Re: [provision] Issues in the specification draft

[Gary P Cole <Gary.P.Cole@Sun.COM>]

Elron, Rami wrote:

> Gary,
>
> Here are some remarks concerning the specification document version I 
> got. I’d appreciate if you could please go over them and verify that 
> the text should be revised.
>
> Please call me if you have any questions.
>
> - Rami
>
> *#*
>
> 	
>
> *Page*
>
> 	
>
> *Issue*
>
> 1
>
> 	
>
> 32
>
> 	
>
> I believe that in the ListTargets example he target ID is incorrect.
>
Can you be more specific? Whether targetId should be an element or an 
attribute is an open issue. The next draft (d06) will contain 
before-and-after illustrations of this change.

>
> 2
>
> 	
>
> 57
>
> 	
>
> I believe that in the example:
>
> <deleteResponse status=“pending" asyncRequestID=”8488”/>
>
> /- should be instead –/
>
> / /
>
> <deleteResponse status=“pending" RequestID=”8488”/>
>
I agree. Draft 6 will reflect this.

>
> 3
>
> 	
>
> 50
>
> 	
>
> In the example:
>
> <component>/Person/email]</component> does not have an opening square 
> bracket
>
Draft 6 will reflect this.

>
> 4
>
> 	
>
> 50
>
> 	
>
> I believe that the example:
>
> <capabilityData>
>
> *<reference typeOfReference="owns" /> *
>
> * <toPsoId ID="1431" targetId=”target1”/>*
>
> </capabilityData>
>
> /- should be instead -/
>
> <capabilityData>
>
> *<reference typeOfReference="owns"> *
>
> * <toPsoId ID="1431" targetId=”target1”/>*
>
> *</reference>*
>
> </capabilityData>
>
Yes. Draft 6 will reflect this correction.

>
> 5
>
> 	
>
> 50
>
> 	
>
> I believe that the example:
>
> <modifyRequest>
>
> <psoId ID=”1431” targetId=”target1”/>
>
> <modification modificationMode=”delete”>
>
> <capabilityData>
>
> <reference typeOfReference="owner" />
>
> </capabilityData>
>
> </modification>
>
> <modification modificationMode=”add”>
>
> <capabilityData>
>
> *<reference typeOfReference="owner"/ > *
>
> * <toPsoId ID="2245" targetId=”target2”/>*
>
> </capabilityData>
>
> </modification>
>
> </modifyRequest>
>
> /- should be instead -/
>
> <modifyRequest>
>
> <psoId ID=”1431” targetId=”target1”/>
>
> <modification modificationMode=”delete”>
>
> <capabilityData>
>
> <reference typeOfReference="owner" />
>
> </capabilityData>
>
> </modification>
>
> <modification modificationMode=”add”>
>
> <capabilityData>
>
> *<reference typeOfReference="owner" > *
>
> * <toPsoId ID="2245" targetId=”target2”/>*
>
> *</reference>*
>
> </capabilityData>
>
> </modification>
>
> </modifyRequest>
>
Yes. Draft 6 will reflect this correction.

>
> 6
>
> 	
>
> 60
>
> 	
>
> The target ID in the example is believed to be incorrect
>
Same as #1.

>
> 7
>
> 	
>
> 61
>
> 	
>
> In the StatusResponse example the PSO is missing the Data tag
>
Yes. Draft 6 will reflect this correction.

>
> 8
>
> 	
>
> 64
>
> 	
>
> Was ‘batch of batches’ removed? When?
>
Yes. Participants in the 20050222 conference call agreed that batch 
should not be batchable. According to my notes, you were the one who 
advanced this position. See my email to the list: "Re: [provision] 
Non-batchable operations" dated 2/22/2005.

>
> 9
>
> 	
>
> 70
>
> 	
>
> The ID in example 3.5.4.1.3 should probably be /basePSOID/
>
Please re-check these examples in Draft 6. The bulkModify and bulkDelete 
examples specify "baseTargetId" (but not "basePSOId").

>
> 10
>
> 	
>
> 71
>
> 	
>
> There is an example for /bulkModifyResponse/ – but there is no 
> corresponding verb in the document
>
You're right. This was my error. I'll send a note to the list suggesting 
a compromise that will allow us to have <bulkModifyResponse> elements 
without defining a BulkModifyResponseType.

>
> 11
>
> 	
>
> 71
>
> 	
>
> There is an example for /bulkDeleteResponse/ – but there is no 
> corresponding verb in the document
>
Same as 10.

>
> 12
>
> 	
>
> 76
>
> 	
>
> A missing closing /currentPassword/ tag in the top example
>
Right. I'll correct this in Draft 6.

> 13
>
> 	
>
> 79
>
> 	
>
> In section 3.5.5.3.3: I believe that the following text:
>
> “The provider returns an *<spmlResponse>* element. The “status” 
> attribute of the <spmlResponse> element indicates that the provider 
> successfully resetd the password.”
>
> /- Should be instead - /
>
> The provider returns an *<resetPasswordResponse>* element. The 
> “status” attribute of the element indicates that the provider 
> successfully reset the password.
>
Right. I'll fix this in Draft 6.

>
> 14
>
> 	
>
> 91
>
> 	
>
> The target ID in the example is believed to be incorrect
>
Same as #1.

>
> 15
>
> 	
>
> 96
>
> 	
>
> In section 3.5.7.2.3: I believe that there is an error with the basePSOID
>
Yes. Please re-check draft 6. I'll change this to "baseTargetId".