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

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

If your reading of WSA is the same as
mine then yes please file an issue for the WSA Fault value.
-Doug

"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>

06/07/2006 11:46 AM

To	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	RE: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9

I file issues for the
fault section and contributors. 
 
Doug do we need an issue
regarding the WSA fault value or not?
 
I’m going to rescind
my suggestion that the contributors section needs to be done for PR. I
was discussing that with someone who is familiar with the process and it
apparently does not need to be done until CS.
 
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:40 AM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9
 

Marc - thanks for the detailed review - comments inline.
-Doug 

"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>
wrote on 06/05/2006 02:07:29 PM:
> WS-RM WD 13 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
> php/18451/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-13.pdf
>   
> Line numbers in this document are inaccurate, particularly in 
> Section 2. I only use line numbers below with sections or pages 
> where there are not two of the same. 
>   
> I did not review the state tables given there is another revision
> planned. Similarly I did not examine the schema, message examples
or
> wsdl in any detail but plan to. Why are these section in that order?
> Doesn’t it make more sense to have the wsdl follow the schema?

Will discuss with editors.

> Section 2 
> Change “and Transmits it” to “and transmits it”.
> Change “that Sends” to “that sends”

Fixed (in WD14 in editor's playpen)

> Figure 2 is not legible.

Working on it - but a little mystery makes life exciting  :-)

> Section 3.1 
> Line 222, page 11 “none” does not need to be in quotes.

Will discuss with editors but I think it might confuse non-WSA
experts to not have it in quotes.

> Line 309, page 13 the 2119 term optional is used and not in caps.

Fixed 

> Section 3.2 
> Line 347, page 14 the 2119 term may is used and is not in caps.

Fixed 
  
> Section 3.3 
> Line 459, page 16 check for a space between”[URI])” and “of”.

Fixed 

> Section 3.5 
> Line 530, page 18 change “below” to “Section 3.6”.

Fixed 
  
> Section 3.6 
> Line 558, page 19 reference to “Section Request Acknowledgment”
is 
> not consistent with references elsewhere in spec. Change “Section
> Request Acknowledgement” to “Section 3.5”.
> Line 562, page 19 “piggy-backing does not need to be in quotes.
> Line 615, page 20 strike “Note:” as 2119 text is used in the text
> that follows it is more than a note.

Fixed 
  
> Section 4 
> The first two paragraphs of this section are practically duplicates
> of each other. The first paragraph can be stricken by adding a one
> sentence description of WSRMRequired after the second sentence of
> the second paragraph. I can raise this as a new issue if that is preferable.

Please do - since those paragraphs have been of some concern to some
people I'd prefer to get agreement on it.

> Line 670, page 22 end sentence beginning on line 668 after “detected”.
> Line 676, page 22 change “defined in the version of WS-Addressing
> used in the message” to “defined in WS-Addressing” as we only 
> reference a single version of Addressing.
> Line 676, page 22 change “current version” to “W3C Recommendation”
> Line 678, page 22 update to W3C Rec value, “http://www.w3.
> org/2005/08/addressing/fault”

For consistency I did this but I think we need to revisit this since
WSA now says that .../addressing/fault SHOULD only be used for WSA
faults - and we're talking about RM faults in this section.  WSA
suggests that other specs define their own URI - or am I reading
this wrong? 

> Line 680, page 22 change “section 4 of WS-Addressing” to “section
6 
> of WS-Addressing SOAP Binding”.
> Line 694, page 22 update to W3C Rec value, “http://www.w3.
> org/2005/08/addressing/fault”

Fixed 
  
> Section 6 
> Update [WS-Addressing] to point to Recommendation.
> W3C Recommendation, “Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Core”, May 2006.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-core-20060509/
>   
> W3C Recommendation, “Web Services Addressing 1.0 – SOAP Binding”,
May 2006. 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-soap-20060509/
>   
> Update [WS-Policy] to point to W3C Member Submission.
> W3C Member Submission, "Web Services Policy Framework (WS-Policy),"
> April 2006. 
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-Policy-20060425/
>   
> Update [WS-PolicyAttachment] to point to W3C Member Submission.
> W3C Member Submission, "Web Services Policy Attachment (WS-PolicyAttachment)
> ," April 2006. 
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-PolicyAttachment-20060425/

Fixed 
  
> Section C 
> Line 1469 change “non-normative” to “normative”.

Fixed 
  
> Section E 
> Line 1593 the TBD should be completed for PR.

Can you open an issue so we don't forget about this?

> WS-RM Policy WD9 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
> php/18454/wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-09.pdf 
>   
> Section 4 
> Update [WS-Policy] to point to W3C Member Submission.
> W3C Member Submission, "Web Services Policy Framework (WS-Policy),"
> April 2006. 
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-Policy/
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-Policy-20060425/
>   
> Update [WS-PolicyAttachment] to point to W3C Member Submission.
> W3C Member Submission,"Web Services Policy Attachment (WS-PolicyAttachment)
> ," April 2006. 
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-PolicyAttachment/
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-PolicyAttachment-20060425/
>   
> Add reference to WSS 1.1 under [WSS] (as is done in WS-RM).
> Anthony Nadalin, Chris Kaler, Phillip Hallam-Baker, Ronald Monzillo,
eds. "
> OASIS Web Services Security:
> SOAP Message Security 1.1 (WS-Security 2004)", OASIS Standard
> 200602, February 2006.

Fixed 
  
> Section A 
> Line 253 the TBD should be completed for PR.

can you include this in the same new issue as the RM spec one?