Re: Additional Part 1 feedback

Hi Tommy,

On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:43:30PM +0100, Tommy Lindberg wrote:
> 
> > [205] and [221]
> The <Status> element is not part of part of the UnverifiedKeyBinding
> so [221] is strange.  When I look at item 10 in the change log it
> seems that the clarifications were intended for KeyBinding and
> subtypes.

You are right. I removed that text from [221] and updated the changelog
and corresponding issue text. Shivaram had added it by accident.

For [205], I'm not yet happy with that text. I don't understand why it is
associated to indeterminate, but not to Invalid. I must be missing
something. I think that the spec may be missing some text saying more
explicitely that <Status> in a request is giving advisory information.

How does this wording sound for that [205] text:

<quote>
A request that includes a <KeyBinding> Element may use a <Status> with
a StatusValue attribute with value indeterminate. A server will ignore
the Status element in this case.
</qute>

And I would remove it from [205] and put it as [206a].

Comments? If there are no comments, I won't make this change.

> Some additional typos:
> [202] The <status>  -> The <Status>

Fixed.

> [78] "... inner request the ResultMajor value failure is assumed for
> that inner request."  This should be rephrased as Failure is not part
> of the ResultMajor value space, perhaps as "inner request, a
> ResultMajor value other than Success is assumed for that inner
> request."

Changed the last part to read: 
""... inner request, that inner request is assumed to
      have failed". 

So that we don't have existential problems as to whether anything else
than success could be something not failure, such as Represent or Pending.
It would have been nice to say something more precise than "failed", or to
actually have a ResultMajor Failure, but that's what is available now.

-jose