[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
Peter Niblett wrote:
That should be fine.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. That should be fine, too.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_Mon12Sept_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 section7.2.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 (puttingaws-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,schemalocations 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 MemberLily Liu<lily.liu@webmethods.com> Towsn@lists.oasis-open.org13/09/2005 22:24 ccSubject[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]