Re: [ws-tx] Issue 108 - Other Editorial Issues Surrounding AI#0057Review for RFC 2119 (I#097), Submission 2

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

> > 1. Section 2. Proposed by Wilkinson
>  
>
>>The Atomic Transaction coordination context MUST flow on all 
>>application  messages involved with the transaction.
>>Change proposed in Line 145: Change "must" to "MUST".
>>
>>>>Comment: In this section, this is insufficiently defined to propose a requirement. The specification has not yet defined how an "application message is involved in a transaction". This concept is not normatively introduced until Section 4.2. Appropriate normative statement is made on lines 267-269 on conditions that a AT coordination context flows with a request message.
>>>>        
>>>>
>Andrew Wilkinson3 wrote: This part of this issue is addressed by issue 106 which proposes that the text be modified to read:
>
>"The Atomic Transaction coordination context flows in application messages involved with the transaction and MUST be represented in CoordinationContext format as described in WS-Coordination [WSCOOR]. For application messages that use a SOAP binding the CoordinationContext MUST flow in the SOAP header of the message."
>
mm2: Andrew, the original comment regarding Section 2 was more focused 
on the point at which it is addressed in the specification. As you 
acknowledged, normative language occurs later in the specification in 
Sections 4.1 (with the referenced change) and 4.2. Yet, in Section 2 
we've not defined what application messages are involved in a 
transaction. Perhaps we should consider:

    Proposed change: The Atomic Transaction coordination context MUST
    flow on all application messages involved with the transaction.
    Change proposed in Line 145: Change "must" to "MUST".

    Revision: The Atomic Transaction coordination context flows on all
    application messages involved with the transaction as specified in
    Section 4.
    This supports the detailed requirements found in Section 4.1 and
    4.2, and as proposed in I#105. It also alleviates redundancy of
    specified requirements.

Thanks.