comments on CD2

Comments on
Ebms_core-3.0-spec-wd-12:

 

(inconsistency)

L649, L754, L775, L776,
L1224: @eb:mpflow --> @eb:mpf

as well as in examples p.25,
p.26

 

(inconsistency)

Fig 7: replace Pipe by MPF

 

(inconsistency)

L749: remove full sentence
"The Pull mode is always..."

 

(inconsistency)

L761: replace full sentence

"The MPF associated
with this message must... p-Mode.messagePartitionFlows.)"

with

"The MEP associated
with this message (e.g. as specified by P-Mode.businessCollaboration) is a
One-way Pull."

 

(editorial clean-up)

L823: replace 
"This is why the reliability of the complete One-way Pull..."

with

"The reliability of the
One-way Pull..."

 

(more precise wording)

L890:

replace "...reliability
header, meaning that no acknowledgement is expected for this response."

with:

"...reliability
header."

 

(redundant with later
section)

remove the last part of the
paragraph: L891-894.

replace with:

"A wsr:Request header
could be present in addition to wsr:Response, in case some specific reliability
requirement is associated with the pulled message (see 8.3)"

 

(unnecessary)

Section 5.1.3.6 (id
attribute)

 

(editorial clean-up)

L1061: 

remove "details TBD"

 

(editorial clean-up)

L1320: replace keyword MUST
--> should

(this is not a verifyiable,
normative requirement)

L1321: replace keyword MUST
--> must

 

(editorial clean-up)

L1368: 

remove line.

 

(inconsistency)

L2280, L2364:

Appendix R --> Appendix
10.

 

(more precise wording)

L2317:

"... as a response to a
previously received reliable message."

with:

"... as a response to a
message received reliably."

 

(more precise wording)

L2319, L2458:

remove "reliable".

 

(more precise wording)

L2325:

"... status of a
previously sent message ( e.g. ... that a reliable message..."

with:

"... status of a
message sent reliably (e.g.... that the message..."

 

(more precise wording)

reword:

"Figure 10: Request
message sent reliably"

 

(more precise wording)

reword:

"Figure 11: Response
message sent reliably"

 

(more precise wording)

L2339:

replace this sentence with:

"Depending on the
reliability required for a request message, an RMP must support 

some or all of the following
contracts:"

 

(more precise wording)

L2359, 2360: reword as:

"These contracts may be
combined, e.g. Exactly-Once results from the combination 

of At-Least-Once and
At-Most-Once."

 

(more precise wording)

Add after L2378:

"An ebMS message is a
duplicate of another if it has same eb:MessageId value."

 

(inconsistency)

L2484:

replace OpCtx-Reliability
with: P-Mode.reliability

 

(more precise wording)

L507 (2.3.1): 

"over an MPF"
--> "over the same MPF"

 

(editorial clean-up)

move line 645 ("it also
indicates....") --> line 640 just after "between two parties"

 

----------------------- 

Appendix 10:

Replace L2638-L2642 with:

“Only the binding to WS-Reliability is defined in the
present document. A binding to WS-ReliableMessaging 

will be added when the specification becomes final and standardized.”

Propose to remove 10.2 from core spec and to add it in the ebMS3
adjunct document instead.