New proposed issues 10/13 - 10/19

["Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

Please let me (and the list) know if I missed any issues sent to the week in the last week.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed-01
Title: Should DA be separate assertion or parameter 

Proposed-02
Title: Which occurances within the specs, if any, of the term "URI" need to be replaced with "IRI"?

Proposed-03
Title: Target of RM Assertion parameters are confusing with respect to how they are specified and attached 

Proposed-04
Title: Whose Inactivity Timeout is it anyway? 

Proposed-05
Title: How can RMS communicate the Base Retransmission Interval, Exponential Backoff and Inactivity Timeout values? 

Proposed-06
Title: Classification of References (normative vs. non-normative) is needed 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed-01
Title: Should DA be separate assertion or parameter 
Description: The resolution to issue i009 [2], created an element for DeliveryAssurance: 
        <wsrm:DeliveryAssertion mode="[AtLeastOnce|AtMostOnce|ExactlyOnce]" ordered="[xs:boolean]"? ...="" > 
The question that was not resolved as part of that discussion is whether the element should be a child 
of <wsrm:RMAssrtion> or whether it should be a separate assertion. 
Justification: We need to make a decision 
Target: WS-RM Policy Assertion 
Type: technical 
Proposal: TBD 
Related: i009 [2] 
[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=1043  
[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14682/Relia#i009

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed-02
Title: Which occurances within the specs, if any, of the term "URI" need to be replaced with "IRI"?
Description: In closing i038, we determined that it would be necessary to review each use of the term 
URI to determine whether it needed to be replaced with "IRI" and thus require the addition of a 
reference to RFC3987.
Justification: Ensure correct use of the terminology within the spec wherever a URI could be an IRI. 
Target: WS-Reliable Messaging, WS-RM Policy Assertion 
Type: technical/editorial
Proposal: TBD 
Related: i038

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed-03
Title: Target of RM Assertion parameters are confusing with respect to how they are specified and attached 
Description: 
Currently the WS-RM Policy Assertion describes four distinctive parameters in Section 2.1 [1]: Base Retransmission Interval, Exponential Backoff, Inactivity Timeout and Acknowledgement Interval. Further, these parameters are scoped with respect to two distinct roles as summarized below:
RMS: 
-- Base Retransmission Interval (BRI) 
-- Exponential Backoff (EB) 
-- Inactivity Timeout (IT) 
RMD: 
-- Inactivity Timeout (IT) 
-- Acknowledgement Interval (AI) 
Clearly there is a separation between which roles these assertions would apply in the specification.  However, the definition of the RM assertion includes ALL of the parameters regardless of the role.  This causes a problem in interpreting what is being intended in Section 2.3 [1] which describes attachment of the policy.