I agree with two. Perhaps accept changes from currnt wd14 and send the diff with the reorder now. Then we could dispatch all of this next week.
Marc Goodner
(425) 703-1903
(Sent from Windows Mobile 5.0)
-----Original Message-----
From: "Doug Davis" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: 6/8/06 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9
How do people want to deal with the reorder?
1 - just do it in WD14
2 - do it in a new WD so that one change is stand-alone (similar to what
we did for the section reorder before)
3 - open a new issue
I'm inclinded to go for #2 but don't make it anything very formal (not
vote or anything by the TC) but rather have a clear diff they can see.
Thoughts?
thanks,
-Doug
Anish Karmarkar <>
06/07/2006 12:49 PM
To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Subject
Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy
WD 9
+1 to reordering schema/message examples/wsdl.
On the quotes around "none". Either we should retain the quotes OR if we
wanted to be precise, then include the correct URI:
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/none
I prefer the latter.
-Anish
--
Doug Davis wrote:
>
> 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" <>
> cc
>
> 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" <> 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?
> *
> 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?
>
> 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?*
