewpoint is not to replicate the enterprise model. Operations and actions are not equal. Behaviour statements refer each other and no information about the behaviour is given. Number of operations? Remove the second para. Interface names referred in the signatures do not match the names used in interface specifications. 15. Clause 7 Two kinds of notifications are allowed: notifications for a set of named receivers, and notifications that can be received by any object. The latter is a special case of the first. 16. Clause 7.3.4.2, 7 Subscriber interface could be used both at sender and receiver side. Administrative activities should be separated as an interface, even an activity at the enterprise viewpoint. 17. Clause 7.3.7.1 Inclusion of pull model is acceptable. No pull model for the supplier, though. That would be a property service. Enterprise policy should specify how the QoS (number of notifications stored) is agreed. 18. Clause 7.4.1.1. What is the notificationtime of a pulled notification? Why not include the time of notification sending? 19. Clause 7.4.1.1. last but one line, 7.4.1.2. last line The sentences does not have much meaning. 20. Clause 7.4.16.2 No parameters? How the system knows what and where to deliver and what is acknowledged? 21. Clause 8 In the title, replace CORBA by IDL.