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

["Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>]

> Correct whatever stays or is added from 121 instead.

You mean 93?
-- Sanjay
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, Jun 07, 2006 19:53 PM
> To: Anish Karmarkar; Doug Davis
> Cc: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 
> 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9
> 
> 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. 
 
> 
> Marc Goodner
> (425) 703-1903
> (Sent from Windows Mobile 5.0)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
> To: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>
> Cc: "ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org" 
> <ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 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
>