Some comments on Draft 6 of the spec

["Bohren, Jeffrey" <Jeff_Bohren@bmc.com>]

The company affiliations for Jeff Bohren and Gerry Woods are incorrect.
 
Editor's comment on line 191 should be removed.
 
In the conversational flow you imply a difference between "Orderly
Alteration" and "Outstanding Request" that simply are not true. Using
SOAP/HTTP as the transport a multi-threaded client could have several
outstanding requests with needing to use request IDs.  Your text and
diagrams imply otherswise. The distinction should not be between sequential
and parallel requests, but between synchronous and asynchronous request.
Synchronous requests can be issued in parallel and do not necessitate a
request ID unless issued over an asycnhronous protocol (which SOAP/HTTP is
not).
 
Line 559: the IdentifierType is used to identify targets, but is not limited
to targets. To date only targets are identified using an element of type
IdentifierType, but that may well change in the future. The type
IdentifierType should be considered a generic type for which
PSOIdentifierType is a specialization.
 
I would strike lines 574 to 576. This is not appropriate for normative text
and is too basic to put into a spec document.
 
Line 697: String "The PSTC believes that". If we believe something we should
just say it.
 
Line 722: use "discovery" in place of "bootstrap"
 
Line 884: change "The PSTC recomends that the provider explicitly declare"
to "The provider should explicitly declare". Everything in this documents
should be what the TC believes by definition.
 
Globally change psoId to psoID, targetId to targetID, and containerId to
containerID.
 
Line 962: An add request may omit both the target ID and container ID if the
PSP has only one target and containment is not being specified. Also an add
request MAY contain a PSO ID. This section implies otherwise.
 
Line 1128: Pso should be PSO
 
Line 1158 and 1161: pso should not be in red.

Line: 1189 In the example change toPsoId to psoID. The XSDs should be
changed as well.