[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
I agree with two. Perhaps accept changes from currnt wd14 and send the diff with the reorder now. Then we could dispatch all of this next week. Marc Goodner (425) 703-1903 (Sent from Windows Mobile 5.0) -----Original Message----- From: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com> To: "ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org" <ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: 6/8/06 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9 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?*
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]