At this point of time, I am inclined to leave out anything
that is not a showstopper but has potential semantic impact. Please see
my answers inline ...
Can we send out an updated version (that also
addresses the idea of references to both 1.2 and 1.5 wsp versions) today?
If we want to make progress on this front on this week's call, it will be good
to provide couple of days to the TC for review.
-- Sanjay
From: Doug Davis [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, Mar 27, 2007 7:35 AM
To: Patil,
Sanjay
Cc:
Subject: Re:
[ws-rx-editors] Typos and others in RM and MC specs
Sanjay,
thanks for the very thorough review. Some
comments in-line. Some questions for the editors (and Gil specifically)
too.
thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM
| Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group
(919)
254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6905 |
"Patil, Sanjay"
<>
03/27/2007 01:08 AM
To
<>
cc
Subject
[ws-rx-editors] Typos and others
in RM and MC specs
I happened to read the RM and MC specifications a
bit more carefully today (was stuck on a long flight) and here are a list of
items that I think need to be addressed. These are based on the recently
approved CD versions.
-- Sanjay
WS-ReliableMessaging
----------------------------------
437, 438 reads - The RM Destination then reclaims
any resources associated with the Sequence.
I think this should be- The RM Source then reclaims any
resources associated with the Sequence.
<dug> I'm actually wondering if we should
remove that sentence since the RMS shouldn't really reclaim ALL of its
resources until it gets the TerminateSequenceResponse. What if we
removed that sentence (since step 11 talks about the RMD reclaiming) and then
adding to the end of step 11: Upon receipt of the
TerminateSequenceResponse the RM Source can then reclaim any resources
associated with the Sequence. Thoughts?
</dug>
<Sanjay> Let us leave as-is </Sanjay>
739: Typo
Replace - /wsrm:CloseSequence@{any}
With -
/wsrm:CloseSequence/@{any}
<dug> Fixed </dug>
763: Typo
Replace - /wsrm:CloseSequenceResponse@{any}
With -
/wsrm:CloseSequenceResponse/@{any}
<dug> fixed </dug>
811: Typo
Replace - for the closing Sequence
With - for the terminating
Sequence
<dug> fixed </dug>
884: For the sake of consistency with rest of the
spec
Replace - allow
different types
With - allow (extensible) different types
<dug> fixed </dug>
936: Typo
Change "As" to "as" <dug> fixed </dug>
1044: Typo
Change - fault generated an RM Destination
With - fault generated by an RM
Destination <dug>
fixed </dug>
1124: Typo
Change - wsrm:FaultCodes
With - wsrm:FaultCode
<dug> fixed
</dug>
1130:Typo
Change - Sequence information
With - Sequence fault
information <dug>
fixed </dug>
1133:Typo
Change - set of fault
With - set of faults <dug> fixed </dug>
1138 & 1140: This text is not what is typically
used for describing extensibility elements and attributes in the rest of the
spec. Is this a cut-paste error?
<dug> what do others think about this one?
I think its just trying to say that "implemenation specific" info will go
there. </dug>
<Sanjay> Since there seems to be at least some way
to justify this variation, I suggest we leave this as-is
</Sajay>
1241, 1242: Can't parse this sentence <dug> Gil - what words
are missing? Is there just an "at" missing before the "some"? Will hold off
fixing this until I hear from you.</dug>
1259: Typo
Replace - ability identify
With - ability to
identify <dug>
fixed </dug>
1410: Can't parse. I think replacing "and with" by
"with" might do the trick. <dug> Fixed - Gil, you ok with this? </dug>
1515: Can't parse. I think replacing "use
inclusion" by "inclusion" might do the trick <dug> Fixed. Gil? </dug>
1632: The fault wsrm:UnsupportedSelection is not
described in the main spec. It should be moved to MC spec!
<dug> Fixed
</dug>
WS-MakeConnection
-------------------------------
279: Typo
Replace - "of a two"
With - "of two" <dug> Fixed </dug>
454:Typo
Replace - /wsmc:MessagePending@pending
With -
/wsmc:MessagePending/@pending <dug> Fixed </dug>
633: Typo
Replace - UnsupportedElement
With - UnspportedSelection <dug> Fixed
</dug>
<Also MissingSelection fault is currently not
defined in the schema> <dug> do we need to? I don't think there are any new
elements defined for this fault </dug>
<Sanjay> I am not sure I understand. The text describes this
fault type. So I was assuming that the schema needs to capture
that. Am I missing something? </Sanjay>
851: Fix the font towards the end of this
sentence
<dug> Do you mean the 'S' ? if so, we were trying to make the CS
plural</dug>
<Sanjay> That's right. The "s)" part seems to be in a
different font. That's all.
