Re: [wsrm] editorial comments on 101

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

I  incorporated all of Jacques edits into contribution 1.01F, with my 
own edit on the following text,  proposed for the introduction paragraph 
to Table 26:

"This specification supports Reliable Messaging capabilities for WSDL 
1.1 [WSDL 1.1] One-way and Request-response operation types only. While 
a Request-Reponse operation can use any of the three RM-Reply patterns 
to receive acknowledgments or faults, a One-way operation SHOULD (for 
WS-I BP 1.0 conformance) only use either Callback or Poll RM-Reply 
pattern. Table 26 indicates recommended usage of reply patterns, for twe 
WSDL operaton typed. An RMP MUST, at leat, support the recommended 
combinations in Table 26, for the reply patterns it supports. However, 
an RMP is not requried to disinguish WSDL operation types."

Jacques Durand wrote:

> Editorial changes suggested below:
> ("Table 26" is the most significant change I suggest)
>
> Jacques
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>
> L68: is not --> are not
>
> L171:
> "information" is too vague: need at least to say it is part of
> the message:
> "subset of message data that is intended for the consumer..."
>
> L180: "when invoked, the operation..." -->
> "when invoked on a Receiving RMP, the operation..."
>
> L214, L218, L222:
> Proposed better wording:
> "The XXXX RM-Reply pattern is used if the..."
> -->
> "When the XXXX RM-Reply pattern is in use, the..."
>
> L222: "..a second" --> "..a separate"
>
> L246: "e.g., For..." --> "e.g. for..."
>
> L383: Appendix A --> Appendix B
>
> Figure 6:
> - the annotations "soap:envelope" and "soap:header" are missing
> on the right half.
> - the comment (L452) should tell more:
> "Fig 6 shows the structure... in the SOAP Envelope, for two samples of 
> messages.
> On the left side of the figure, a Reliable Message is characterized by 
> the presence of
> the wsrm:Request element. On the right side, a response to a Reliable 
> Message
> contains a wsrm:Response element. Both wsrm:Request and wsrm:Response 
> elements may be
> found in the same message."
>
> Table 26:
> "Support matrix", "Supported" are not the appropriate terms:
> This table is more about Usage than Capability, but currently mixes 
> both notions,
> with capability ("supported") and usage ("disallowed").
> It should tell users what reply patterns should be used with what 
> operation type.
> It is not about the capability of an RMP, which can in fact support 
> the "disallowed"
> case as well, as mentioned in the notes, since the RMP is not required 
> to distinguish
> teh operation types.
> I suggest to introduce the table as *recommended* usage of <reply 
> pattern / op type>:
> L1218: "...One-Way operations can only use.." --> "...One-Way 
> operations should only use.."
> Table: replace "Supported" by "Yes", and "Disallowed" by "No" in the 
> table.
> L1219: Introduce table as:
> "Table 26 indicates the recommended usage of reply patterns, depending 
> on the WSDL operation type. An RMP is REQUIRED to support at least all 
> recommended combinations,
>
> although an RMP is not required to distinguish the operation types."
>
>
> L1227:
> better wording: replace:
> "The Receiving RMP can do whatever..."
> with:
> "The Receiving RMP may determine its behavior entirely based on 
> message header content,
> regardless of the WSDL definition."
>
>

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