editorial comments on Latest editor's draft

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Attached is a text file with my editorial comments on the latest 
editor's draft.

There is a technical clarification on the use of  soap faults for the 
response reply pattern. 

There are several edits to eliminate "acknolwedgement message" or "fault 
message" to replace with rm-reply terminology.

With these editorial changes applied, It is my opinion that we have a 
document which is ready for a TC candidate draft for vote.

Tom Rutt

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt		email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133


Summary of Comments on
WS-Reliability-2004-02-26- tercom.pdf
Page: 10
Sequence number: 1
Section 1.7 Lines 316 - 319 - Change to " Reliable 
Messaging Fault Indication - An indication, included in an 
RM:Response element, which refers to a previous message 
which encountered a Reliable Messaging fault condition at 
the Receiving RMP. It signals to the sender of the referred 
message that there was a failure to receive or process the 
message."

Sequence number: 2
Section 1.7 Lines 310 - 314 : Change to "Acknowledgment 
Indication - An indication, included in an RM:Response 
element, which refers to a prevous message dellivered by 
the Receiving RMP. An Acknolwedgment signals that the 
acknolwdged message has been successfully delivered, 
meaning that it has satisfied all the reliabiliyt 
requiements placed on it for delivery."

Sequence number: 3
Section 1.7 Lines 321 - 322: Change to " Reliable Messaging 
Reply (or RM-Reply): An indication in an RM:Response 
element, referring to a previous message, that is either an 
Acknowledgement Indication or a Reliable Messaging Fault 
Indication. "

Page: 14
Sequence number: 1
Section 2.2 Line 447 : Change "and the Acknowledgement 
Message" to "and the RM Reply"

Sequence number: 2
Section 2.2 (1): The subtitle and Figure 1 title should be 
"Response Message Reply Pattern". This is the correct name 
of the pattern.

Sequence number: 3
Section 2.2 Line452 : change "Acknowledgement Message is 
contained in" to "the RM Reply is contained in"

Page: 15
Sequence number: 1
Section 2.2 Line 471 : Change "The Acknowledgment Message 
is contained in" to "The RM Reply is contained in"

Page: 16
Sequence number: 1
Section 3.1 line 495 : change "acknolwedgement message" to 
"RM Reply for that message"

Sequence number: 2
Section 3.1 Line 500 : change "sender RMP fails to send the 
message (i.e., no Acknowledgement is received), " to 
"sender RMP
cannot guarantee that the message has been successfully 
delivered by the receiving RMP, "

Page: 25
Sequence number: 1
Section 4.2.3 Line 778 : Change "An Acknoledgemebnt message 
(or Fault Message)" to "An rm-Reply"

Page: 26
Sequence number: 1
Section 4.2.3 Line 787: The statement "The value of this 
element in Request ..." is wrong. The requirements are 
stated in the documentation of the response element., 
Delete this sentence.

Page: 28
Sequence number: 1
Section 4.3 Line 833 thru 836: change in each occurance on 
these lines "Acknowledgement message" to "rm-Reply" 

Sequence number: 2
Section 4.3 Line 837 and 838: change sentence to "The 
response to a PollRequest message includes rm-reply 
information about prior messages."

Page: 29
Sequence number: 1
Section 4.3.1 Lines 864, 870, 872, and 875: change 
"Acknowledgement Message" to "rm-reply" and "Acknowledgment 
Messages" to "rm-replies"

Page: 31
Sequence number: 1
Section 4.4 Lines 941 and 944: these two paragraphs need to 
be recast as a bullet list under line 941.

Page: 33
Sequence number: 1
4.4.2.1 Line 972 : change title to "ReplyRange Element"

Page: 34
Sequence number: 1
Section 4.5 Line 1000: change "invalid or because of the" 
to "invalid due to"

Sequence number: 2
Section 4.5 Line 1009 and 1010: Change "the reason for the 
SOAP Fault would be due to problems caused by the message 
payload" to "the reason for the SOAP fault would be due to 
problems associated with the WSDL operation message payload. 
(e.g.., a problem with the soap:body of a request message 
or the inability of the receiving RMP to return the WSDL 
response in the soap:body of when using the response rm-
reply pattern).

Sequence number: 3
Section 4.5 Lines 1024 thru 1031: These two paragraphs need 
to be rewritten. Change to the following:
"When using the response rm-reply pattern, a wsdl operation 
reply will not always be available for the receiving RMP to 
return with the rm-response. This will occur when there is 
a reliable messaging fault for the message in the request, 
or when the message in the request is a duplicate of a 
prior delivered message with duplicate elimination in use.

When a receiving RMP cannot return the wsdl operation 
response for a request using the response reply pattern, it 
MUST return the rm response in a SOAP Fault message. If the 
rm fault encountered was due to a problem with the request 
header element, a soap client fault MUST be returned. If 
the rm fault encountered was due to a problem with 
processing by the receiving RMP (including the inability to 
return a response due to duplicate elimination), a 
soap:server fault must be returned.

Page: 36
Sequence number: 1
Section 4.5.l Line 1039: insert the following preamble at 
the beginning of the paragraph, to "When the rm fault is 
returned using the response rm reply pattern the following 
apply:" and place the two sentences in a bullet list.

Page: 37
Sequence number: 1
Section 4.5.2 Line 1049: insert the following preamble at 
the beginning of the paragraph, to "When the rm fault is 
returned using the
response rm reply pattern the following apply:" and plasce 
the two sentences in a bullet list.

Page: 61
Sequence number: 1
Line 1809 - delete this ResponsDisallowed fault code, since 
it is handled by a soap fault, not an rm fault.