Comments on Working Draft 06

[Ric Emery <remery@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Here are a few minor editorial comments on Working Draft 06

701-702: 'In particular, this specification requires that header  
blocks supporting message reliability and security be understood by  
an MSH.'
	I am a bit uncomfortable with the word 'requires'. It gives me the  
feeling that it is required that an MSH implementation must support  
multiple Reliability Module specifications.

844 - ' ebXML Messaging 3.0 does not define any extension elements  
for a SOAP Body'
	Is this necessary to say? If extension elements were defined we  
should point that out. Why point out the absence of defined extensions?

1201-1202 - 'If a CPA is referred to by the eb:AgreementRef, the  
number of conversations related to this CPA must comply with CPA  
requirements. The value of eb:ConversationID MUST uniquely identify a  
conversation within the context of this CPA'.
	Good information, but i am not sure it belongs here. Seems to me  
that since CPAs are not required the CPA related implementation  
details may not belong. Though I could be convinced otherwise.

1266 - 'of the purpose or intent of the message'
	Should the word 'message' be modified to 'payload'?