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

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

The keywords are not just in section 5. That was just an example. There 
are in few other places too.

-Anish
--

Marc Goodner wrote:
> 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