[Fwd: Comments on WS-Reliabilty CD 0.992]

[Sunil Kunisetty <Sunil.Kunisetty@oracle.com>]

 Few comments on the CD 0.992 draft from Martin Chapman.

 Tom,

 Can we discuss this on the next week's call?

 -Sunil


> Only one area needs major tree surgery: section 1.7 should be merged with appendix II and placed in its own top level section. This is the part of the doc that threw me most.
>
> The rest are (minor) suggestions to improve readability and comprehension.
> -----
>
> Line 74: editorial: change
>
> "The purpose of WS-Reliability is to address reliable messaging requirements, which become
> critical, for example, when using Web Services in B2B applications. SOAP [SOAP1.2] over HTTP
> [RFC2616] is not sufficient when an application-level messaging protocol must also address
> reliability and security. This specification is intended as an initial proposal for defining reliability in
> the context of current Web Services standards. The specification borrows from previous work in

>
> messaging and transport protocols, e.g., SOAP, and the ebXML Message Service [ebMS]
>
> to
>
> "When using Web Services in B2B and other peer-to-peer environments, SOAP [SOAP1.2] over HTTP
> [RFC2616] is not sufficient in addressing application-level messaging protocol issues such as
> reliability and security. This specification  defines reliability in
> the context of current Web Services standards, in particular at the SOAP level.
> The specification borrows from previous work in
> messaging and transport protocols, such as SOAP and the ebXML Message Service [ebMS]"
>
> line 81: editorial: change
>
> "in the current specifications, we will"
>
> to
>
> "This specification defines"
>
> line 87: editorial: change
>
> "Guaranteed message ordering for delivery, within a context delimited using a group
> ID."
>
> to
>
> "The grouping of messages into a sequence for the  Guaranteed delivery of those messages in order."
>
> Line 89: editorial change
>
> "Within the scope of this specification, the following features are investigated:"
>
> to
>
> "This specification  covers the following features of reliability:"
>
> Line 93: editorial: change
>
> "Some messaging features are not mentioned in this specification. They are considered out of
> scope, yet the design of this specification is preserving compatibility with some of them. They are:"
>
> "Within this specification, the following are deemed out of scope:"
>
> Line 101 - 114: editorial: delete all these lines  as its castes too much doubt on the spec.
>
> Line 150 - 271: editorial: I find it strange that we launch into example messages without any form of introduction.
> Maybe better to  insert a paragraph to explain a scenario from whish these messages are derived. And also there really should be an fuller explainaion of a the reliability elements.
>
> line 358: editorial: the whole of section looks out of place. It uses a lot of terminology that has not yet been introduced. It is also strongly related to appendix II. I suggest moving the whole of 1.7 into a new top level section after section 5 (i.e. make it a new section 6) and then merge in appendix II.
>
> line 444: editorial: I suggest adding a paragraph or two here that does provide a very high overview of the model. The subsequenst sub section dive into details without giving the reader an overview on which to elaborate. I suggest using the text in the pre-Tc version that was published:
>
> "In the Reliable Messaging Model described in this document, the sender node sends a
> message to the receiver node directly (i.e., intermediaries are assumed to be
> transparent in this specification). The receiver node sends back an Acknowledgment
> message to the sender node. Figure 1 shows this model.
> Figure 1 Messaging Model"
>
> This should provide enough context
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________