RE: Editorial proposal for issue 250

Wow! Henrik

>Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>> Given the success of the table describing mU and role I was 
>wondering 
>> whether we can clarify issue 250 by adding another one listing the 
>> roles in a similar manner (see attached) in section 2.2 
>where we have 
>> the list of role definitions [1]. This may make it easier to 
>see than 
>> the current bullet list.
>
>Sounds good. Done.
>
>> Btw, in table 2 "SOAP Nodes Forwarding behaviour", we should 
>refer to 
>> the names "next", "ultimateReceiver", and "none" as *short-names* as 
>> we in section 2.2 defined the role *name* as a URI.
>
>Sounds good as well. Done.