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

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

Took a look at the schema/wsdl. Looks good, except for the following:

1) in wsdl: s/makConnection/makeConnection/

2) the schema contains:
<xs:simpleType name="UnsupportedElement>
<xs:restriction base="xs:QName"/>
</xs:element>

The closing tag is unmatched. Not sure if you mean to define an 
element+anon-type or an element+non-anon-type. Either way, the schema 
needs an element called "UnsupportedElement"

3) Question: for wsrm:Address element do we want to define a schema 
pattern that restricts the value to the URI template?

4) Question: for wsrm:MakeConnection do we want to indicate in the 
schema that either wsrm:Address or wsrm:Identifier elements are required 
(and both are allowed)?

-Anish
--

Doug Davis wrote:
> 
> Are other's ok with these changes?
> I think all changes are applied except for the reordering of the 
> wsdl/schema/samples sections.
> If people are ok with these I'll make these changes and then do a new WD 
> so people can see just the reordering.
> Also - could someone else take a quick look over the schema/wsdl to make 
> sure the new stuff looks good?  The 'import' stuff (the links) doesn't 
> seem to be in the docs any more - any ideas why not?
> thank
> -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
>