← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
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" <> 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?
← Prev in month
← Prev in thread