[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
+1 Typically, literals are either in quotes or have a special typographical convention (italics or something like that). -Anish -- Doug Davis wrote: > > LOL so I was about to do the "none" issue and went looking around to see > how we had other URIs in the spec. I think all of them are called-out > into their own special paragraphs. I then went to the WSA spec to see if > they used the full anon or none URIs inside a paragraph. They do but > they put quotes around it :-) > So, I'm now thinking we should keep the quotes AND change "none" to > "http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/none";. > Thoughts? > -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]