Work in progress [Fwd: Changes in update to contribution]

As noted in the attached email to the editing team early this morning, 
Jacques and I found a way forward that works for us on Section 2.  I am now 
working on the rest of the edits needed for tonight's (final!) draft.  Most 
of those edits have been discussed only within the editing team.

As a checklist for myself and to allow everyone to check I am do not forget 
something, these changes include (all line numbers from latest 
contribution[1]):

* updated content lengths that Iwasa provided

* follow through on editorial suggestions Mark Peel just provided (thanks 
again Mark!) to the editing team; we are at the 'add "the" before' point!


* change clause starting on line 175 to read
"
... (2) as a rule guaranteeing that if “Submit” completes successfully for 
a payload on the sending side, the “Deliver” operation completes 
successfully for this payload on the receiving side or else “Notify” (of 
failure) will be invoked on the sending side
"
based on some comments Jacques made on the "proofed version of 1.082 thread".


* remove first "only" in line 287, a typographic error in Mark's contribution

* avoid the "successful invocation" implications in the first sentences of 
Sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 (line 524 for example) with rewordings such as "When 
the GuaranteedDelivery Agreement Item is enabled, one of the two following 
outcomes SHALL occur for each Submit invocation on a Sending RMP:"

* change clause in line 828 from "A Receiving RMP supporting a received 
PollRequest" to "A Receiving RMP that receives a supported form of 
PollRequest", clarifying the meaning a bit


* replace two sentences starting at line 1031 with
"
If the specific RM Fault encountered was due to a problem with the Request 
header element, the Receiving RMP MUST set the value of the 
soap:Fault@faultcode attribute to "soap:Client" (for SOAP 1.1 messages) or 
the soap12:Fault/Code/Value element to "soap12:Sender" (for SOAP 1.2 
messages). If the specific RM Fault encountered was due to a problem with 
processing by the Receiving RMP, the Receiving RMP MUST set the value of 
the soap:Fault@faultcode attribute to "soap:Server" (for SOAP 1.1 messages) 
or the soap12:Fault/Code/Value element to "soap12:Receiver" (for SOAP 1.2 
messages).
"
to correct the SOAP 1.1 "versus" 1.2 issue Jacques pointed out and was 
mentioned in a response on the "Contribution suggestions just uploaded" thread


* addition of Delivery failure to Table 25, near line 1056 as another case 
for MessageProcessingFailure, based on resolution of comments from Jacques 
which started on the "proposed edits for enhancing composability" thread

* reword parenthetical comment starting at line 1092 to "(...; that is, any 
type not defined in this core namespace is allowed)", undoing a change to 
our meaning here and making the wording less confusing

* change introduction to bullets starting at line 1115 to "Groups 
undergoing termination on the Sending RMP and the Receiving RMP
pass through the following states:", avoiding discussion of a termination 
process and clarifying the states in question

* strike "associated with WSDL elements" at line 1809, based on a number of 
questions including the original "what changed in 1.08?" email.  No voices 
raised against this change.



Again, I am starting with the contribution I uploaded early this morning. 
In turn, that document is based on Mark Peel's 1.083 contribution[2] and 
some of my previous contribution[3] (started with the 1.082 root[4]).

thanx,
	doug

[1] 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8680/WS-Reliability-2004-08-11-drb.pdf
[2] 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8621/WS-Reliability-1083-Contrib-Peel.pdf
[3] 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8587/WS-Reliability-2004-08-07-drb.pdf
[4] 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8498/WS-Reliability-2004-08-05.pdf