[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Summary: Implementing CCTS in Registry
Farrukh, I'm not sure if this is what they will accept, nor do I see this as optimal. Maybe we're thinking about the same thing here... My take on this would be that Registry TC has to pick up the ball of defining how to do this conceptually. That the Registry TC therefore does that heavy lifting of defining the mechanisms and available tools. Then the individual TC's are responsible for their own representations and serializations. However in this instance seems like the 'customer' is wanting us to say how the interface works so that their choosen representation has the functionality they need. We probably need a sub-task to define those big ticket items (I think Joe had something based from the CC spec' here summarized). So I think your 5) below is some of this - but I think you are maybe pushing too much back into their court of completing the whole binding... Or maybe I'm just drilling down into 5) here ; -) Thanks, DW. ============================================= Message text written by Farrukh Najmi > 5) The CCTS team is completely responsible for creating a registry binding and the registry TC is completely willing to act in a consulatnt capacity throughout the process and review ( and even approve if called upon) any resulting specs or Best Practice papers. <
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC