Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

So,
  things we should discuss:

- Should we reorder the schema, message
examples and wsdl?  I think Marc's idea sounds right - schema, wsdl
and then samples
- Who has the source for figure 2?
- Thoughts on quotes around "none"
?   Not a biggie but I do prefer them there.

thanks,
-Doug

----- Forwarded by Doug
Davis/Raleigh/IBM on 06/07/2006 10:36 AM -----

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS

06/07/2006 10:39 AM

To	"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>
cc	ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	Re: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9

Marc - thanks for the detailed review - comments inline.
-Doug 

"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com> wrote on 06/05/2006
02:07:29 PM:
> WS-RM WD 13 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
> php/18451/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-13.pdf 
>   
> Line numbers in this document are inaccurate, particularly in 
> Section 2. I only use line numbers below with sections or pages 
> where there are not two of the same. 
>   
> I did not review the state tables given there is another revision
> planned. Similarly I did not examine the schema, message examples
or
> wsdl in any detail but plan to. Why are these section in that order?
> Doesn’t it make more sense to have the wsdl follow the schema?

Will discuss with editors. 

> Section 2 
> Change “and Transmits it” to “and transmits it”.
> Change “that Sends” to “that sends” 

Fixed (in WD14 in editor's playpen) 

> Figure 2 is not legible. 

Working on it - but a little mystery makes life exciting  :-)

> Section 3.1 
> Line 222, page 11 “none” does not need to be in quotes.

Will discuss with editors but I think it might confuse non-WSA
experts to not have it in quotes. 

> Line 309, page 13 the 2119 term optional is used and not in caps.

Fixed 

> Section 3.2 
> Line 347, page 14 the 2119 term may is used and is not in caps.

Fixed 
  
> Section 3.3 
> Line 459, page 16 check for a space between”[URI])” and “of”.

Fixed 

> Section 3.5 
> Line 530, page 18 change “below” to “Section 3.6”.

Fixed 
  
> Section 3.6 
> Line 558, page 19 reference to “Section Request Acknowledgment”
is 
> not consistent with references elsewhere in spec. Change “Section
> Request Acknowledgement” to “Section 3.5”.
> Line 562, page 19 “piggy-backing does not need to be in quotes.
> Line 615, page 20 strike “Note:” as 2119 text is used in the text
> that follows it is more than a note. 

Fixed 
  
> Section 4 
> The first two paragraphs of this section are practically duplicates
> of each other. The first paragraph can be stricken by adding a one
> sentence description of WSRMRequired after the second sentence of
> the second paragraph. I can raise this as a new issue if that is preferable.

Please do - since those paragraphs have been of some concern to some
people I'd prefer to get agreement on it.

> Line 670, page 22 end sentence beginning on line 668 after “detected”.
> Line 676, page 22 change “defined in the version of WS-Addressing
> used in the message” to “defined in WS-Addressing” as we only 
> reference a single version of Addressing.
> Line 676, page 22 change “current version” to “W3C Recommendation”
> Line 678, page 22 update to W3C Rec value, “http://www.w3.
> org/2005/08/addressing/fault” 

For consistency I did this but I think we need to revisit this since
WSA now says that .../addressing/fault SHOULD only be used for WSA
faults - and we're talking about RM faults in this section.  WSA
suggests that other specs define their own URI - or am I reading
this wrong? 

> Line 680, page 22 change “section 4 of WS-Addressing” to “section
6 
> of WS-Addressing SOAP Binding”. 
> Line 694, page 22 update to W3C Rec value, “http://www.w3.
> org/2005/08/addressing/fault” 

Fixed 
  
> Section 6 
> Update [WS-Addressing] to point to Recommendation.
> W3C Recommendation, “Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Core”, May 2006.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-core-20060509/ 
>   
> W3C Recommendation, “Web Services Addressing 1.0 – SOAP Binding”,
May 2006. 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-soap-20060509/
>   
> Update [WS-Policy] to point to W3C Member Submission.
> W3C Member Submission, "Web Services Policy Framework (WS-Policy),"
> April 2006. 
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-Policy-20060425/ 
>   
> Update [WS-PolicyAttachment] to point to W3C Member Submission.
> W3C Member Submission, "Web Services Policy Attachment (WS-PolicyAttachment)
> ," April 2006. 
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-PolicyAttachment-20060425/

Fixed 
  
> Section C 
> Line 1469 change “non-normative” to “normative”.

Fixed 
  
> Section E 
> Line 1593 the TBD should be completed for PR.

Can you open an issue so we don't forget about this?

> WS-RM Policy WD9 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
> php/18454/wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-09.pdf 
>   
> Section 4 
> Update [WS-Policy] to point to W3C Member Submission.
> W3C Member Submission, "Web Services Policy Framework (WS-Policy),"
> April 2006. 
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-Policy/ 
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-Policy-20060425/ 
>   
> Update [WS-PolicyAttachment] to point to W3C Member Submission.
> W3C Member Submission,"Web Services Policy Attachment (WS-PolicyAttachment)
> ," April 2006. 
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-PolicyAttachment/ 
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-PolicyAttachment-20060425/
>   
> Add reference to WSS 1.1 under [WSS] (as is done in WS-RM).
> Anthony Nadalin, Chris Kaler, Phillip Hallam-Baker, Ronald Monzillo,
eds. "
> OASIS Web Services Security: 
> SOAP Message Security 1.1 (WS-Security 2004)", OASIS Standard
> 200602, February 2006. 

Fixed 
  
> Section A 
> Line 253 the TBD should be completed for PR.

can you include this in the same new issue as the RM spec one?