Yes, no need to send the png file. I reponded to your email, before I
saw Dug's.
-Anish
--
Marc Goodner wrote:
> Yes it is a Visio file. I can export a png. I think Doug already took
> care of this though. I'm trying to get a print out to double check but
> the pdf he just sent it scanned fine on screen.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 5:27 PM
> To: Marc Goodner
> Cc: Gilbert Pilz; Doug Davis;
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and
> WS-RM Policy WD 9
>
> 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?*
>>
