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

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

Done
-Doug

Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>

06/08/2006 03:14 PM

To	Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>
cc	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, 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

Not all of these should be in caps.

Looking at draft 14 
(http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx-editors/download.php/18631/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-14.odt)
there are occurrences on lines (not counting the ones in the security 
consideration section):

82, 128, 129, 136, 313: s/may/can/
391: s/may/are/
223, 826: s/should/SHOULD/
174, 522: s/required/REQUIRED/
828, 839: s/shall/SHALL/
Marc Goodner wrote:
> I think they should all be in caps. Are there ones in places other
than the ones Doug caught already?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:18 AM
> To: Marc Goodner
> Cc: Doug Davis; 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
> 
> 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