comments on CD2

Comments on Ebms_core-3.0-spec-wd-12:

(inconsistency)

L649, L754, L775, L776, L1224: @eb:mpflow --> @eb:mpf

as well as in examples p.25, p.26

(inconsistency)

Fig 7: replace Pipe by MPF

(inconsistency)

L749: remove full sentence "The Pull mode is always..."

(inconsistency)

L761: replace full sentence

"The MPF associated with this message must... p-Mode.messagePartitionFlows.)"

with

"The MEP associated with this message (e.g. as specified by P-Mode.businessCollaboration) is a One-way Pull."

(editorial clean-up)

L823: replace "This is why the reliability of the complete One-way Pull..."

with

"The reliability of the One-way Pull..."

(more precise wording)

L890:

replace "...reliability header, meaning that no acknowledgement is expected for this response."

with:

"...reliability header."

(redundant with later section)

remove the last part of the paragraph: L891-894.

replace with:

"A wsr:Request header could be present in addition to wsr:Response, in case some specific reliability requirement is associated with the pulled message (see 8.3)"

(unnecessary)

Section 5.1.3.6 (id attribute)

(editorial clean-up)

L1061:

remove "details TBD"

(editorial clean-up)

L1320: replace keyword MUST --> should

(this is not a verifyiable, normative requirement)

L1321: replace keyword MUST --> must

(editorial clean-up)

L1368:

remove line.

(inconsistency)

L2280, L2364:

Appendix R --> Appendix 10.

(more precise wording)

L2317:

"... as a response to a previously received reliable message."

with:

"... as a response to a message received reliably."

(more precise wording)

L2319, L2458:

remove "reliable".

(more precise wording)

L2325:

"... status of a previously sent message ( e.g. ... that a reliable message..."

with:

"... status of a message sent reliably (e.g.... that the message..."

(more precise wording)

reword:

"Figure 10: Request message sent reliably"

(more precise wording)

reword:

"Figure 11: Response message sent reliably"

(more precise wording)

L2339:

replace this sentence with:

"Depending on the reliability required for a request message, an RMP must support

some or all of the following contracts:"

(more precise wording)

L2359, 2360: reword as:

"These contracts may be combined, e.g. Exactly-Once results from the combination

of At-Least-Once and At-Most-Once."

(more precise wording)

Add after L2378:

"An ebMS message is a duplicate of another if it has same eb:MessageId value."

(inconsistency)

L2484:

replace OpCtx-Reliability with: P-Mode.reliability

(more precise wording)

L507 (2.3.1):

"over an MPF" --> "over the same MPF"

(editorial clean-up)

move line 645 ("it also indicates....") --> line 640 just after "between two parties"

-----------------------

Appendix 10:

Replace L2638-L2642 with:

“Only the binding to WS-Reliability is defined in the present document. A binding to WS-ReliableMessaging

will be added when the specification becomes final and standardized.”

Propose to remove 10.2 from core spec and to add it in the ebMS3 adjunct document instead.

ebxml-msg message