Re: [wsn] Draft version h

[Steve Graham <sggraham@us.ibm.com>]

I updated BaseN and produced draft "i".
 I will upload that version momentarily.  Meanwhile, I will comment
on David's email relating to draft "h":
Please see <sgg>comments</sgg>

sgg
++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, IBM Software Group, Web services and SOA
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++

David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>

05/27/2005 05:17 PM

To	wsn@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject	[wsn] Draft version h

Attached please find draft "h" of BaseN.  I
started by accepting all changes in draft "g", on the assumption
that we could recover that information from draft g itself.  Please
double-check everything here for typos.

I have fully executed on these issues in this revision:

• 2.33
• 2.48
• 2.51
• 2.52

<sgg>agreed</sgg>
These appeared already to have been done, whether by myself
or others.  All of them will need to be verified:

• 2.6 <sgg>not sure which version, perhaps draft 'g'?</sgg>
• 2.36 <sgg>not sure which version, perhaps draft 'g'?</sgg>
• 2.39<sgg>David made these modifications in draft 'g', dated 5.19</sgg>
• 2.43<sgg>contained in draft 'f'</sgg>
• 2.50<sgg>contained in draft 'g'</sgg>
• 2.53<sgg>contained in draft 'g'</sgg>
• 2.54<sgg>contained in draft 'g'</sgg>

I have partially executed
on these (see notes below) <sgg>and
sgg's comments on those notes </sgg>:

• 2.1
• 2.23
• 2.24
• 2.34
• 2.46
• 2.49

These remain to done, though
some of them have been started

• 2.25 (need to define and describe Destroy message) <sgg>contained in draft 'i'</sgg>
• 2.32 (schema changes needed)<sgg>contained in draft 'f', what schema changes were you referring to?</sgg>
• 2.45 (may already be done -- I didn't check)<sgg>contained in draft 'f'</sgg>
• 2.46 (may need schema changes -- see below)<sgg>contained in draft 'i'</sgg>
• 2.47<sgg>contained in draft 'i'</sgg>

I've also made a few editorial
changes.  I've explained the reasons behind them in comments. <sgg>and
I responded to many of them with comments in draft 'i'.</sgg>

In trying to execute on some of the partially executed issues, I've run
across a few potential issues:

• 2.1 (Topics option) I don't believe we have quite made a clean break here.  For example, FixedTopicSet is still REQUIRED (by its cardinality) regardless of whether topics are supported.<sgg>so if you don't support topics, pick a boolean value and its value won't matter, will it?</sgg>  Also, GetCurrentMessage requires topics <sgg>right, getCurrentMessage on a given topic, if requestor invokes this, knowing the NP doesn't support topics, then it shouldn't be surprised when a failur occurs</sgg>.  I'd like to open an omnibus issue for this (and other points I've already sent to the list) and at least clarify whether the current status is acceptable.
• Issues 2.24 and 2.25 interact.<sgg>I assume you meant to say 2.23 and 2.25?</sgg>  If an NP or SM is not a Resource, what does the boilerplate about WS-RAP mean?  I've removed that boilerplate for the nonce (more by accident than proactively).  There should probably be a general statement in section 2 to the effect that WS-RAP applies where WS-R behavior is supported, or whatever we really want to say. <sgg>please review draft 'i' and see if it is covered</sgg>
• The useRaw element should only occur once.  I've added a MUST to that effect, but ideally this should be in the schema. <sgg>this would be hard to specify in XSD, not all constraints can be modelled in XSD</sgg>  Currently, we put useRaw inside {useRaw|any}*, which says it can occur any number of times.  Either it should be before everything else, with cardinality 0 .. 1, or we should find another way to impose the constraint in the schema.
• 2.47 Do we want to include attribute extensibility everywhere? <sgg>I am neutral</sgg>
• Is 2.34 subsumed by 2.49, or am I missing some distinction? <sgg>They are similar, but distinct.  2.49 explicitly forbids silent fault.</sgg>
• Around line 540, we say that the NP MAY refuse to process subscriptions and later it MAY return a fault.  What is the behavior if it doesn't? <sgg>does the text related to executing 2.49 clarify?</sgg>
• Section 6 needs to be boiled down a bit.<sgg>not sure what this means</sgg>

[attachment
"wsn-WS-BaseNotification-1.3-draft-01h.doc" deleted by Steve
Graham/Raleigh/IBM]