Comments on version 0.9...

["Jeff Bohren" <jbohren@opennetwork.com>]

Darran,

 

Some comments version 0.9 of the core spec:

 

In section 7.1 there should be some mention of the extension of the DSML specification. The parts we use are the attribute, modification, and search filter definitions.

 

On 373, name=(muli)value pairs should be name=(mutli)value pairs.

 

On 412 Example PSP’s should be Example PSPs.

 

On 482 “objectClass” should be “objectclass”. This is the generally accepted standard for “objectclass”.

 

On 486 the AddRequest element should be addRequest. It seems that most uses of AddRequest, AddResponse, ModifyRequest, etc, have the wrong beginning case. Also, the DSML attributes don’t have the DSML namespace. These changes should be made globally in the doc.

 

On 546 in the search response example, <spml:identifier >Jane.Doe@acme.com</spml:id> should be <spml:id >Jane.Doe@acme.com</spml:id>. Note the tag mismatch. This error is in both entries.

 

On 609 in the extended request example, <spml:identifier operationIDType = "urn:oasis:names:tc:SPML:1.0#URN"> should be <spml:operationIdentifier operationIDType = "urn:oasis:names:tc:SPML:1.0#URN">. Also the provider identifier element is technically required to be XSD schema compliant, even though this information is redundant.

 

On 615, the provider identifier is not option (decided by committee vote).

 

In section 7.4 we talk about target, provider, and operation identifiers. We should also mention schema identifiers.

 

On 695 in the example the spml:indentifer tag is used where the spml:id tag should be used (see comment about 546 above).

 

In section 7.5.5.2 we need verbage to the effect that when an error occurs in a batch request and the on error attribute is set to exit, then all of the requests that did not get processes should be marked as failed.

 

This is as far as I got so far. More comments to come later.

 

 

 

 

Jeff Bohren

Product Architect

OpenNetwork Technologies, Inc