I’m not going
to vote against the CD over this but some of these changes were not made.
- Section 2.4, first paragraph after bullets, line 247:
“Should the acknowledgement…” should be “Should an
acknowledgement…”
- Section 3.1: “Note, offering…” this
sounds like it is trying to make the following text non-normative. Suggest
changing to “Note that offering…” to prevent that
interpretation.
- Section 5: WS-Trust missing a reference (would be
non-normative as WS-SecureConversation is).
- Section 6: SecureConversation date is wrong, it should
be February 2005
Also, do we have a
decision recorded regarding updating the file names of the schema and wsdl to
match the proper artifact identifiers?
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006
9:04 AM
To: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx-editors] RE:
[ws-rx] Comments on latest working drafts
I've made these fixes to wd09/wd04 - but I didn't do
the schema/wsdl mods. Mainly because I ran out of time - perhaps someone
else could take 'em before the call tomorrow???
-Doug
|
"Marc Goodner"
<mgoodner@microsoft.com>
01/10/2006 12:37 PM
|
|
To
|
<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [ws-rx] Comments on latest working drafts
|
|
One other thing, the URI reference in
WS-RM Policy needs to be updated to match WS-RM. In WD 03 it still points to
2396 instead of 3986.
From: Marc Goodner
[mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:51 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] Comments on latest working drafts
I
think all of my comments below are editorial. I hope these can be addressed for
the documents that go up for the CD ballot. Many thanks to the editors for
getting these done over the holidays.
Both documents
Copyright
needs to be updated to 2006 in OASIS boilerplate and footers
Namespace
should be updated (I’ll start a separate thread on this)
Schema
and WSDL
- Shouldn’t both of these have OASIS
boilerplate in comments?
- File name seems wrong, why is the date part of
the name? I think the form is
product-productVersion-artifactType-stage-revision which would give us wsrm-1.1-schema-wd-08.xsd
as and example. Personally given the file extension gives the type I think
we shouldn’t use it in the file name, it makes more sense for a spec
which has multiple extension types used (i.e. .pdf, .html, etc.).
- The files aren’t available at the
location specified.
WS-RM Policy WD 03
Looks
good other than the above.
WS-RM WD 08
Line
numbers from the diff bar version
Section
2.4, first paragraph after bullets, line 247: “Should the
acknowledgement…” should be “Should an acknowledgement…”
Section
3.1, line 274: “Note, offering…” this sounds like it is
trying to make the following text non-normative. Suggest changing to
“Note that offering…” to prevent that interpretation.
Section
5, line 814: WS-Trust missing a reference (would be non-normative as
WS-SecureConversation is).
Section
6, line 893: URI date is wrong, it should be January 2005
Section
6, line 926: SecureConversation date is wrong, it should be February 2005
Marc
Goodner
Technical
Diplomat
Microsoft
Corporation
Tel:
(425) 703-1903
Blog:
http://spaces.msn.com/members/mrgoodner/