WD13 comments

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

Using WD13.pdf a few comments:

- there are a couple of period+space+spaces
- they should be period+space (fixed in wd14 already)
- Can we remove sections 1.1 and 1.1
since there is no text in there?
- To be consistent with Marc's previous
comments we should replace "See Section Namespace" with "See
Section 1.3".
- Do we really need line 114 in section
1.3?  Its a dup of 112.
- Section 2 uses "AD" before
it is defined.
- Section 2 should define RMS and RMD
- e.g.  add a "(RMS)" some place - actually,  I thought
we never used RMS or RMD but they seem to have now appeared in the spec
- it should be RM Source and RM Destination instead.
- Section 2, replace "It is expected
that the AD and RMD will implement as many of these or as few of these
characteristics as necessary to implement the AD." with "It is
expected that the AD and RMD will implement as many of these or as few
of these characteristics as necessary."  To say "foo will
implement foo" just sounds odd.
- Section 2, "(RM)" isn't
needed more than once
- Section 2 - remove last sentence of
"Deliver" - it was removed by resolution of 106 but not actually
removed.  Actually recheck issue 106 - I don't think it was applied.
- Section 3 - lines 191/192 - we use
<wsrm:CreateSequenceResponse> and CreateSequenceRefused - Gil mentioned
this before - we should be consistent - either both have wsrm: or neither
should - check entire spec.
- Section 3 - line 215 - "CreateSequence"
isn't in courier nor does it have wsrm:
- Section 3 - line 242 - is it just
protocol messages or RM faults for the Offered sequence too?
- Section 3 - line 245 & 246 - should
say "offered Sequence" instead of just "Sequence" (just
to be clear)
- Section 3 - line 301 - "...specifies
the duration after which the RM Destination will transmit..." - after
what?  It should say 'after receipt of a message' or something like
that.
- Section 3 - line 316 - instead of
"SequenceAck/Final" should we say "the final SequenceAck"
?
- Section 3 - line 308++ - should we
define "discard" - its not clear to me that we mean the discarded
messages will NEVER (and have never) be delivered to the AD, instead of
just "from now on the RMD won't deliver them".
- Section 3 - line 308++ - we don't
say anything about the implied value of IncompleteSequenceBehavior - we
should say there is none if that's the case
- Section 3 - line 328 - just Acks go
to Accept/AcksTo or RM faults too?
- Section 3 - line 362/363 - "SequenceClosed
fault" should be in courier and probably have wsrm:   (same for
SequenceTerminated fault)
- ok gonna stop - we're totally inconsistent
on when we have the protocol elements in courier and when we use wsrm:
or not - we need to recheck the entire doc and be consistent
- Section 3 - line 373 - s/that is closed/that
is already closed/
- Section 3 - line 496 - s/thiselement/this
element/   - note the space
- On line 190 we say that the wsrm:Identifier
is a globally unique ID but then we never actually say that again nor mandate
it - which is it?  Seems like the CSR/Id should say it (and Offer/Id
too).
- Section 3 - line 504 - s/increase/increase
by 1/
- Section 3 - line 527 - s/Header/header/
  - line 559 too
- Section 3 - line 557 - what does "valid"
mean?  non-terminated?  not true - we still send acks then. not
reclaimed? Seems like we should just remove that sentence.
- Section 3 - line 565 says "When
the RM Source specifies the WSAddressing anonymous IRI as the address of
the <wsrm:AcksTo> EPR, the RM Destination MUST
transmit any <wsrm:SequenceAcknowledgement>
headers for the created Sequence in a SOAP envelope to be transmitted on
the protocol binding-specific channel. Such a channel is provided by the
context of a received message containing a SOAP envelope that contains
a <wsrm:Sequence> header block and/or a <wsrm:AckRequested>
header block for that same Sequence identifier."  I wonder if
it should say "..RM Destination MUST only transmit any..."
  to imply that its can only do it on these types of messages, instead
of implying that it MUST sent it on all of these types of messages.  Make
sense? 
- One day I'd like to know why we always
say "Upper" first instead of "Lower" in acks  :-)
- We're inconsistent w.r.t. references
to WS-Addressing.  A lot have [WS-Addressing] after them but some
do not.  Isn't it usually just the first?
- Section 4 - line 827 - I think this
fault is also sent when duplicate CloseSeq messages come in.
- Skipped section 5 since security is
still an open issue
- Will check the schema, wsdl and state
tables later.

Aside from the first one I wanted feedback
from others before this monkey went off and made took some action on 'em.

thanks
-Doug