ISSUE-1 Assert Protocol-2013 is spurious |
CLOSED |
Assertion Protocol-2013 is missing RFC 2119 language |
2009-07-27 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-2 Protocol-2020 is spurious |
CLOSED |
Assertion Protocol-2020 missing RFC 2119 language |
2009-07-27 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-3 Protocol-2023 is spurious |
CLOSED |
Assertion Protocol-2023 missing RFC 2119 language |
2009-07-27 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-4 Protocol-2024 needs restructuring |
CLOSED |
Protocol-2024 does not include RFC-2119 language, has large associated table |
2009-07-27 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-5 Protocol-2035 is redundant |
CLOSED |
Protocol-2035 is redundant |
2009-07-27 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-6 Protocol 2039 redundant |
CLOSED |
Protocol 2039 redundant, missing RFC 2119 language |
2009-07-28 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-7 Protocol-2041 is spurious |
CLOSED |
Protocol-2041 is spurious |
2009-07-29 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-8 Incorrect example, section C2 |
CLOSED |
Example in C2 contrary to Protocol-2029 |
2009-07-29 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-9 |
CLOSED |
Clarify wording of assertions that deal with fault subcodes |
2009-08-10 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-10 redundant assertions 2016 and 2017 |
CLOSED |
Combine redundant assertions 2016 and 2017 |
2009-08-10 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-11 requestURI in response message? |
CLOSED |
Should SOAPJMS_requestURI be in the response message? |
2009-08-24 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-12 Bad MIME terminating boundary |
CLOSED |
MIME multipart terminating boundary incorrect in Example C2 |
2009-09-15 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-13 Extra space in Schema |
CLOSED |
Soapjms schema issue |
2009-09-23 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-14 WSDL conformance statements missing |
CLOSED |
Apparently normative statements about WSDL are not written that way. |
2009-09-29 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-15 Incorrect use of RFC keywords |
CLOSED |
WSDL section of spec uses RFC 2119 keywords inappropriately |
2009-09-29 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-16 non-existent "soap" prefix |
CLOSED |
Section 3.4.5 refers to a non-existent "soap" prefix |
2009-10-20 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-17 References to RFC 3987 |
CLOSED |
References to RFC 3987 are incorrect, not consistent with expected use |
2009-10-26 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-18 consistency of references, acronyms |
CLOSED |
consistency of references, acronyms |
2009-10-26 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-19 3001, 3002, 3003 overlap |
CLOSED |
Normative statements 3001, 3002, 3003 overlap and/or are redundant |
2009-10-26 |
|
0 |
ISSUE-20 Statement 3004 lacks context, RFC 2119 keywords |
CLOSED |
Statement 3004 lacks context, RFC 2119 keywords |
2009-10-26 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-21 |
CLOSED |
4 |
2009-12-01 |
|
0 |
ISSUE-22 mphillip |
CLOSED |
Errors in Appendix C2 - MTOM example |
2010-01-25 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-23 mphillip |
CLOSED |
What to do with start parameter in contentType |
2010-01-25 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-24 mphillip |
CLOSED |
Precedence rules for jndiContextParameter |
2010-01-25 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-25 mphillip |
CLOSED |
URI example for jndiContextParameter |
2010-01-25 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-26 mphillip |
CLOSED |
Encoding URI parameters for use in WSDL |
2010-01-25 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-27 mphillip |
CLOSED |
Link to URI specification is incorrect |
2010-01-25 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-28 |
CLOSED |
topicReplyToName is missing from WSDL schema and the "Binding of Properties to URI" table |
2010-02-26 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-29 |
CLOSED |
In 2.6.2.3. the behaviout of the responding node is too prescriptive about the destination to which the response must be sent |
2010-02-26 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-30 |
CLOSED |
The URI is not explicitly mentioned in the precedence rules for WSDL 2.0 |
2010-03-02 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-31 |
CLOSED |
soapjms:isFault typing is ambiguous and its value is weakened because it is an optional property |
2010-03-02 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-32 Protocol-2015 too vague |
CLOSED |
Protocol-2015 too vaguely worded, probably unnecessary |
2010-03-15 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-33 |
CLOSED |
Assertion 'Protocol-2014' is probably unnecessary |
2010-03-30 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-34 Fault sub-code QName |
CLOSED |
XML Schema should define fault sub-code QName types |
2010-05-17 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-35 Test cases with wrong delivery mode |
CLOSED |
soap-jms test-cases 0013, 0014, 0015, 0016 expected message delivery mode should be 2(PERSISTENT) |
2010-05-17 |
SOAP-JMS Test cases |
0 |
ISSUE-36 Test cases with incorrect assertion references |
CLOSED |
soap-jms test-cases 1003 and 1103 should be reviewed perhaps have assertion references changed |
2010-05-17 |
SOAP-JMS Test cases |
0 |
ISSUE-37 Non-fault SOAP 1.2 test cases |
CLOSED |
We should have SOAP 1.2 one-way and two-way test cases that are non fault cases |
