Re: [ws-rx] Revised proposal for i053

[Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>]

a nit or three below

On 03/11/05 15:42, Marc Goodner wrote:

> After reviewing our previous proposal for i053 we have come to the 
> conclusion that the only URI references that need to be updated to IRI 
> are those that are inherited from WS-Addressing. There are three of 
> these changes from URI to IRI are all around WS-A Action, two are in 
> the same paragraph saying that unless there is a value (a IRI) for 
> Action derived from WS-A rules it is a value defined in WS-RM (a URI). 
> The other is about using the default value for Fault (a IRI) from WS-A 
> in Action.
>
>  
>
> It is not necessary to change the sequence identifier to IRI as we 
> previously proposed. Therefore we propose the following changes to 
> satisfy i053, 
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i053.
>
>  
>
> These are the references to URI that should and should not be updated 
> to IRI in WS-RM [1]:
>
> 111: keep URI
>
> 122: IRI
>
> 123: IRI
>
> 124: keep URI
>
> 291: keep URI
>
> 321: keep URI
>
following 122 change, should be IRI

> 357: keep URI
>
> 451: keep URI
>
> 511: keep URI
>
> 556: keep URI
>
> 613: keep URI
>
> 656: keep URI
>
Why is this the only Identifier handled as an attribute?  I do not see 
an issue about this inconsistency.  Is it already identified as an 
editorial action item to fix?

thanx,
    doug

> 695: IRI
>
>  
>
> Plus of course add the reference to the IRI spec.
>
> 1 wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-05.pdf  
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/15001/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-05.pdf
>
>  
>