|Subject:||Now completed [Re: Work in progress [Fwd: Changes in update tocontribution]]|
|From:||Doug Bunting (Doug...@Sun.COM)|
|Date:||Aug 12, 2004 11:57:51 pm|
All work listed below is complete. I know of no outstanding action items or issues that should affect the document. In a quick scan of the final "no changes" PDF, 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.
 http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8688/WS-Reliability-2004-08-12.sxw  http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8689/WS-Reliability-2004-08-12.pdf  http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8690/WS-Reliability-2004-08-12-diff.pdf  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):
* 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 and some of my previous contribution (started with the 1.082 root).