[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Now completed [Re: Work in progress [Fwd: Changes in update tocontribution]]
All work listed below is complete. I know of no outstanding action items or issues that should affect the document[1]. In a quick scan of the final "no changes" PDF[2], the worst thing I noticed was an apparent header that appears at the bottom of a page. Not bad. Note that I uploaded to different -diff files[3,4], depending upon the version you wish to use as your basis for comparison. thanx, doug [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8688/WS-Reliability-2004-08-12.sxw [2] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8689/WS-Reliability-2004-08-12.pdf [3] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8690/WS-Reliability-2004-08-12-diff.pdf [4] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8691/WS-Reliability-2004-08-12-bigdiff.pdf On 12-Aug-04 17:19, Doug Bunting wrote: > As noted in the attached email to the editing team early this morning, > Jacques and I found a way forward that works for us on Section 2. I am > now working on the rest of the edits needed for tonight's (final!) > draft. Most of those edits have been discussed only within the editing > team. > > As a checklist for myself and to allow everyone to check I am do not > forget something, these changes include (all line numbers from latest > contribution[1]): > > * updated content lengths that Iwasa provided > > * follow through on editorial suggestions Mark Peel just provided > (thanks again Mark!) to the editing team; we are at the 'add "the" > before' point! > > > * change clause starting on line 175 to read > " > ... (2) as a rule guaranteeing that if “Submit” completes successfully > for a payload on the sending side, the “Deliver” operation completes > successfully for this payload on the receiving side or else “Notify” (of > failure) will be invoked on the sending side > " > based on some comments Jacques made on the "proofed version of 1.082 > thread". > > > * remove first "only" in line 287, a typographic error in Mark's > contribution > > * avoid the "successful invocation" implications in the first sentences > of Sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 (line 524 for example) with rewordings such as > "When the GuaranteedDelivery Agreement Item is enabled, one of the two > following outcomes SHALL occur for each Submit invocation on a Sending > RMP:" > > * change clause in line 828 from "A Receiving RMP supporting a received > PollRequest" to "A Receiving RMP that receives a supported form of > PollRequest", clarifying the meaning a bit > > > * replace two sentences starting at line 1031 with > " > If the specific RM Fault encountered was due to a problem with the > Request header element, the Receiving RMP MUST set the value of the > soap:Fault@faultcode attribute to "soap:Client" (for SOAP 1.1 messages) > or the soap12:Fault/Code/Value element to "soap12:Sender" (for SOAP 1.2 > messages). If the specific RM Fault encountered was due to a problem > with processing by the Receiving RMP, the Receiving RMP MUST set the > value of the soap:Fault@faultcode attribute to "soap:Server" (for SOAP > 1.1 messages) or the soap12:Fault/Code/Value element to > "soap12:Receiver" (for SOAP 1.2 messages). > " > to correct the SOAP 1.1 "versus" 1.2 issue Jacques pointed out and was > mentioned in a response on the "Contribution suggestions just uploaded" > thread > > > * addition of Delivery failure to Table 25, near line 1056 as another > case for MessageProcessingFailure, based on resolution of comments from > Jacques which started on the "proposed edits for enhancing > composability" thread > > * reword parenthetical comment starting at line 1092 to "(...; that is, > any type not defined in this core namespace is allowed)", undoing a > change to our meaning here and making the wording less confusing > > * change introduction to bullets starting at line 1115 to "Groups > undergoing termination on the Sending RMP and the Receiving RMP > pass through the following states:", avoiding discussion of a > termination process and clarifying the states in question > > * strike "associated with WSDL elements" at line 1809, based on a number > of questions including the original "what changed in 1.08?" email. No > voices raised against this change. > > > > Again, I am starting with the contribution I uploaded early this > morning. In turn, that document is based on Mark Peel's 1.083 > contribution[2] and some of my previous contribution[3] (started with > the 1.082 root[4]). > > thanx, > doug > > [1] > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8680/WS-Reliability-2004-08-11-drb.pdf > > [2] > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8621/WS-Reliability-1083-Contrib-Peel.pdf > > [3] > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8587/WS-Reliability-2004-08-07-drb.pdf > > [4] > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8498/WS-Reliability-2004-08-05.pdf
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]