[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9
Yes it is a Visio file. I can export a png. I think Doug already took care of this though. I'm trying to get a print out to double check but the pdf he just sent it scanned fine on screen. -----Original Message----- From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 5:27 PM To: Marc Goodner Cc: Gilbert Pilz; Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9 Is that a visio file or something else? I can't open it. Running a cygwin 'file' on the document says: "Microsoft Office Document" -Anish -- Marc Goodner wrote: > Original art attached, but without Chris' changes. > > > > *From:* Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2006 4:11 PM > *To:* Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and > WS-RM Policy WD 9 > > > > Chris provided me with the attached PPT, but I can't figure out how to > scale it down to fit on the page without making it illegible. If all > else fails we can craft our own version and include it in the spec . . . > > > > - gp > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > *From:* Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:43 AM > *To:* ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and > WS-RM Policy WD 9 > > > 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 > <mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com>> > > cc > > > > ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <http://www.w3.%0b%3e%20org/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 > <http://www.w3.%0b%3e%20org/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?* >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]