Re: [ws-rx] Editorial comments on RM Policy assertion

Marc Goodner wrote:
> I see no reason this should hold up the CD. I’m also not sure an issue 
> really needs to be raised this as it doesn’t seem like anything of any 
> substance that needs to be debated.
> 
>  
> 
> What I noticed was that in the namespace table of the RM Policy 
> assertion only wsp and wsrmp are there, however in the assertion example 
> both wsdl and wsu are used. So I think both of these should be in the 
> table as well.
> 
>  
> 
> Also, I guess this is moot if the CD is approved but if this is WD06 why 
> is it WD05 on the title page and document identifier (but it is 06 in 
> the footer)? What is really odd is that in the diff version it shows 06 
> is in both spots and 05 is deleted. Furthermore in the no change bars 
> versions the authors are in a different order. Is this the right version 
> of the doc without change bars?
> 

yes it is. The 2 changes (and these are the only changes) that u point 
out (WD # and reordering of editors) were done after the PDF was 
generated but before the diff was generated. I did not think this 
required regening and uploading of the PDF doc. But obviously it can be 
a source of confusion, I should have pointed it out in my email. 
Apologies, should have regened the PDF and reloaded.

-Anish
--