Is that a visio file or something else?
I can't open it.
Running a cygwin 'file' on the document says: "Microsoft Office Document"
-Anish
--
Marc Goodner wrote:
> Original art attached, but without Chris’ changes.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gilbert Pilz [mailto:]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2006 4:11 PM
> *To:* Doug Davis;
> *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and
> WS-RM Policy WD 9
>
>
>
> Chris provided me with the attached PPT, but I can't figure out how to
> scale it down to fit on the page without making it illegible. If all
> else fails we can craft our own version and include it in the spec . . .
>
>
>
> - gp
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Doug Davis [mailto:]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:43 AM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and
> WS-RM Policy WD 9
>
>
> So,
> things we should discuss:
>
> - Should we reorder the schema, message examples and wsdl? I think
> Marc's idea sounds right - schema, wsdl and then samples
> - Who has the source for figure 2?
> - Thoughts on quotes around "none" ? Not a biggie but I do prefer
> them there.
>
> thanks,
> -Doug
>
> ----- Forwarded by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM on 06/07/2006 10:36 AM -----
>
> *Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS*
>
> 06/07/2006 10:39 AM
>
>
>
> To
>
>
>
> "Marc Goodner" < <mailto:>>
>
> cc
>
>
>
> <mailto:>
>
> Subject
>
>
>
> Re: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marc - thanks for the detailed review - comments inline.
> -Doug
>
> "Marc Goodner" <
> <mailto:>> wrote on 06/05/2006 02:07:29 PM:
>> WS-RM WD 13
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
>> php/18451/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-13.pdf
>>
>> Line numbers in this document are inaccurate, particularly in
>> Section 2. I only use line numbers below with sections or pages
>> where there are not two of the same.
>>
>> I did not review the state tables given there is another revision
>> planned. Similarly I did not examine the schema, message examples or
>> wsdl in any detail but plan to. Why are these section in that order?
>> Doesn’t it make more sense to have the wsdl follow the schema?
> *
> Will discuss with editors.*
>
>> Section 2
>> Change “and Transmits it” to “and transmits it”.
>> Change “that Sends” to “that sends”
>
> Fixed (in WD14 in editor's playpen)
>
>> Figure 2 is not legible.
>
> Working on it - but a little mystery makes life exciting :-)
>
>> Section 3.1
>> Line 222, page 11 “none” does not need to be in quotes.
>
> Will discuss with editors but I think it might confuse non-WSA
> experts to not have it in quotes.
>
>> Line 309, page 13 the 2119 term optional is used and not in caps.
>
> Fixed
>
>> Section 3.2
>> Line 347, page 14 the 2119 term may is used and is not in caps.
>
> Fixed
>
>> Section 3.3
>> Line 459, page 16 check for a space between”[URI])” and “of”.
>
> Fixed
>
>> Section 3.5
>> Line 530, page 18 change “below” to “Section 3.6”.
>
> Fixed
>
>> Section 3.6
>> Line 558, page 19 reference to “Section Request Acknowledgment” is
>> not consistent with references elsewhere in spec. Change “Section
>> Request Acknowledgement” to “Section 3.5”.
>> Line 562, page 19 “piggy-backing does not need to be in quotes.
>> Line 615, page 20 strike “Note:” as 2119 text is used in the text
>> that follows it is more than a note.
>
> Fixed
>
>> Section 4
>> The first two paragraphs of this section are practically duplicates
>> of each other. The first paragraph can be stricken by adding a one
>> sentence description of WSRMRequired after the second sentence of
>> the second paragraph. I can raise this as a new issue if that is
> preferable.
> *
> Please do - since those paragraphs have been of some concern to some* *
> people I'd prefer to get agreement on it.*
>
>> Line 670, page 22 end sentence beginning on line 668 after
> “detected”.
>> Line 676, page 22 change “defined in the version of WS-Addressing
>> used in the message” to “defined in WS-Addressing” as we only
>> reference a single version of Addressing.
>> Line 676, page 22 change “current version” to “W3C Recommendation”
>> Line 678, page 22 update to W3C Rec value, “http://www.w3.
>> org/2005/08/addressing/fault
> <http://www.w3.%0b%3e%20org/2005/08/addressing/fault>”
> *
> For consistency I did this but I think we need to revisit this since* *
> WSA now says that .../addressing/fault SHOULD only be used for WSA* *
> faults - and we're talking about RM faults in this section. WSA* *
> suggests that other specs define their own URI - or am I reading* *
> this wrong?*
>
>> Line 680, page 22 change “section 4 of WS-Addressing” to “section 6
>> of WS-Addressing SOAP Binding”.
>> Line 694, page 22 update to W3C Rec value, “http://www.w3.
>> org/2005/08/addressing/fault
> <http://www.w3.%0b%3e%20org/2005/08/addressing/fault>”
>
> Fixed
>
>> Section 6
>> Update [WS-Addressing] to point to Recommendation.
>> W3C Recommendation, “Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Core”, May 2006.
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-core-20060509/
>>
>> W3C Recommendation, “Web Services Addressing 1.0 – SOAP Binding”,
> May 2006.
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-soap-20060509/
>>
>> Update [WS-Policy] to point to W3C Member Submission.
>> W3C Member Submission, "Web Services Policy Framework (WS-Policy),"
>> April 2006.
>> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-Policy-20060425/
>>
>> Update [WS-PolicyAttachment] to point to W3C Member Submission.
>> W3C Member Submission, "Web Services Policy Attachment
> (WS-PolicyAttachment)
>> ," April 2006.
>> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-PolicyAttachment-20060425/
>
> Fixed
>
>> Section C
>> Line 1469 change “non-normative” to “normative”.
>
> Fixed
>
>> Section E
>> Line 1593 the TBD should be completed for PR.
> *
> Can you open an issue so we don't forget about this?*
>
>> WS-RM Policy WD9
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
>> php/18454/wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-09.pdf
>>
>> Section 4
>> Update [WS-Policy] to point to W3C Member Submission.
>> W3C Member Submission, "Web Services Policy Framework (WS-Policy),"
>> April 2006.
>> http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-Policy/
>> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-Policy-20060425/
>>
>> Update [WS-PolicyAttachment] to point to W3C Member Submission.
>> W3C Member Submission,"Web Services Policy Attachment
> (WS-PolicyAttachment)
>> ," April 2006.
>> http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-PolicyAttachment/
>> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-PolicyAttachment-20060425/
>>
>> Add reference to WSS 1.1 under [WSS] (as is done in WS-RM).
>> Anthony Nadalin, Chris Kaler, Phillip Hallam-Baker, Ronald
> Monzillo, eds. "
>> OASIS Web Services Security:
>> SOAP Message Security 1.1 (WS-Security 2004)", OASIS Standard
>> 200602, February 2006.
>
> Fixed
>
>> Section A
>> Line 253 the TBD should be completed for PR.
> *
> can you include this in the same new issue as the RM spec one?*
>
