6739 2009-03-27 00:30:55 +0000 All: Compliance section mismatch 2015-06-20 16:35:10 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WS-Resource Access All FPWD All All CLOSED REMIND P2 normal --- 1 dug public-ws-resource-access-notifications public-ws-resource-access-notifications oldest_to_newest 24407 0 dug 2009-03-27 00:30:55 +0000 The "Compliance" sections in the WSRA specs aren't quite the same: Transfer talks about: - adhering to the MUSTs and REQUIRES - the namespace must only be used by compliant impls - the precedence order of the various bits (text, xsd...) - says that GET is required - responses must use the same WSA as the request RT talks about: - adhering to the MUSTs and REQUIRES - the precedence order of the various bits (text, xsd...) MEX talks about: - adhering to the MUSTs and REQUIRES - the namespace must only be used by compliant impls - the precedence order of the various bits (text, xsd...) - mentions which operations are required and how the EPR must support Transfer - the precedence order of the various bits (text, xsd...) - all msgs must be sent to a W3C REC Addressing EPR Eventing talks about: - adhering to the MUSTs and REQUIRES - the namespace must only be used by compliant impls - SOAP is _not_ required - the precedence order of the various bits (text, xsd...) Enumeration talk about: - adhering to the MUSTs and REQUIRES - the namespace must only be used by compliant impls - the precedence order of the various bits (text, xsd...) We really need to be consistent across the 5 specs. Even for the bits that try to say the same thing are sometimes said slightly differently. Proposal: For the common text use the following: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - An implementation is not compliant with this specification if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements defined herein. A SOAP Node MUST NOT use the XML namespace identifier for this specification (listed in x.y XML Namespaces) within SOAP Envelopes unless it is compliant with this specification. Normative text within this specification takes precedence over the XML Schema and WSDL descriptions, which in turn take precedence over outlines, which in turn take precedence over examples. All messages defined by this specification MUST be sent to a Web service that is addressable by an EPR [WS-Addressing]. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (remove the "all messages defined by this spec..." text from the other spots in the specs. This text is in all of the specs due to a previous issue. We might as well make sure its in the same spot for all 5 specs) For any spec that talks about other things, for now, just move it to after the above text (in the same section) and we can use other issues to adjust it if needed. But at least each text will start with consistent boilerplate stuff. 24894 1 bob 2009-04-21 19:50:58 +0000 resolved as proposed 121287 2 jackiewindsor09 2015-06-20 16:34:22 +0000 Please make my changes 121367 3 jackiewindsor09 2015-06-20 16:35:10 +0000 Please make my changes