OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-msg message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Addressing comments from Martin C. : proposals



From: Jacques R. Durand [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 12:55 PM
To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Addressing comments from Martin C. : proposals


Addressing comments from Martin Chapman (identified M1 – M5):



M1- Line 394: editorial - please spell out the acronym MSH (I think this is its first use in the doc).


Proposal: add “MSH” entry in Terminology 2.2 (MSH is only casually defined in Core V3, but deserves a better definition status…)

“MSH: Message Service Handler assumed here to be conforming to ebMS V3 Core specification as well as to features described in this specification (Part 2).”


=> could just use expansion initially and put (MSH) after.


M2- Line 408 and 490: talks about not modifying the SOAP message, I assume you mean soap headers and soap bodies - if so it might be worth saying this explicitly.


Proposal: Clarify “without modifying the SOAP message or any attached payload à without modifying the SOAP message (SOAP envelope and its content) or any attached payload


At least no modifications of signed data. If some headers were targeted at intermediaries, they might by soap processing rules get modified. Etc.



M3- Line 3093: "as these four feature sets are largely independent and composable in various ways."  This sentence doesn't parse - remove "as"?



Extend: This conformance clause is defining four conformance profiles:


This conformance section is defining four conformance profiles (or clauses) that address the four major feature sets specified here (multihop routing, message bundling, advanced interaction patterns, and message splitting). Indeed, these feature sets are largely independent from each other and can be composed in various ways. The conformance profiles are:

(NOTE: technically, there should be a conformance clause for each conformance profile – so also addressed in this proposal).




M4- Line 3100: "In the absence of any claim to another externally-defined conformance profile" you can't control what other people will claim conformance to, you can only state what it means to comply with this specification. Suggest deleting or softening.


Proposal: remove the sentence, and replace with:

“It is possible for an MSH to conform to either one of these profiles, or to a combination of these.”


Not certain that this replacement is that useful. And to address M5 wouldn’t you want to say “MSH conformance may be to exactly one of the profiles, or to any combination of profiles.”





M5- Lines 3100-3102: says that "an implementation of this specification is expected to conform to either one or both of the conformance profiles defined here..." yet there are four profiles defined above! Please clarify.

Proposal: addressed by proposal for M4.




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]