Re: [sca-bindings] [Issue 2] Inlined proposal v5

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

Mike Edwards wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> First, thanks for Anish for preparing a thorough revision of the proposal.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> 1) [BWS50005] mentions [BWS50003] but BWS50003 no longer exists.  I 
> believe that [BWS50002] should be referenced instead.
> 

Actually the old BWS50003 is now a definition, so we don't need to refer 
to any conformance item in BWS50005. I have removed the reference to 
BWS50003 in BWS50005.

> 2) It is surprising that the "SCA Web Services Callback with 
> WS-MakeConnection Protocol" section has no normative statements
> I feel that the 2nd paragraph could well have "MUST adhere to" instead 
> of "has to adhere to".  
> The 5th paragraph also sounds normative, and "the callback request 
> message is sent as the response" could well be rendered
> as "the callback request message MUST be sent as the response".
> 

This was indeed intentional, per the discussions on an earlier call. I 
addressed this in my reply to Dave's email that +1ed this comment. Hope 
that is satisfactory.

> 3) The normative statements in Assertion Attachment section read 
> somewhat clumsily and in some ways miss the real point, which is
> contained in the last paragraph.  I wonder if some rewording might make 
> things clearer and more straightforward, such as:
> 
> "Policy Subjects allowed for a WSCallback policy assertion and which can 
> have WSCallback policy assertions attached
> MUST be contained within the scope of the following set of WSDL 1.1 
> elements:
> •        wsdl:port
> •        wsdl:binding" [BWS500xx]
> 

This mixes the concept of a policy subject and specific WSDL 
elements/attachment points where a policy can be attached, as I 
understand it.
I don't think we need BWS50012. I have deleted it in v6 (which I'll send 
shortly) and converted the MUST NOT to cannot. I hope that makes things 
less clumsy.

The idea is to specify the policy subject. WS-PolicyAttachment specifies 
what that means in terms of WSDL attachment points. The section then 
says which of those attachment points are not allowed, even though the 
policy subject allows it. Followed by the list of attachment points 
which are allowed.

> 
> 
> Editorial comments:
> 
> a) The references to examples in Appendix E should have hyperlinks in 
> the text.

Fixed in v6.

> 
> b) I'd be happier with references to other specs combining the name of 
> the document and the short form reference tag, such
> as [WS-Addr].
> 

I'm fine either way. But this is a bigger issue about bindings spec (or 
rather SCA specs) than about issue 2.

-Anish
--

> 
> Yours,  Mike.
> 
> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
> Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
> 
> 
> From: 	Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
> To: 	OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: 	18/06/2009 09:41
> Subject: 	[sca-bindings] [Issue 2] Inlined proposal v5
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> Attached.
> 
> This proposal consists of taking the inlined proposal v4 produced by
> MikeE [1] and applying it to CD02 rev4. On top of that I have made the
> following changes (based on the last call where we discussed v4):
> 1) Included a pointer to the appendix examples from section 5.2
> 2) Missing 2119 statement tags are added.
> 3) Fixed cross-references and 2119 stmt highlighing.
> 4) Deleted all the MAY statements that were unnecessary.
> 5) Replaced lowercase 2119 keywords with appropriate non-keyword substitutes
> 6) Made the protocol composable with WS-MC without introducing
> additional conformance points.
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> [1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200905/msg00098.html
> [attachment "sca-binding-ws-1.1-spec-cd02-rev4-issue2_v5.doc" deleted by 
> Mike Edwards/UK/IBM] [attachment 
> "sca-binding-ws-1.1-spec-cd02-rev4-issue2_v5.pdf" deleted by Mike 
> Edwards/UK/IBM] 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> /
> /
> 
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>