2010-05-17 |
SOAP-JMS Test cases |
0 |
ISSUE-38 WSDL 2.0 --> non-normative |
CLOSED |
WSDL 2.0 support not going to be properly tested by implementations, so should be non-normative. |
2010-06-07 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-39 Protocol 2038 & correlation ID |
CLOSED |
Please don't rely on JMSMessageID for Protocol 2038 |
2010-06-16 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-40 m:MaxTime in example |
CLOSED |
broken and useless reference to m:MaxTime in example in section 2.8 |
2010-06-28 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-41 Editors list wrong |
CLOSED |
Editors list wrong |
2010-07-09 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-42 Abstract needs improvement |
CLOSED |
Abstract includes RFC 2119 keyword, fails to mention WSDL |
2010-07-12 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-43 Unflagged assertion re all props |
CLOSED |
Spurious unflagged assertion about all properties in section 2.2 |
2010-07-12 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-44 MAY assertion re: props definition |
CLOSED |
No need to say where a property MAY appear |
2010-07-12 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-45 jndiContextParameter has unflagged RFC 2119 |
CLOSED |
jndiContextParameter has unflagged RFC 2119 keywords, at least one is spurious |
2010-07-12 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-46 replyToName spurious assertion |
CLOSED |
replyToName has "SHOULD" assertion about where the message should be sent. |
2010-07-12 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-47 topicReplyToName unflagged assertions |
CLOSED |
topicReplyToName has two unflagged assertions, some inappropriate. |
2010-07-15 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-48 unflagged message body assertions |
CLOSED |
Unflagged assertions about message body and content type |
2010-07-16 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-49 unflagged xml encoding assertion |
CLOSED |
Unflagged assertion about ignoring XML encoding declaration |
2010-07-16 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-50 Missing SOAP 1.1 indication |
CLOSED |
Apparently redundant statements are about different versions of SOAP |
2010-07-16 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-51 redundant assertions about message body |
CLOSED |
Protocol 2034 & 2040 are redundant normative statements about the message body format |
2010-07-16 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-52 bogus RFC 2119 keyword in table describing JMSReplyTo |
CLOSED |
JMSReplyTo description includes inappropriate use of "must" in section 2.6.1.1 |
2010-07-16 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-53 Missing case in transition description |
CLOSED |
Section 2.6.1.3 missing description of what to do on failure |
2010-07-16 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-54 Unflagged SHOULD about JMSDeliveryMode |
CLOSED |
Unflagged SHOULD about JMSDeliveryMode - not normative |
2010-07-16 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-55 redundant statements about one-way MEP |
CLOSED |
Section 2.7.2 restates constraints laid out in [SOAP 1.2 Part 3: One-Way MEP], and almost certainly shouldn't |
2010-07-16 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-56 Unflagged assertion about @transport value |
CLOSED |
@transport value assertion not flagged, should be |
2010-07-16 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-57 Unflagged assertion about JMS destination |
CLOSED |
@location attribute assertion about being a JMS Destination, but not flagged. |
2010-07-16 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-58 References section a big blob |
CLOSED |
No indication of which references are normative, and which are not, also, inconsistently referring to latest/specific version |
2010-07-16 |
SOAP-JMS Test cases |
0 |
ISSUE-59 Tests for JMSCorrelationID |
CLOSED |
Since adding Protocol-2038 assertion, we now need test cases for non-null JMSCorrelationID |
2010-07-19 |
SOAP-JMS Test cases |
0 |
ISSUE-60 lacking complete WSDL example |
CLOSED |
No complete WSDL sample in spec |
2010-08-24 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-61 SOAP samples problems |
CLOSED |
Problems with SOAP samples in Appendix C |
2010-08-24 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-62 Derek |
CLOSED |
No fault subcode is defined for soapjms:targetService |
2010-09-14 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-63 Derek |
CLOSED |
No fault subcode is defined for soapjms:soapAction |
2010-09-14 |
|
0 |
ISSUE-64 URI encoding explanatory text too restrictive |
CLOSED |
Section 3.3.5 refers to encoding of parameters |
2010-10-05 |
|
0 |
ISSUE-65 EXI compatibility |
CLOSED |
Allow EXI as characterization for XML in the JMS body ? |
2010-11-09 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-66 Test case cleanup |
CLOSED |
Missing test for Protocol 2070, references to WSDLUsage assertions from various test cases |
2010-11-15 |
SOAP-JMS Test cases |
0 |
ISSUE-67 |
CLOSED |
Need a SOAP 1.2-specific SOAP/JMS transport URL value |
2010-11-22 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-68 Bad JMS example |
CLOSED |
Broken JMS header properties example code |
2010-11-23 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-69 |
CLOSED |
Ambiguity in spec. and potential interoperability problem with BytesMessage payload |
2010-12-16 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |
ISSUE-70 Derek |
CLOSED |
The spec should clearly state that vendors must support both BytesMessage and TextMessage. |
2011-01-11 |
SOAP-JMS Binding specification |
0 |