Re: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9

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

Marc - thanks for the detailed review - comments inline.
-Doug

"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>
wrote on 06/05/2006 02:07:29 PM:
> WS-RM WD 13
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
> php/18451/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-13.pdf
>  
> Line numbers in this document are inaccurate,
particularly in 
> Section 2. I only use line numbers below with sections or pages 
> where there are not two of the same. 
>  
> I did not review the state tables given there
is another revision 
> planned. Similarly I did not examine the schema, message examples
or
> wsdl in any detail but plan to. Why are these section in that order?
> Doesn’t it make more sense to have the wsdl follow the schema?

Will discuss with editors.

> Section 2
> Change “and Transmits it” to “and transmits
it”.
> Change “that Sends” to “that sends”

Fixed (in WD14 in editor's playpen)

> Figure 2 is not legible.

Working on it - but a little mystery makes life exciting
 :-)

> Section 3.1
> Line 222, page 11 “none” does not need to be
in quotes.

Will discuss with editors but I think it might confuse
non-WSA
experts to not have it in quotes.

> Line 309, page 13 the 2119 term optional is used
and not in caps.

Fixed

> Section 3.2
> Line 347, page 14 the 2119 term may is used and
is not in caps.

Fixed
 
> Section 3.3
> Line 459, page 16 check for a space between”[URI])”
and “of”.

Fixed

> Section 3.5
> Line 530, page 18 change “below” to “Section
3.6”.

Fixed
  
> Section 3.6
> Line 558, page 19 reference to “Section Request
Acknowledgment” is 
> not consistent with references elsewhere in spec. Change “Section
> Request Acknowledgement” to “Section 3.5”.
> Line 562, page 19 “piggy-backing does not need
to be in quotes.
> Line 615, page 20 strike “Note:” as 2119 text
is used in the text 
> that follows it is more than a note.

Fixed
 
> Section 4
> The first two paragraphs of this section are
practically duplicates 
> of each other. The first paragraph can be stricken by adding a one
> sentence description of WSRMRequired after the second sentence of
> the second paragraph. I can raise this as a new issue if that is preferable.

Please do - since those paragraphs have been of
some concern to some
people I'd prefer to get agreement on it.

> Line 670, page 22 end sentence beginning on line
668 after “detected”.
> Line 676, page 22 change “defined in the version
of WS-Addressing 
> used in the message” to “defined in WS-Addressing” as we only 
> reference a single version of Addressing.
> Line 676, page 22 change “current version”
to “W3C Recommendation”
> Line 678, page 22 update to W3C Rec value, “http://www.w3.
> org/2005/08/addressing/fault”

For consistency I did this but I think we need
to revisit this since
WSA now says that .../addressing/fault SHOULD only
be used for WSA
faults - and we're talking about RM faults in this
section.  WSA
suggests that other specs define their own URI
- or am I reading
this wrong?

> Line 680, page 22 change “section 4 of WS-Addressing”
to “section 6 
> of WS-Addressing SOAP Binding”.
> Line 694, page 22 update to W3C Rec value, “http://www.w3.
> org/2005/08/addressing/fault”

Fixed
  
> Section 6
> Update [WS-Addressing] to point to Recommendation.
> W3C Recommendation, “Web Services Addressing
1.0 - Core”, May 2006.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-core-20060509/

>  
> W3C Recommendation, “Web Services Addressing
1.0 – SOAP Binding”, May 2006.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-soap-20060509/
>  
> Update [WS-Policy] to point to W3C Member Submission.
> W3C Member Submission, "Web Services Policy
Framework (WS-Policy)," 
> April 2006.
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-Policy-20060425/

>  
> Update [WS-PolicyAttachment] to point to W3C
Member Submission.
> W3C Member Submission, "Web Services Policy
Attachment (WS-PolicyAttachment)
> ," April 2006.
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-PolicyAttachment-20060425/


Fixed
 
> Section C
> Line 1469 change “non-normative” to “normative”.

Fixed
 
> Section E
> Line 1593 the TBD should be completed for PR.

Can you open an issue so we don't forget about
this?

> WS-RM Policy WD9
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
> php/18454/wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-09.pdf 
>  
> Section 4
> Update [WS-Policy] to point to W3C Member Submission.
> W3C Member Submission, "Web Services Policy
Framework (WS-Policy)," 
> April 2006.
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-Policy/ 
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-Policy-20060425/

>  
> Update [WS-PolicyAttachment] to point to W3C
Member Submission.
> W3C Member Submission,"Web Services Policy
Attachment (WS-PolicyAttachment)
> ," April 2006.
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-PolicyAttachment/

> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-PolicyAttachment-20060425/

>  
> Add reference to WSS 1.1 under [WSS] (as is done
in WS-RM).
> Anthony Nadalin, Chris Kaler, Phillip Hallam-Baker,
Ronald Monzillo, eds. "
> OASIS Web Services Security:
> SOAP Message Security 1.1 (WS-Security 2004)",
OASIS Standard 
> 200602, February 2006.

Fixed
  
> Section A
> Line 253 the TBD should be completed for PR.

can you include this in the same new issue as the
RM spec one?