wd 12, section 1.3 1.4, lines 287 to 289, and type at line 301

lines 287 to 289

This specification presents some alternatives regarding underlying specifications (e.g. SOAP 1.1/1.2,

WSS1.0/1.1, and WS specifications that may support the reliability function). This does not imply that a

conforming implementation must support them all, nor that it is free to support any option.

Does info here on conformance profiles align with key word explanation of MAY in 1.4? That is, should we say:

When there are alternatives (indicated by MAY of section 1.4) the precise impact on implementations is given by a conformance profile.

Also, I am confused by the language in line 288. Does it mean

Implementations do not need to support all alternatives discussed, and do not need to support any specific alternative.

Is this really what we want to say? Or do we want to say that the implementation will implement the alternatives specified in a conformance profile, and that at least one conformance profile MUST be implemented.

I still think this still needs more precision and it must be true that a MSH must have some implementation of reliable messaging. Otherwise, ebMS fails to realize its intent of supporting reliable, secure delivery of business messages..

1.4 line 301 needs a space between words "in the"

ebxml-msg message