RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Comments on latest working drafts

OK - this time I double-checked and
these are now in wd10.

Dunno about the filename/schema discussion.

-Doug

"Marc Goodner"
<> 

01/23/2006 01:19 PM

To

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
<>

cc

Subject

RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx]
Comments on latest working drafts

I’m not going to vote against
the CD over this but some of these changes were not made. 

 

Section 2.4, first paragraph after bullets,
line 247: “Should the acknowledgement…” should be “Should an acknowledgement…”

Section 3.1: “Note, offering…” this
sounds like it is trying to make the following text non-normative. Suggest
changing to “Note that offering…” to prevent that interpretation.

Section 5: WS-Trust missing a reference
(would be non-normative as WS-SecureConversation is).

Section 6: SecureConversation date is wrong,
it should be February 2005 

Also, do we have a decision
recorded regarding updating the file names of the schema and wsdl to match
the proper artifact identifiers?

 

Marc Goodner

Technical Diplomat

Microsoft Corporation

Tel: (425) 703-1903

Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/mrgoodner/

From: Doug Davis [mailto:]

Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:04 AM

To: 

Subject: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Comments on latest working drafts

 

I've made these fixes to wd09/wd04 - but I didn't do the schema/wsdl mods.
 Mainly because I ran out of time - perhaps someone else could take
'em before the call tomorrow???

-Doug 

"Marc Goodner"
<> 

01/10/2006 12:37 PM

To

<>

cc

 

Subject

RE: [ws-rx] Comments on latest
working drafts

 

 
 

One other thing, the URI reference in WS-RM Policy needs to be updated
to match WS-RM. In WD 03 it still points to 2396 instead of 3986.

  

 

From: Marc Goodner [mailto:] 

Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:51 AM

To: 

Subject: [ws-rx] Comments on latest working drafts

  

I think all of my comments below are editorial. I hope these can be addressed
for the documents that go up for the CD ballot. Many thanks to the editors
for getting these done over the holidays.

  

Both documents 

Copyright needs to be updated to 2006 in OASIS boilerplate and footers

Namespace should be updated (I’ll start a separate thread on this)

Schema and WSDL 

Shouldn’t both of these have OASIS boilerplate
in comments? 

File name seems wrong, why is the date
part of the name? I think the form is product-productVersion-artifactType-stage-revision
which would give us wsrm-1.1-schema-wd-08.xsd as and example. Personally
given the file extension gives the type I think we shouldn’t use it in
the file name, it makes more sense for a spec which has multiple extension
types used (i.e. .pdf, .html, etc.).

The files aren’t available at the location
specified. 

WS-RM Policy WD 03 

Looks good other than the above.

  

WS-RM WD 08 

Line numbers from the diff bar version

Section 2.4, first paragraph after bullets, line 247: “Should the acknowledgement…”
should be “Should an acknowledgement…”

Section 3.1, line 274: “Note, offering…” this sounds like it is trying
to make the following text non-normative. Suggest changing to “Note that
offering…” to prevent that interpretation.

Section 5, line 814: WS-Trust missing a reference (would be non-normative
as WS-SecureConversation is).

Section 6, line 893: URI date is wrong, it should be January 2005

Section 6, line 926: SecureConversation date is wrong, it should be February
2005 

  

  

Marc Goodner 

Technical Diplomat 

Microsoft Corporation 

Tel: (425) 703-1903 

Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/mrgoodner/