Editorial comments on RM Policy assertion

I see no reason this should hold up the CD. I’m also not sure an issue really needs to be raised this as it doesn’t seem like anything of any substance that needs to be debated.

What I noticed was that in the namespace table of the RM Policy assertion only wsp and wsrmp are there, however in the assertion example both wsdl and wsu are used. So I think both of these should be in the table as well.

Also, I guess this is moot if the CD is approved but if this is WD06 why is it WD05 on the title page and document identifier (but it is 06 in the footer)? What is really odd is that in the diff version it shows 06 is in both spots and 05 is deleted. Furthermore in the no change bars versions the authors are in a different order. Is this the right version of the doc without change bars?

Marc Goodner

Technical Diplomat

Microsoft Corporation

Tel: (425) 703-1903

Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/

ws-rx-editors message