C4 Issues for Discussion

["Mr. Tom Rutt" <trutt@us.fujitsu.com>]

C4 Issue Triage

TAB-254 , 255, 257
1 Introduction - list vs. prose of sections	
Minor	
WS-BRSP Basic Profile Version 1.2 , 2.0 and RSP 1.0	
"1 Introduction mixes styles with regard to sections of the document. 
The first two sections are call out by number, followed by description 
in one case and a title in the other. Following sections are 
summarized in prose. 

BTW having ""Introduction"" as a section title is a bit vague. 

Suggest: WS-1 Basic Profile 1.2 Overview for the first section. 

Moreover, either have a list with titles and descriptions for all 
sections or prose with titles for all sections. 

I don't know that saying there is an overview then other subsections 
adds anything to the specification. 

Ditto on the ""section numbers in this document and those in 
referenced documents."" Is there some reason to make that comment?"

TAB-302, 343, 392
Appendix A. Extensibility Points	
Minor
WS-BRSP Basic Profile Version 1.2 , 2.0 and RSP 1.0
"Appendix A. Extensibility Points reads in part: 

***** 
These mechanisms are out of the scope of the Profile and Profile 
conformance. An initial, non-exhaustive list of these extensibility 
points is provided here as their use may affect interoperability. In 
order to avoid interoperability issues not addressed by the Profile, 
out-of-band agreement on the use of these extensibility points may be 
necessary between the parties to a Web service. 
***** 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess this is a non-normative 
appendix. ;-) 

Useful I am sure but a Committee Note that summarizes these issues and 
offers non-normative advice on how out of band agreements can deal 
with such issues might be better. 



TAB-303, 344
Appendix C. Testing
Major
WS-BRSP Basic Profile Version 1.2 and 2.0
"Useful appendix but I am going to assume, unlike Appendix A, Appendix 
C is normative? 

I say that because it consists of instructions for how to apply the 
test assertions, which are said in 1.3 Test Assertions: 

***** 
This profile document is complemented by a separate Test Assertions 
(TA) file that contains scripted (XPath 2.0) test assertions for 
assessing conformance of an endpoint to the BP1.2 profile. 
... 
The structure of test assertions and the meaning of the testability 
assessment are described in Appendix C. ""Testing"" 
***** 

I am reading that to mean that conformance can be tested (were 
appropriate) using the test assertions and that I should look to 
Appendix C to interpret those results. 

Yes? 

I have marked this as ""Major"" not due to the effort involved but 
because issues that touch upon conformance are critical to 
interoperability based on specifications."

That is to say it is very useful to identify the issues but some 
suggestions on how to fix them might be more welcome. Not a normative 
document but it may be the only comprehensive source of information in 
this area. 

At a minimum, mark the appendix as non-normative