[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-RMPolicy WD 9
Yes, no need to send the png file. I reponded to your email, before I saw Dug's. -Anish -- Marc Goodner wrote: > 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]