RE: [ws-rx-editors] v1.2cd01 ready?

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

Mary - there are some questions below for you.
Sanjay - responses inline.

Thanks for the review.
-Doug


"Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>
wrote on 02/22/2008 05:52:24 PM:
> 
> 
> Hi Doug,
> 
> Thanks for producing the CD drafts. Please see my inline comments
below.
> 
> -- Sanjay
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 12:21 PM
> > To: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [ws-rx-editors] v1.2cd01 ready?
> > 
> > 
> > Editors, 
> >   could I get someone to look at the v1.2CD01 version of
the 
> > specs to make sure all of the edits we agreed to during the 
> > last RX conf call were done correctly?   
> > 
> > Things to look for: 
> > - both sets of footers are correct (spec name and date) 
> > - "both" meaning there are two types of footers in
the doc
> I can't find the two kinds of footers. I am sure I am missing something.
> You have changed the OASIS Copyright from 1993-2007 to 1993-2008.
Is
> this kind of change within our purview or should we check with OASIS
> first?
> Also - Has anything in the schema and WSDL file changed? I noticed
that
> the OASIS Copyright in these file still says: 1993 - 2007

The 2nd set of headers start on page 3.
I've updated the xsd/wsdl files with 2008.  
Mary - is it ok to have 2008?

> > - title page has the correct version number, name, date and hrefs
> If we vote for CD approval on the 2/28 call, I think the date on CD
can
> be 2/28/08 (and not 3/6/08). I guess we could cover this item under
'Pro
> forma' changes.

I was assuming the vote would start after the call
but I'll make it
2/28 just in case.

> > - removal of policy 1.2 refs in the normative refs section 
> Looks good to me.
> 
> > - upate of sx (SecPolicy and Trust) refs in the normative 
> > refs section 
> Do we need to say "Feb 2008" in the reference? Can we not
reference only
> the spec name and the version number for the purposes of our CDs?

Dunno - I was just following the template of the other
references.
Mary - must we include the date?

> > - update of RM refs in the normative refs section 
> I think RM refs should be to the new CDs (and not to the OS versions).

I think those refs are to the "latest versions"
which would be the CDs (once approved).

> > 
> > thanks
> > -Doug
> > ______________________________________________________
> > STSM  |  Web Services Architect  |  IBM Software
Group
> > (919) 254-6905  |  IBM T/L 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
> >