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

["Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

As you point out, it isn't really a problem per se as it is. So I'd say don't worry about the Sec. 5 2119 terms for now. Correct whatever stays or is added from 121 instead. 

Marc Goodner
(425) 703-1903
(Sent from Windows Mobile 5.0)

-----Original Message-----
From: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
To: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org" <ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: 6/7/06 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9

Looks ok to me.


I did a search for the 2119 lowercase keywords ('may', 'should' ...) and 
found that there are instances where they are not capitalized (for 
example, in the sec consideration section). If these were intended to be 
2119 keywords then to be consistent with our typographical convention we 
should capitalize them. If not, we should find suitable alternatives. 
2119 does *not* require the keywords to be capitalized, so leaving them 
as is imply that they are to be interpreted in the same way as their 
capitalized brethren.

-Anish
--

Doug Davis wrote:
> 
> ok - Marc (editors), see if this version looks ok to you.
> -Doug