Re: [wsrm] Full agenda for WSRM TC teleconf 8/3/04

Tom,

We generally need an "AOB" item on the agenda ;)

I am not sure if this is any other business or should be handled as 5.5 
but, with apologies to Iwasa (who said he would not be connected again 
until this call), I attach an off-list thread about a couple of relatively 
minor inconsistencies between the specification and the core schema.  The 
main questions for TC consideration are:

1. What to do about InvalidMessageHeader, which appears in the schema but 
not the specification?

2. What name should we use for the fault called NotSupportedFeature in the 
schema (matching a few issue resolutions) and NonSupportedFeature in the 
specification (possibly a typographic error)?

 From my perspective, I do not understand (1) and would appreciate someone 
posting or explaining during the call why this was removed from the 
specification in the first place.  I guess InvalidRequest and 
InvalidPollRequest cover every invalid message header in WS-Reliability 
that might result in an RM Fault (since the Response element has no 
associated faults)...  On (2), I lean toward going with NotSupportedFeature 
as I see no earlier discussion about changing its name since that was 
chosen.  If we do need a new name for some reason, my favourite would be 
FeatureNotSupported.

thanx,
	doug

On 03-Aug-04 12:39, Tom Rutt wrote:

> The full agenda with links to email and documents for discussion is 
> attached.
> 
> Tom Rutt
> WSRM TC Chair