Last Update: $Date: $
With the exception of one issue raised against the document, all have been resolved to the satisfaction of SOAP/JMS Working Group.
Almost all issues were raised by members of the working group, although sometimes as proxies for other people within the same organization as the person originating the comment/feedback.
Resolution summary below is one of the following:
Closed – issue accepted, addressed, and resolved to the satisfaction of the reporter
Agreed – issue accepted, addressed, and resolved, with no official word from the reporter
|
ID |
Raised by |
Details: Title/Comments |
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Assertion Protocol-2013 is missing RFC 2119 language |
|
|
Commentary: Solution combined two side-by-side normative assertions into one |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Assertion Protocol-2020 missing RFC 2119 language |
|
|
Commentary: Solution combined two side-by-side normative assertions into one |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Assertion Protocol-2023 missing RFC 2119 language |
|
|
Commentary: Solution combined two side-by-side normative assertions into one |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Protocol-2024 does not include RFC-2119 language, has large associated table |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Protocol-2035 is redundant |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Protocol 2039 redundant, missing RFC 2119 language |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Protocol-2041 is spurious |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Example in C2 contrary to Protocol-2029 |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Phil Adams |
Title: Clarify wording of assertions that deal with fault subcodes |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Phil Adams |
Title: Combine redundant assertions 2016 and 2017 |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Should SOAPJMS_requestURI be in the response message? |
|
|
Commentary: Closed with no action, as per 2009-09-08 meeting |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: MIME multipart terminating boundary incorrect in Example C2 |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Extra space in Schema |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Apparently normative statements about WSDL are not written that way. |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: WSDL section of spec uses RFC 2119 keywords inappropriately |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Section 3.4.5 refers to a non-existent "soap" prefix |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: References to RFC 3987 are incorrect, not consistent with expected use |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: consistency of references, acronyms |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Normative statements 3001, 3002, 3003 overlap and/or are redundant |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Statement 3004 lacks context, RFC 2119 keywords |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
|
Comment: Scribing error during IRC minute taking |
|
|
Mark Phillips |
Title: Errors in Appendix C2 - MTOM example |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Mark Phillips |
Title: What to do with start parameter in contentType |
|
|
Commentary: Closed with no action. |
||
|
Mark Phillips |
Title: Precedence rules for jndiContextParameter |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Mark Phillips |
Title: URI example for jndiContextParameter |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Mark Phillips |
Title: Encoding URI parameters for use in WSDL |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Mark Phillips |
Title: topicReplyToName is missing from WSDL schema and the "Binding of Properties to URI" table |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Mark Phillips |
Title: In 2.6.2.3. the behaviout of the responding node is too prescriptive about the destination to which the response must be sent |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Mark Phillips |
Title: The URI is not explicitly mentioned in the precedence rules for WSDL 2.0 |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Mark Phillips |
Title: soapjms:isFault typing is ambiguous and its value is weakened because it is an optional property |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Protocol-2015 too vaguely worded, probably unnecessary |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Phil Adams |
Title: Assertion 'Protocol-2014' is probably unnecessary |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Peter Easton |
Title: XML Schema should define fault sub-code QName types |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: WSDL 2.0 support not going to be properly tested by implementations, so should be non-normative. |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Title: Please don't rely on JMSMessageID for Protocol 2038 |
||
|
Commentary: One of our few “outside” comments not routed through an existing committee member. Approved of resolution with: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: broken and useless reference to m:MaxTime in example in section 2.8 |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Editors list wrong |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Abstract includes RFC 2119 keyword, fails to mention WSDL |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Spurious unflagged assertion about all properties in section 2.2 |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: No need to say where a property MAY appear |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: jndiContextParameter has unflagged RFC 2119 keywords, at least one is spurious |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: replyToName has "SHOULD" assertion about where the message should be sent |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: topicReplyToName has two unflagged assertions, some inappropriate |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Unflagged assertions about message body and content type |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Unflagged assertion about ignoring XML encoding declaration |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Apparently redundant statements are about different versions of SOAP |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Protocol 2034 & 2040 are redundant normative statements about the message body format |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: JMSReplyTo description includes inappropriate use of "must" in section 2.6.1.1 |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Section 2.6.1.3 missing description of what to do on failure |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Unflagged SHOULD about JMSDeliveryMode - not normative |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Section 2.7.2 restates constraints laid out in [SOAP 1.2 Part 3: One-Way MEP], and almost certainly shouldn't |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: @transport value assertion not flagged, should be |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: @location attribute assertion about being a JMS Destination, but not flagged |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: No indication of which references are normative, and which are not, also, inconsistently referring to latest/specific version |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Mark Phillips |
Title: No complete WSDL sample in spec |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Mark Phillips |
Title: Problems with SOAP samples in Appendix C |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Derek Rokicki |
Title: No fault subcode is defined for soapjms:targetService |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Derek Rokicki |
Title: No fault subcode is defined for soapjms:soapAction |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
|
Peter Easton |
Title: soap-jms test-cases 0013, 0014, 0015, 0016 expected message delivery mode should be 2(PERSISTENT) |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: soap-jms test-cases 1003 and 1103 should be reviewed perhaps have assertion references changed |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Peter Easton |
Title: We should have SOAP 1.2 one-way and two-way test cases that are non fault cases |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Since adding Protocol-2038 assertion, we now need test cases for non-null JMSCorrelationID |
|
|
Commentary: TBD |
|
Mark Phillips |
Title: Link to URI specification is incorrect |
|
|
Commentary: We have left this issue open so that we can track new versions of the “jms” URI scheme as we publish them with the IETF as part of the efforts to complete their process |