RE: [ws-rx-editors] wsrmp-1.1 wd02 updated to include resolution for issues 22, 24, 54, 73

["Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

It looks like you missed applying i055.
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i055
"Delete inactivity timeout."

Otherwise from a sanity check perspective this looks good. As you note
below the line number flux and the fact that some of the proposals only
use line numbers without text descriptions make this hard to review
without laying hard copies next to each other. 

Also, I've noticed a lot of weirdness in the diffs. I don't know if
these are being generated in OO or Acrobat, either way look for a
setting to ignore formatting differences. It really makes a mess with so
many lines marked deleted and new that are exactly the same.

Regards,
Marc g

-----Original Message-----
From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 6:24 PM
To: WS-RX Editors
Subject: [ws-rx-editors] wsrmp-1.1 wd02 updated to include resolution
for issues 22, 24, 54, 73

I have updated the wsrmp spec to include the resolution for issues 22, 
24, 54, 73 as agreed today.

The link for the sxw file is:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx-editors/download.php/
15709/wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-02.sxw

The PDF is attached to this email. The diff with CD01 (PDF) is also 
attached.

Please let me know if there is anything missing and I'll fix it. 
Anything else needs to be done in WSRMP doc for the F2F?

Please note that for some of the issue resolutions the line numbers did 
not match (with the referenced spec in the resolution email) or were 
incorrect. But I searched for the right text and made the changes at the

right places. In addition, I had to make changes to the text to 
incorporate the resolutions. Specifically, because we deleted backoff 
and retransmission params, the example in the spec changed (which was 
part of the resolution), which meant that the line numbers in the 
example changed (which was not part of the resolution), which meant that

the line numbers referenced in the text changed (which was not part of 
the resolution). I consider these changes to be completely editorial and

do not see the need to go back to the TC to get the TC blessing (the TC 
will bless it in any case when the next CD is approved).

I did not upload the PDF as it may not be final (and I don't want to 
version the PDF -- it is a 'Derived Object') and I'm not sure where to 
upload it. Currently, the lastest ed drafts (wsrmp wd 02 and wsrm wd 07)

are under "Calendar Documents". Shouldn't we just create another 
container for the latest docs?

Thx!

-Anish
--