Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD9

From
Doug Davis <>
Date
2006-06-12T17:29:05+00:00
ID
Thread
Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD9
Done

-Doug

Anish Karmarkar <>

06/08/2006 03:14 PM

To

Marc Goodner <>

cc

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, 

Subject

Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments
on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9

Not all of these should be in caps.

Looking at draft 14 

(http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx-editors/download.php/18631/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-14.odt)

there are occurrences on lines (not counting the ones in the security 

consideration section):

82, 128, 129, 136, 313: s/may/can/

391: s/may/are/

223, 826: s/should/SHOULD/

174, 522: s/required/REQUIRED/

828, 839: s/shall/SHALL/

Marc Goodner wrote:

> I think they should all be in caps. Are there ones in places other
than the ones Doug caught already?

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:] 

> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:18 AM

> To: Marc Goodner

> Cc: Doug Davis; 

> Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and
WS-RM Policy WD 9

> 

> The keywords are not just in section 5. That was just an example.
There are in few other places too.

> 

> -Anish

> --

> 

> Marc Goodner wrote:

> 

>>As you point out, it isn't really a problem per se as it is. So
I'd say don't worry about the Sec. 5 2119 terms for now. Correct whatever
stays or is added from 121 instead. 

>>

>>Marc Goodner

>>(425) 703-1903

>>(Sent from Windows Mobile 5.0)

>>

>>-----Original Message-----

>>From: "Anish Karmarkar" <>

>>To: "Doug Davis" <>

>>Cc: "" 

>><>

>>Sent: 6/7/06 5:36 PM

>>Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13
and 

>>WS-RM Policy WD 9

>>

>>Looks ok to me.

>>

>>

>>I did a search for the 2119 lowercase keywords ('may', 'should'
...) 

>>and found that there are instances where they are not capitalized
(for 

>>example, in the sec consideration section). If these were intended
to 

>>be

>>2119 keywords then to be consistent with our typographical convention

>>we should capitalize them. If not, we should find suitable alternatives.

>>2119 does *not* require the keywords to be capitalized, so leaving

>>them as is imply that they are to be interpreted in the same way
as 

>>their capitalized brethren.

>>

>>-Anish

>>--

>>

>>Doug Davis wrote:

>>

>>

>>>ok - Marc (editors), see if this version looks ok to you.

>>>-Doug