wd 12, section 1.3 1.4, lines 287 to 289, and type at line 301

lines 287 to 289

This specification presents
some alternatives regarding underlying specifications (e.g. SOAP 1.1/1.2,

WSS1.0/1.1, and WS
specifications that may support the reliability function). This does not imply
that a

conforming implementation
must support them all, nor that it is free to support any option.

 

Does info here on
conformance profiles align with key word explanation of MAY in 1.4? That is,
should we say:

When there are alternatives
(indicated by MAY of section 1.4) the precise impact on implementations is
given by a conformance profile.

 

Also, I am confused by the
language in line 288. Does it mean

 

Implementations do not need
to support all alternatives discussed, and do not need to support any specific
alternative.

 

Is this really what we want
to say? Or do we want to say that the implementation will implement the
alternatives specified in a conformance profile, and that at least one
conformance profile MUST be implemented. 

 

I still think this still
needs more precision and it must be true that a MSH must have some
implementation of reliable messaging. Otherwise, ebMS fails to realize its
intent of supporting reliable, secure delivery of business messages..

 

1.4 line 301 needs a space
between words "in the"