Contribution suggestions just uploaded

[Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>]

The contribution I just uploaded[1,2,3] represents another improvement on 
(but not the culmination of everything required to fix) the issues 
discussed in my long-ago "Summary of WS-Reliability 1.01* issues discussed 
over past week" email as well as the more recent "Detailed review of 
Section 2-2.5, 5.2 and related definitions" and "about review of Section 
2-2.5, 5.2".  We have made a lot of progress on improvements in this area 
but a bit more remains.

Note that the two footnotes I inserted are not intended for the final 
document but simply explain a few deletions.  Those deletions also make the 
footnotes much less sensible when not viewing the differences.

Primary areas of concern addressed in this contribution include:
- The BP 1.0 WSDL / SOAP / HTTP restrictions inappropriately were applied 
to the allowed abstract operations used at the producer / consumer level. 
It does not make sense to apply HTTP and SOAP restrictions to the way in 
which a SOAP processor (our RMP component) is invoked.  That represents an 
unnecessary restriction reaching across 3 abstraction layers.

- A few remaining clarity issues.  For example, while WSDL might be written 
down to describe the RMP use of the underlying protocol, we have not done 
so.  In spite of this lack, "WSDL" is occasionally used in ways that are 
ambiguous.

- A lack of support for the BP 1.0 restrictions presented in Section 6.  We 
need to generically describe various message exchanges as following the 
patterns introduced in Section 2.3 ("SOAP one-way MEP" and "SOAP 
request-response MEP") before the HTTP binding builds on those assumptions. 
  A few more assumptions and implications needed to be written down.  This 
was particularly troubling in light of the over-generality previously in 
2.5.2 and 2.5.3.

- Application of a SOAP One-way MEP restriction in 6.3 to the synchronous 
Poll RM-Reply Pattern case.  Fixed by moving the appropriate restrictions 
into 6.3.1 and 6.3.2.

The specification still does a poor job describing when the Respond 
operation is or is not supported.  Nor does it make clear the "meaning" of 
a payload in a message containing only a Response header or that messages 
with none of the Request, Response or PollRequest headers have no 
significance under the WS-Reliability protocol.  Both classes of change 
would likely be more significant than I undertook.  For example, it might 
be reasonable to link the first Reliable Message "mentioned" in a Response 
element with a payload in the same message but that would extend the rules 
in 4.4 beyond the Response RM-Reply Pattern.  This contribution attempts to 
illustrate the differences between the Producer / Consumer interface and 
the SOAP message exchanges the RMPs implement but may not be "complete" in 
this respect either.

thanx,
	doug

[1] 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8586/WS-Reliability-2004-08-07-drb.sxw
[2] 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8587/WS-Reliability-2004-08-07-drb.pdf
[3] 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8588/WS-Reliability-2004-08-07-drb-diff.pdf