[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsn] Draft 2 for issues 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, 3.26, 3.27, and 3.28
One comment inline ... > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Niblett [mailto:peter_niblett@uk.ibm.com] > Sent: Monday, Oct 10, 2005 7:32 AM > To: Lily Liu > Cc: David Hull; wsn@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [wsn] Draft 2 for issues 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, 3.26, > 3.27, and 3.28 > > Lily > > > I'm sorry it has taken me a time to do this, but I have been > through your > changes and I have a few more comments. I've used line > numbers from the Sep > 15 version. > > > > WSN 3.23 > > The xsd and wsdl look fine, but the text in section 7.2 shows > the element > name for the message as wsn-br:DestroyRegistrationRequest > when it should be > wsn-br:DestroyRegistration to match the schema (and the > wrapped doc literal > convention we are using for the other operations). I found examples in > lines 685, 687, 694, 72 > > > > WSN 3.24 > > As agreed on the Sep26 call, can you add some words to say that the > CustomerReference EPR MUST be returned if demand is false, and MAY be > returned otherwise. Also, given that it is sometimes a MAY > and sometimes a > MUST, I think the "May" in line 496 should be a "may". I suppose you meant ConsumerReference (and not CustomerReference). Thanks, Sanjay > > > > WSN 3.28 > > You have deleted the message for PullNotificationNotSupportedFault > correctly, but unfortunately you deleted the message for > PublisherRegistrationFailedFault at the same time, and this > one is needed. > Here's what it should be > > > <wsdl:message name="PublisherRegistrationFailedFault"> > <wsdl:part name="PublisherRegistrationFailedFault" > element="wsn-br:PublisherRegistrationFailedFault"/> > </wsdl:message> > > > Regards > > Peter Niblett > > > > > > > Lily Liu > > <lily.liu@webmeth > > ods.com> > To > David Hull > <dmh@tibco.com>, Peter > 15/09/2005 18:32 Niblett/UK/IBM@IBMGB, > > > wsn@lists.oasis-open.org > > cc > > > > Subject > [wsn] Draft 2 for > issues 3.23, > 3.24, 3.25, 3.26, > 3.27, and 3.28 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David, Peter, > > Thanks for reviewing the document. Please accept my apology > for rushing it > in for review during the f2f. > > Here attached is a more complete version, with corrections for all the > issues raised by both of your reviews. > > Lily > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Hull [mailto:dmh@tibco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:29 PM > To: Peter Niblett; wsn@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [wsn] Issue verification for 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, > 3.26, 3.27, and > 3.28 > > I believe I signed up to do this as well, so here's what I came up > with. I apologize in advance for any dumb mistakes herein. > It's been a > busy day and my brain is a bit tired. > > WSN 3.23 The text as it stands is consistent with the agreed > resolution. However, it might be more consistent overall to > rename the > "DestroyRegistration" element "DestroyRegistrationRequest" in the XSD. > > WSN 3.24 I thought the agreed approach was to have the second > EPR still > be optional in the case of demand-based publishers. The XSD reflects > this, but I didn't see it mentioned in the description around > line 529. > I'm guessing I probably missed something, either in the text or the > issues list or both. > > WSN 3.25 is OK > > WSN 3.26 I don't believe the text mentions that the faults taken from > BaseN are defined there. Also, the WSDL still refers to > "wsn-brw:TopicNotSupportedFault", which (I think) should be > wsn-bw instead. > > WSN 3.27 is OK > > WSN 3.28 I don't see an approach agreed in the issues list, but I may > not have the very latest version. In any case, it appears that the > CreatePullPoint operation is no longer required. This approach would > resolve the issue to my satisfaction. I note, however, that the text > around line 218 still mentions CreatePullPoint as part of > NotficationBroker. > > Peter Niblett wrote: > > >Lily > > > >Thanks for making these updates. I have reviewed them... > > > >WSN3.23 > >- Changes look good, except that you don't have change bars > in section > 7.2. > >I think we should try to have change bars in our Public > Review 2, so that > >the changes since PR1 draft are visible to everyone. So if > possible, could > >you insert change bars here. > > > >- One other point I noticed: the [action] URI at line 676 > contains a space > >character between brw-1/ and Publisher. This should be removed. > > > >WSN 3.24 > >I have a few changes to the text that was included in the issues doc: > >- Line 530 talks about a "NotificationConsumer WS-Resource". > I don't think > >there's any need for the thing actually to be a WS-Resource. > Could you > >change this to say "NotificationConsumer resource"? > >- Line 532 "Any Notiifications Messages" should be "Any Notification > >Messages". > >- Line 535. Please remove the last sentence (which got into > the issues log > >by mistake) "That mechanism is not defined by this specification". > >Also > >- Line 964: ConsumerReference in the XSD should have > minOccurs="1" not "0" > > > >WSN 3.25 > > > >Verified ok > > > >WSN 3.26 > > > >- Lines 1110 - 1118. You should remove the WSDL message > definitions for > >these faults. > >- Lines 1229/1231. Need to change these to use wsn-bw: not wsn-brw: > > > >WSN 3.27 > >As well as changing the URI, WS-Addressing have moved the > schema (putting > a > >ws-addr.xsd into its location). You need to change the > schema location at > >line 873 so that it becomes > >schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/ws-addr.xsd"; > > > > > >WSN3.28. > >- In line 218 you say that NotificationBroker aggregates the > >CreatePullPoint interface. This should be deleted > >- In line 342 you should say "aggregates the three > portTypes" instead of > >"aggregates the four portTypes" > >- Lines 1130-1133 - you should remove the WSDL message > definition for the > >PullNotificationNotSupportedFault > > > > > >Also at today's meeting we decided to change all our Namespace URIs, > schema > >locations and [action] MAPs to use -2 instead of -1. So > could you change > >all the > > > >http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsn/b-1 to > http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsn/b-2 > >and similarly for bw, br, brw. > > > > > >Thanks > > > >Peter Niblett > >IBM Senior Technical Staff Member > > > > > > > > > > > Lily Liu > > > <lily.liu@webmeth > > > ods.com> > To > > > wsn@lists.oasis-open.org > > > 13/09/2005 22:24 > cc > > > > > > > Subject > > > [wsn] Draft for > issues 3.23, 3.24, > > > 3.25, 3.26, 3.27, and 3.28 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >[attachment > "wsn-ws-brokered_notification-1.3-spec-pr-Sept-13.doc" deleted > >by Peter Niblett/UK/IBM] > > > > > > > > > > [attachment > "wsn-ws-brokered_notification-1.3-spec-pr-Sept-15.doc" deleted > by Peter Niblett/UK/IBM] > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]