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

Ah, ok - I did it right then :-)

thanks

-Doug

Anish Karmarkar <>

06/12/2006 03:38 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

 > The 'import' stuff (the links) doesn't

 > seem to be in the docs any more - any ideas why not?

The importing of schema/wsdl I believe was removed by Gil. We are using

the old cut-and-paste model.

-Anish

--

Doug Davis wrote:

> 

> Are other's ok with these changes?

> I think all changes are applied except for the reordering of the 

> wsdl/schema/samples sections.

> If people are ok with these I'll make these changes and then do a
new WD 

> so people can see just the reordering.

> Also - could someone else take a quick look over the schema/wsdl to
make 

> sure the new stuff looks good?  The 'import' stuff (the links)
doesn't 

> seem to be in the docs any more - any ideas why not?

> thank

> -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

>