Re: ebxml Messaging Services spec v 0.2

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

David/All,

Please see below.

Chris

"Burdett, David" wrote:
> 
> Thanks Nikola thanks for your helpful suggestions. See comments inline
> 
> David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nikola Stojanovic [mailto:nhomest1@twcny.rr.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 3:51 PM
> To: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: ebxml Messaging Services spec v 0.2
> 
> Here are some comments:
> 
> <General>
> <1>Have we agreed on naming convention (start with UpperCase) for our
> names?</1>
> <2>Terms and fonts used for them are not consistent. See some examples
> below.</2>
> </General>
> 
>  I "think" the convention we are following is that we always start with an
> upper case, unless the element/attribute begins with "ebXML".

Unless the TA team comes up with a recommendation as to style,
we'll have to go with upper-camel-case since that's what we started
with (despite my preference for lower-camel-case;-)

> 
> <Line 5>
> "v0-1"
> Should this be v0-2?
> </Line 5>
> 
> "Yes" except that it will be 0.21.
> 
> 
> <Line 99,100>
> Should line-up entries.
> </Line 99,100>
> 
>  FIxed.
> 
> <Line 194>
> We should refer somewhere in this spec to "New Murata spec -
> http://www.imc.org/draft-murata-xml <http://www.imc.org/draft-murata-xml> ".
> </Line 194>
> 
>  This is an IETF Internet Draft and therefore not a "standard" I'm not sure
> we should use it - can we discuss?.

IETF is scheduled to vote on this soon as I understand. I think that the
choice of vnd.eb+xml needs to be explained in terms of the murata draft
with a note that it is nearing approval. This can be added in next revision.

> 
> <Line 276,277>
> "<ebXMLHeaderDocument>"
> We should make these names consistent with Appendix A and other parts of the
> document, Same applies to Appendix B.
> 
> "ebXMLHeader" instead of "ebXMLHeaderDocument"?
> </Line 276,277>
> 
> Made the example conform to Appendix A..
> 
> <Line 342>
> "<MessageManifest>"
> Should indicate whether this attribute is required or not.
> </Line 342>
> 
> Changed "contain" to "MUST contain" in previous paragraph
> 
> 
> <Line 351,353>
> "<MessageManifest>"
> As before, we should make these names consistent with Appendix A and other
> parts of the document,
> </Line 351,353>
> 
> Made consistent with Appendix A
> 
> 
> <Line 376>
> Take it out.
> </Line 376>
> 
> Not sure. I thought we'd agreed to leave it in. Personally I'm neutral.
> Therefore not changed now but we can change it later.
> 
> <Line 449>
> Are we not requiring global uniqueness of MessageID? Have we agreed on
> RFC2392? What about UUID/GUID scheme (see: School Interoperability Framework
> ( http://www.sifinfo.org/spec/SpecFinalWeb.pdf
> <http://www.sifinfo.org/spec/SpecFinalWeb.pdf> ) and BizTalk Framework (
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/articles/biztalk/biztalkfwv2draft.asp
> <http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/articles/biztalk/biztalkfwv2draft.asp> )).
> </Line 449>
> 
> We discussed on the last conf call and agreed the current semantics - no
> change.
> 
> <Line 473,474>
> Take them out.
> </Line 473,474>
> 
>  Done.
> 
> <Line 499,502>
> Take them out.
> </Line 499,502>
> 
>  Done ... and I've added Bill and Larry ;)

Should we add a memorial to Sleepy? ;-)

> 
> Regards,
> Nikola

-- 
    _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/    _/ Christopher Ferris - Enterprise Architect
   _/       _/    _/ _/_/  _/  Phone: 781-442-3063 or x23063
  _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/ _/ _/   Email: chris.ferris@East.Sun.COM
       _/ _/    _/ _/  _/_/    Sun Microsystems,  Mailstop: UBUR03-313
_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/    _/     1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803-0903