[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Addressing comments from Martin C. : final
|
Final consensus
inline on Martin’s comments : [final] -jacques From: Moberg Dale
[mailto:dmoberg@axway.com] From: Jacques R. Durand
[mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com] 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. [final] add an
entry in2.2: “MSH: Message Service
Handler assumed here to be conforming to ebMS V3 Core specification as well as
to this specification (Part 2).” ----------------------- 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. [final] 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”. Add a note: “Signature integrity is a
major reason for intermediaries to not alter SOAP content., when using
security.” ----------------------- M3- Line 3093: "as
these four feature sets are largely independent and composable in various
ways." This sentence doesn't parse - remove "as"? Proposal: Extend: “This conformance clause is defining four conformance
profiles:” as “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). [final] as above. ----------------------- 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.” (Dale) 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.” [final] use Dale wording. ----------------------- 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. [final] as
proposed. Jacques |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]