[regrep] My reasons for remaining in abstention...

["Munter, Joel D" <joel.d.munter@intel.com>]

Some of you have asked me privately why I abstained from voting on the RS,
RIM, and Forwarding ballots.  The primary reason is that I did not
prioritize sufficient time to read and thoroughly evaluate the
specifications.  Under these circumstances, I did not believe that my vote
was justified.  Based upon a cursory review only, if I had voted, it would
have been to disapprove.

My cursory review of the RS spec reveals:

  0) there are many opportunities to leverage the use of UDDI for 
	certain registry requirements without having to recreate them here

  1) that some areas of the RS are greatly "over-prescribed" 
	(e.g., Semantic Rules Lines 1452-1838 - there are 46 pages 
	 worth of Filter Query support alone), 

  2) there are things in this draft of the RS that simply do not 
	belong (e.g., a WSDL Primer), 

  3) items that should be clearly stated in the CPP/A spec are 
	stated here (e.g., Section 6.3.2.3), 

  4) referenced Sections are incorrect (e.g., 5.4.1 should be 
	5.5.1) or are missing, there are at least three Error! 
	reference source not found error

  5) there are still references to DTDs when I believed that 
	we were standardizing on XML Schemas, 

  6) page numbers are missing, 

  7) and that some areas may need serious improvement but I 
	have not had time to be more specific.  

I do not believe that this specification is ready to move on to Oasis to be
considered as a Standard.

Thanks,
Joel Munter
Intel / eBusiness Solutions Lab
joel.d.munter@intel.com
(480) 552-3076
(602) 790-0924 (cell)