Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD9

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

How do people want to deal with the
reorder?
1 - just do it in WD14
2 - do it in a new WD so that one change
is stand-alone (similar to what we did for the section reorder before)
3 - open a new issue

I'm inclinded to go for #2 but don't
make it anything very formal (not vote or anything by the TC) but rather
have a clear diff they can see.
Thoughts?

thanks,
-Doug

Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>

06/07/2006 12:49 PM

To	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	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

+1 to reordering schema/message examples/wsdl.

On the quotes around "none". Either we should retain the quotes
OR if we 
wanted to be precise, then include the correct URI:
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/none

I prefer the latter.

-Anish
--

Doug Davis wrote:
> 
> 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?*