OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: Re: Proposals for V2: RR as Web Services,Content-basedqueries,Authorization Policy Admin



My pov is that V2 is focused on ensuring ebXML adoption. Whatever it takes. IMO, adoption will require some major new features as well as a few focused bug fixes. The bug fixes should be triaged carefuly and done in a disciplined manner. Bug fixes should not be the main theme of V2. New features
and bug fixes should be done in a backward compatible way to the best of our abilities.

The above thoughts should be consistent with familiar product developement experienced.

Michael Joya wrote:

> > Attached are some proposals for some new functionality in V2. These
> > proposals are largely motivation and use case oriented and do not
> > generally provide a detailed solution. The detailed solutions would be
> > developed by appropriate sub-teams only if the proposals are accepted
> > for further work by the team.
> >
> > Please let me know if you would be interested in contributing to any of
> > these proposals in the event that they are accpeted by the team for
> > further work.
> >
> > I'd appreciate your thoughts and suggestions anytime over email and hope
> > to discuss it at the next meeting (July 12, 4pm Eastern US Time,  ?20
> > hours UT?)
>
>   Isn't phase 2 focused on further refinement over existing material for the purposes of vendor acceptance and interoperability? Are broad additions to functionality such as this really warranted?
>
>   If the sentiment of the group really does reflect a need for such spartan advances in functional capability, a better idea might be to start with something more mission-critical. For example, the current specification does not offer a mechanism for simply updating the name of a RegistryEntry.
>
>   I agree with the Policy Administration path. The security model given in the phase 1 specification was not concrete enough to allow for interoperable policy management. This needs further work before we can support any kind of distributed model.

--
Regards,
Farrukh

begin:vcard 
n:Najmi;Farrukh
tel;work:781-442-0703
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.sun.com
org:Sun Microsystems;Java Software
adr:;;1 Network Dr. MS BUR02-302;Burlington;MA;01803-0902;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:najmi@east.sun.com
fn:Farrukh Najmi
end:vcard


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC