RE: [ws-rx] PR022: concrete proposal

["Doug Bunting (WSSP)" <Douglas.R.Bunting@microsoft.com>]

Gil,

Regardless of any technical changes needed, the language should be tightened.  How about "To" instead of "In order to" for example?  "For a single Sequence," "for the Sequence being closed," "for the same Sequence," and probably a few other phrases could all be "for this Sequence" or, perhaps, "for the [closing | terminating] Sequence".

Thanx,
    doug

From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:gpilz@bea.com]
Sent: January 10, 2007 12:17
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] PR022: concrete proposal

Attached is a concrete proposal for PR022. It reflects what I understand to be the group's consensus opinion around previous proposals in this vein. Note that it doesn't include some manual changes like updates to the schema and examples.

One question still outstanding with this proposal concerns Jacque's amendment to make the inclusion of LastMsgNumber mandatory in cases where /wsrm:CreateSequenceResponse/wsrm:IncompleteSequenceBehavior is set to DiscardEntireSequence. As I indicated on last weeks concall, I think switching between SHOULD and MUST on a sub-elements of some messages depending upon the value of an optional sub-element of another message is too complicated. I think the RFC 2119 definition of SHOULD ("...but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course") adequately covers the necessity to consider the effects in the case of DiscardEntireSequence.

- gp
<<...>> <<...>>