"despite some wording in the introduction"

[David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>]

Lines 105-110 of the 17 June draft read:

The NotificationProducer maintains a list of subscriptions (each subscription entry contains the Topic(s), a reference to the NotificationConsumer and possibly additional information). When it has a notification to distribute, the NotificationProducer matches the notification against the interest registered in each Subscription known to it. If it identifies a match it issues the Notification to the NotificationConsumer associated with that Subscription.

First, technically the NotificationProducer would maintain a set of subscriptions, not a list (list implies ordering and allows duplication, set is unordered and without duplication, albeit subscriptions can be identical in everything but their unique ID).

More importantly, my understanding is that the interactions defined in WSBN are common to all delivery methods, whether direct, brokered, gatewayed or whatever else.  If I want to make a subscription, I subscribe, and it's up to the rest of the system to decide how the notifications reach the consumer.

Similarly, lines 114-117 strongly imply that WSBN covers only the direct scenario, and that direct and brokered are the only games in town:

The configuration where a NotificationConsumer is subscribed directly to the NotificationProducer is referred to as the “direct” or “point-to-point” notification pattern. There are other variations of the Notification pattern, where the NotificationConsumer is subscribed to an intermediary NotificationBroker service. These are covered by the [WS-Brokered Notification] specification.

I would propose to strike 114-117 entirely, and replace the passage from 105-110 with "The NotificationProducer arranges for the proper notifications to reach the NotificationConsumer, whether by notifying the NotificationConsumer directly or by delegating to some other facility."