drb comments on 1.05

[Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>]

Just the first 10 things that come to mind since I have not had the time to 
read through this document in detail and end-to-end as it deserves.  A fair 
number of editorial things may have recently been introduced or we are 
starting to be able to see them behind the technical issues recently discussed.

thanx,
	doug

Title: drb comments on 1.05

Number	Location	Priority	Problem	Suggestion
1	line 3	major editorial	A minor version change implies minor differences between those versions.  The submitted WS-Reliability 1.0 specification and our current 1.05 draft are very different documents.  We should not be implying they are as closely aligned as this naming implies.	Change version number to 2.0 or rename the specification.  I prefer the former.
2	line 10	editorial	Is Iwasa really the only editor?	Add at least Sunil and Jacques, who contributed mucho editing time.
3	line 17	editorial	A committee draft is a static indication of the TC's view at a particular time.  Once the document is anything other than a working draft, this line is incorrect and inappropriate.	Delete this line.
4	lines 25-26	editorial	Have we created a blank errata sheet or do we have a plan to do so?  If not, these lines should say something about "when available".	Change "The errata page for this specification is at" to "If necessary, the errata page for this version of the specification will be located at" and confirm this location is under TC control.
5	line 67	minor technical	WS-Reliability is a number of SOAP modules, not just one.  It also seems very odd to describe a protocol with specific message exchanges added to the application interaction (producer / consumer interface in our terms) simply in terms of the syntax added.  Finally, as Chris also mentioned in his initial comment 5, this reliance on SOAP 1.2 terminology implies a SOAP 1.1 -only implemenatation is not conformant.	Remove "is a SOAP Module (as defined by [SOAP 1.2]), which"
6	lines 78, 81	editorial	"Under this aspect" adds nothing to either of these points.	Remove these phrases.
7	lines 105-106	editorial	"On the sending side, like on the receiving side" adds nothing.	Delete this phrase.
8	lines 117-119	editorial?	Bullet about "application level synchronous messaging" has never made sense.  The bizarre semi-clarification in bullet conflicts with the value duplicate elimination might add if the producer (in our terms) wants to repeat messages until it gets the response it expects.	Delete this bullet.
9	Table 2	minor technical	Our specification is supposedly useful for both SOAP 1.2 and 1.1.  If we need a namespace prefix only for SOAP 1.1, something is very wrong in our specification.	Add some SOAP 1.2 examples and define namespace prefix for that namespace here.
10	Section 1.3	editorial	This "conventions" section seems the appropriate place to describe what in the document is normative.  Normative is not mentioned until page 41 at the moment!    Are examples and notes normative, for example?  Are the examples without "(Normative)" in the subject non-normative?  Is the associated schema normative (see lines 600-602)?	Describe what in the document is normative.