RE: Section 3.3.1 RSP

["Ram Jeyaraman (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>]

[adding the TC mailing list]

 

From: Ram Jeyaraman (MS OPEN TECH)
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 2:32 PM
To: 'Jacques Durand'; Tom Rutt
Subject: RE: Section 3.3.1 RSP

 

About prior agreement, the original profile states:

 

Claims of conformance to the Profile can be made using either of the following mechanisms: 1) use of the Conformance Claim Attachment Mechanisms (see Section 2.4.1), or 2) use of the Web Services Policy - Framework [WS-Policy 1.5] and Web Services Policy - Attachment [WS-Policy Attachment 1.5] (see Section 2.4.2). Prior agreements between partners on how Profile conformance is to be advertised or required might exist. When no such prior agreement exists and there is a need to advertise, the use of WS-Policy is RECOMMENDED over the use of the Conformance Claim Attachment Mechanisms.

 

My understanding is that CCAM or WS-Policy is needed to be used only if no prior agreement exists.

 

The current wording in the profile does not seem to capture or express this idea clearly.

 

Thanks.

 

From: Jacques Durand [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 2:27 PM
To: Ram Jeyaraman (MS OPEN TECH); Tom Rutt
Subject: RE: Section 3.3.1 RSP

 

Ram:

We can fix all these after the PR (may require a new CSD approval at most).

 

“prior agreement” for choosing to use CCAM or WS-Policy:

Maybe we should use here exactly the same wording as for extensibility points:

“their use should be negotiated or documented in some fashion by the parties to a Web service; for example, this could take the form of an out-of-band agreement.”

So indeed, a prior agreement may not be the only option.

 

Thanks,

-jacques

 

 

 

 

From: Ram Jeyaraman (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 12:40 PM
To: Tom Rutt; Jacques Durand
Subject: Section 3.3.1 RSP

 

There is an word “Who’s”. This needs to be changed to “whose”.

 

From: Ram Jeyaraman (MS OPEN TECH)
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 12:39 PM
To: 'Tom Rutt'; 'Jacques Durand'
Subject: Conformance section 2.5

 

Conformance section 2.5 currently states:

In a similar way as for extensibility points, the choice of a conformance claim mechanism is not part of the Profile definition: should the interacting parties decide to use one of them to advertise support for the Profile, a prior agreement must be established that is beyond the scope of this Profile. Whether these conformance claim mechanisms are supported or not does not affect conformance to the Profile..

 

What sort of a prior agreement is needed when the user choose to use CCAM or WS-Policy?

 

Thanks.

From: Ram Jeyaraman (MS OPEN TECH)
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 12:37 PM
To: 'Tom Rutt'; 'Jacques Durand'
Subject: RE: RSP section 2.1

 

There is a phrase “are  described” with extra spaces between them. The extra space could be removed.

 

From: Ram Jeyaraman (MS OPEN TECH)
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 12:33 PM
To: 'Tom Rutt'; 'Jacques Durand'
Subject: RSP section 2.1

 

Hello Tom, Jacques:

 

RSP section 2.1 has words “Fequirements” occurring at least 3 times. Need to be changed to “Requirements”.

 

Thanks.