Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Inconsistency between spec and schema (AckRequested)

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

I noticed the same inconsistency, which I sent to the editors mailing 
list some time back.
+1

[As a side note, section 1.4 says that normative text trumps normative 
outline which in turn trumps normative schema.]

-Anish
--

Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> Title:  Inconsistency between spec and schema (AckRequested)
> 
> Description: There is an inconsistency between the spec and the schema for 
> the child element of the
> <AckRequested> directive. Is the child element wsrm:MaxMessageNumberUsed 
> (as per the schema)
> or is it wsrm:MessageNumber as per the spec?
> 
> Here's the prose from line 427 (pdf) of the wsrm spec:
> 
> /wsrm:AckRequested/wsrm:MessageNumber
>         This optional element, if present, MUST contain an xs:unsignedLong 
> representing the highest
>         <MessageNumber> sent by the RM Source within a Sequence. If 
> present, it MAY be treated as a
>         hint to the RM Destination as an optimization to the process of 
> preparing to transmit a
>         <SequenceAcknowledgement>.
> 
> Here's the relevant fragment from the schema:
> 
> <xs:complexType name="AckRequestedType">
>   <xs:sequence>
>     <xs:element ref="wsrm:Identifier"/>
>     <xs:element name="MaxMessageNumberUsed" type="xs:unsignedLong" 
> minOccurs="0"/>
>     <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" 
> maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>   </xs:sequence>
>   <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/>
> </xs:complexType>
> 
> Justification: there is a clear discrepancy between the spec and the 
> schema
> 
> Target: core, schema
> 
> Type: editorial?
> 
> Proposal: I believe the intent was to have the element named as per the 
> schema. Change the text at line 427 as follows:
> 
> /wsrm:AckRequested/wsrm:MaxMessageNumberUsed
>         This optional element, if present, MUST contain an xs:unsignedLong 
> representing the highest
>         <MessageNumber> sent by the RM Source within a Sequence. If 
> present, it MAY be treated as a
>         hint to the RM Destination as an optimization to the process of 
> preparing to transmit a
>         <SequenceAcknowledgement>. 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
> phone: +1 508 377 9295