[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Work in progress [Fwd: Changes in update to contribution]
As noted in the attached email to the editing team early this morning, Jacques and I found a way forward that works for us on Section 2. I am now working on the rest of the edits needed for tonight's (final!) draft. Most of those edits have been discussed only within the editing team. As a checklist for myself and to allow everyone to check I am do not forget something, these changes include (all line numbers from latest contribution[1]): * updated content lengths that Iwasa provided * follow through on editorial suggestions Mark Peel just provided (thanks again Mark!) to the editing team; we are at the 'add "the" before' point! * change clause starting on line 175 to read " ... (2) as a rule guaranteeing that if “Submit” completes successfully for a payload on the sending side, the “Deliver” operation completes successfully for this payload on the receiving side or else “Notify” (of failure) will be invoked on the sending side " based on some comments Jacques made on the "proofed version of 1.082 thread". * remove first "only" in line 287, a typographic error in Mark's contribution * avoid the "successful invocation" implications in the first sentences of Sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 (line 524 for example) with rewordings such as "When the GuaranteedDelivery Agreement Item is enabled, one of the two following outcomes SHALL occur for each Submit invocation on a Sending RMP:" * change clause in line 828 from "A Receiving RMP supporting a received PollRequest" to "A Receiving RMP that receives a supported form of PollRequest", clarifying the meaning a bit * replace two sentences starting at line 1031 with " If the specific RM Fault encountered was due to a problem with the Request header element, the Receiving RMP MUST set the value of the soap:Fault@faultcode attribute to "soap:Client" (for SOAP 1.1 messages) or the soap12:Fault/Code/Value element to "soap12:Sender" (for SOAP 1.2 messages). If the specific RM Fault encountered was due to a problem with processing by the Receiving RMP, the Receiving RMP MUST set the value of the soap:Fault@faultcode attribute to "soap:Server" (for SOAP 1.1 messages) or the soap12:Fault/Code/Value element to "soap12:Receiver" (for SOAP 1.2 messages). " to correct the SOAP 1.1 "versus" 1.2 issue Jacques pointed out and was mentioned in a response on the "Contribution suggestions just uploaded" thread * addition of Delivery failure to Table 25, near line 1056 as another case for MessageProcessingFailure, based on resolution of comments from Jacques which started on the "proposed edits for enhancing composability" thread * reword parenthetical comment starting at line 1092 to "(...; that is, any type not defined in this core namespace is allowed)", undoing a change to our meaning here and making the wording less confusing * change introduction to bullets starting at line 1115 to "Groups undergoing termination on the Sending RMP and the Receiving RMP pass through the following states:", avoiding discussion of a termination process and clarifying the states in question * strike "associated with WSDL elements" at line 1809, based on a number of questions including the original "what changed in 1.08?" email. No voices raised against this change. Again, I am starting with the contribution I uploaded early this morning. In turn, that document is based on Mark Peel's 1.083 contribution[2] and some of my previous contribution[3] (started with the 1.082 root[4]). thanx, doug [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8680/WS-Reliability-2004-08-11-drb.pdf [2] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8621/WS-Reliability-1083-Contrib-Peel.pdf [3] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8587/WS-Reliability-2004-08-07-drb.pdf [4] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8498/WS-Reliability-2004-08-05.pdf
--- Begin Message ---
- From: Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>
- To: Iwasa <kiwasa@jp.fujitsu.com>, Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>,Mark Peel <mpeel@novell.com>, Jacques Durand <JDurand@fsw.fujitsu.com>,Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>,Sunil Kunisetty <Sunil.Kunisetty@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:56:49 -0700
I just uploaded a contribution[1,2,3] to our OASIS sub-site without notifying the TC. The main reason is to give you a few hours this morning to check it improves on the issues Jacques and I discussed on the TC list. Since we have received no comments besides Jacques' and my responses, I am working under the assumption that agreement between the two of us represents a solution the TC is comfortable with. Note request for help in the last bullet near the end of this email. For those playing along at home, the changes from my previous contribution (WS-Reliability-2004-08-07-drb.pdf) include: * Moving Section 2.4.1 to be a new sub-section of 2.2, bringing the discussion of the RM operations together. * Removing the remainder of Section 2.4 (just 2.4.2). Jacques added this some time ago in response to some very old questions I asked. I think we now agree the addition did not answer those questions and may confuse the reader. * Removed all of the new paragraphs I added in Sections 2.5.1 through 2.5.3 (now 2.4.1 to 2.4.3) because they only attempted (and failed) to link these sections to the previous 2.4.2 -- which no longer exists. * Checked the formating of the Section references and updated a few (found one area of text which had made an entire sentence a hyper link!). * Corrected the restrictions in 6.3, 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 to more obviously apply to the appropriate steps in the Poll RM-Reply Pattern. So the specific changes in this contribution are: * New Section 2.2.1 containing a slightly-edited version of the text previously in 2.4.1. Describes how to map the RM operations to WSDL operations. * In Section 2.3, added references to better explain the history of our SOAP MEPs. * In same section, removed "correlation" bullet since our protocol does not require this. * Removed all of Section 2.4 except text (2.4.1) added earlier in document (above). This undoes a part of the changes Jacques made some time ago in response to our discussions (partially described in my "Summary of WS-Reliability 1.01* issues discussed over past week" email). * Tightened up the SOAP MEP requirements in 2.5.1-2.5.3 (now 2.4.1-2.4.3) to support restrictions described in Section 6. * Removed Section 5.2. Most of this description is now in Section 2. The table (28) in this section would mostly confuse the reader as the document looks today. * A couple of minor corrections in Section 6, including new references to the appropriate sub-sections in Section 2. * Narrowed at the end of Section 6.3 to apply specifically to the initial Reliable Message (rather than, say, the PollRequest message). * Added similar restrictions for the PollRequest message and its response in Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2. I am no longer sure these additions were necessary -- please check. It seems right to discuss errors occurring when the PollRequest (and RM-Reply in the asynchronous polling case) messages are returned, however we did not do this before. I am particularly unsure about the sub-sub-sub-cases of my addition to 6.3.2, which mention RM Faults and not different problems processing the just-received PollRequest or RM-Reply message. I would appreciate some improvement suggestions here! Any comments before I start with this tomorrow morning, adding the other decided changes? I probably get up later than you do (I hope). thanx, doug [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8679/WS-Reliability-2004-08-11-drb.sxw [2] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8680/WS-Reliability-2004-08-11-drb.pdf [3] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8681/WS-Reliability-2004-08-11-drb-diff.pdf--- End Message ---
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]