RE: [ws-rx-editors] v1.2cd01 ready?

From
Doug Davis <>
Date
2008-02-22T23:45:58+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: [ws-rx-editors] v1.2cd01 ready?
Mary - there are some questions below for you.

Sanjay - responses inline.

Thanks for the review.

-Doug

"Patil, Sanjay" <>
wrote on 02/22/2008 05:52:24 PM:

> 

> 

> Hi Doug,

> 

> Thanks for producing the CD drafts. Please see my inline comments
below.

> 

> -- Sanjay

>  

> 

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

> > From: Doug Davis [mailto:] 

> > Sent: Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 12:21 PM

> > To: 

> > Subject: [ws-rx-editors] v1.2cd01 ready?

> > 

> > 

> > Editors, 

> >   could I get someone to look at the v1.2CD01 version of
the 

> > specs to make sure all of the edits we agreed to during the 

> > last RX conf call were done correctly?   

> > 

> > Things to look for: 

> > - both sets of footers are correct (spec name and date) 

> > - "both" meaning there are two types of footers in
the doc

> I can't find the two kinds of footers. I am sure I am missing something.

> You have changed the OASIS Copyright from 1993-2007 to 1993-2008.
Is

> this kind of change within our purview or should we check with OASIS

> first?

> Also - Has anything in the schema and WSDL file changed? I noticed
that

> the OASIS Copyright in these file still says: 1993 - 2007

The 2nd set of headers start on page 3.

I've updated the xsd/wsdl files with 2008.  

Mary - is it ok to have 2008?

> > - title page has the correct version number, name, date and hrefs

> If we vote for CD approval on the 2/28 call, I think the date on CD
can

> be 2/28/08 (and not 3/6/08). I guess we could cover this item under
'Pro

> forma' changes.

I was assuming the vote would start after the call
but I'll make it

2/28 just in case.

> > - removal of policy 1.2 refs in the normative refs section 

> Looks good to me.

> 

> > - upate of sx (SecPolicy and Trust) refs in the normative 

> > refs section 

> Do we need to say "Feb 2008" in the reference? Can we not
reference only

> the spec name and the version number for the purposes of our CDs?

Dunno - I was just following the template of the other
references.

Mary - must we include the date?

> > - update of RM refs in the normative refs section 

> I think RM refs should be to the new CDs (and not to the OS versions).

I think those refs are to the "latest versions"
which would be the CDs (once approved).

> > 

> > thanks

> > -Doug

> > ______________________________________________________

> > STSM  |  Web Services Architect  |  IBM Software
Group

> > (919) 254-6905  |  IBM T/L 444-6905  |  

> >