OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsn message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [wsn] Issue verification for 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, 3.26, 3.27, and 3.28


Hi, Peter,

I also had the impression that ConsumerReference is optional. We had
PublisherRegistrationReference optional as well. Does this issue resolution
require it be changed?

Thanks.

Lily

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Niblett [mailto:peter_niblett@uk.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:52 AM
To: David Hull
Cc: wsn@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsn] Issue verification for 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, 3.26, 3.27, and
3.28


David

Thanks for reviewing these changes. I have a couple of further comments

WSN 3.23. You suggest renaming "DestroyRegistration" in the XSD. Are you
referring to line 988 in the schema definition? All the other messages in
the XSD appear to use the convention that the request message is called
OperationName and the response is called OperationNameResponse. So I am
happy with what Lily has done here.

WSN 3.24. Should the second EPR be optional? In the issues list I  was
going by the minutes at
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsn/download.php/14375/f2f_Mon1
2Sept_PM.txt
 which say that there's always a second EPR. However you are quite right to
point out that we were largely discussing this in the contact of
demand=false. I don't remember us examining the case when demand=true, but
clearly we need to handle this as well. I agree that it is unreasonable to
require the NotificationBroker to return the second EPR in this case, so I
suggest we leave the schema as it is for now (minOccurs="0"), and revisit
the words in 6.1


Peter



                                                                           
             David Hull                                                    
             <dmh@tibco.com>                                               
                                                                        To 
             14/09/2005 22:28          Peter Niblett/UK/IBM@IBMGB,         
                                       wsn@lists.oasis-open.org            
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: [wsn] Issue verification for    
                                       3.23, 3.24, 3.25, 3.26, 3.27, and   
                                       3.28                                
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




I believe I signed up to do this as well, so here's what I came up
with.  I apologize in advance for any dumb mistakes herein.  It's been a
busy day and my brain is a bit tired.

WSN 3.23 The text as it stands is consistent with the agreed
resolution.  However, it might be more consistent overall to rename the
"DestroyRegistration" element "DestroyRegistrationRequest" in the XSD.

WSN 3.24 I thought the agreed approach was to have the second EPR still
be optional in the case of demand-based publishers.  The XSD reflects
this, but I didn't see it mentioned in the description around line 529.
I'm guessing I probably missed something, either in the text or the
issues list or both.

WSN 3.25 is OK

WSN 3.26 I don't believe the text mentions that the faults taken from
BaseN are defined there.  Also, the WSDL still refers to
"wsn-brw:TopicNotSupportedFault", which (I think) should be wsn-bw instead.

WSN 3.27 is OK

WSN 3.28 I don't see an approach agreed in the issues list, but I may
not have the very latest version.  In any case, it appears that the
CreatePullPoint operation is no longer required.  This approach would
resolve the issue to my satisfaction.  I note, however, that the text
around line 218 still mentions CreatePullPoint as part of
NotficationBroker.

Peter Niblett wrote:

>Lily
>
>Thanks for making these updates. I have reviewed them...
>
>WSN3.23
>- Changes look good, except that you don't have change bars in section
7.2.
>I think we should try to have change bars in our Public Review 2, so that
>the changes since PR1 draft are visible to everyone. So if possible, could
>you insert change bars here.
>
>- One other point I noticed: the [action] URI at line 676 contains a space
>character between brw-1/ and Publisher. This should be removed.
>
>WSN 3.24
>I have a few changes to the text that was included in the issues doc:
>- Line 530 talks about a "NotificationConsumer WS-Resource". I don't think
>there's any need for the thing actually to be a WS-Resource. Could you
>change this to say "NotificationConsumer resource"?
>- Line 532 "Any Notiifications Messages" should be "Any Notification
>Messages".
>- Line 535. Please remove the last sentence (which got into the issues log
>by mistake) "That mechanism is not defined by this specification".
>Also
>- Line 964: ConsumerReference in the XSD should have minOccurs="1" not "0"
>
>WSN 3.25
>
>Verified ok
>
>WSN 3.26
>
>- Lines 1110 - 1118. You should remove the WSDL message definitions for
>these faults.
>- Lines 1229/1231. Need to change these to use wsn-bw: not wsn-brw:
>
>WSN 3.27
>As well as changing the URI, WS-Addressing have moved the schema (putting
a
>ws-addr.xsd into its location). You need to change the schema location at
>line 873 so that it becomes
>schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/ws-addr.xsd";
>
>
>WSN3.28.
>- In line 218 you say that NotificationBroker aggregates the
>CreatePullPoint interface. This should be deleted
>- In line 342 you should say  "aggregates the three portTypes" instead of
>"aggregates the four portTypes"
>- Lines 1130-1133 - you should remove the WSDL message definition for the
>PullNotificationNotSupportedFault
>
>
>Also at today's meeting we decided to change all our Namespace URIs,
schema
>locations and [action] MAPs to use -2 instead of -1. So could you change
>all the
>
>http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsn/b-1 to http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsn/b-2
>and similarly for bw, br, brw.
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Peter Niblett
>IBM Senior Technical Staff Member
>
>
>
>

>             Lily Liu

>             <lily.liu@webmeth

>             ods.com>                                                   To

>                                       wsn@lists.oasis-open.org

>             13/09/2005 22:24                                           cc

>

>                                                                   Subject

>                                       [wsn] Draft for issues 3.23, 3.24,

>                                       3.25, 3.26, 3.27, and 3.28

>

>

>

>

>

>

>
>
>
>[attachment "wsn-ws-brokered_notification-1.3-spec-pr-Sept-13.doc" deleted
>by Peter Niblett/UK/IBM]
>
>
>
>




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]