Re: [uddi-spec] Erratum an error?

[Tom Bellwood <bellwood@us.ibm.com>]

Alok,

If you will consult the minutes from our first meeting, we did indeed
approve V2 and V3 as OASIS Specifications.  We also approved V2 to enter
the Standards submission process.   That said, it's neither here not there,
as they say.  We still have the ability at any time to update a
specification with errata.   We decided on our last call not to make
changes to V2 for this issue.  We also decided to consider a change to V3,
for which Claus is creating a document for the TC's consideration.  Whether
or not this change can be considered errata to the spec. is a matter for
debate, although I'm sure reasonable arguments can be made in either
direction.  In the end, I think it probably boils down to what we
collectively feel is best for UDDI and the industry.

Thanks,
Tom Bellwood


Alok Srivastava <Alok.Z.Srivastava@oracle.com> on 10/24/2002 09:04:23 AM

To:    "Von Riegen, Claus" <claus.von.riegen@sap.com>, "'Arle Lommel'"
       <arle@lisa.org>, uddi-spec <uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:
Subject:    Re: [uddi-spec] Erratum an error?



Claus,

Version 2 or version 3 are not approved OASIS specs yet. We have voted for
version 2 to be OASIS spec but I don't think version 3 has been voted yet.
Can we proceed with change request without having an approved spec?

Thanks,
Alok
----- Original Message -----
From: "Von Riegen, Claus" <claus.von.riegen@sap.com>
To: "'Arle Lommel'" <arle@lisa.org>; "uddi-spec"
<uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:50 AM
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Erratum an error?


| Arle,
|
| Later in our conference call, there was a vote on the proposal to drop
the
idea of introducing UTF-16 support in UDDI Verions 2. There were no
objections, which means that we do not plan to introduce UTF-16 to UDDI
Version 2 any longer.
|
| In order to discuss the consequences for UTF-16 support in UDDI Version
3,
I will create a specification change request and distribute it before the
F2F in Philadelphia.
|
| Best regards,
|  Claus
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Arle Lommel [mailto:arle@lisa.org]
| Sent: Mittwoch, 23. Oktober 2002 18:23
| To: uddi-spec
| Subject: [uddi-spec] Erratum an error?
|
|
| I would defer to the judgment of others as to whether UTF-16 support
should
| be added into previous versions of UDDI (it doesn't affect me directly as
we
| aren't implementing UDDI at this time), but I really feel that the errata
| process is not the way to handle this. Lack of UTF-16 support was a
| conscious decision, not an inadvertent oversight or mistake. The errata
| process is not to be used to introduce new functionality to a standard,
but
| if this is dealt with as an erratum we would be using the process do what
it
| is *explicitly* not supposed to do (unless I have grossly misunderstood
the
| document describing the process). Or is adding UTF-16 support not new
| functionality? (If it isn't I would like a clear explanation of what does
or
| does not constitute new functionality.)
|
| Perhaps this was discussed in the conference call yesterday - I had to
dro
p
| out after about 45 minutes, at which point the conversation was still on
| UTF-16 support, but it had not broached the topic of how to handle it. If
in
| the call someone made a convincing argument that this issue should be
| handled through an erratum, I would like to hear it (and I am open to
| persuasion), but right now if put to a vote to approve this as an erratum
I
| would vote in the contrary since I don't feel it's the right way to
handle
| this. (Perhaps this came to a vote during the call, in which case I am
too
| late to voice any opposition. When do the minutes come out?)
|
| Since everyone in the group seems to see this as a more or less major
issue,
| I would expect that implementers would similarly see it as a more or less
| major issue. If I were an implementer and faced with an erratum that
| mandated a major change, I would really wonder about the stability of
UDDI
| and about what the UDDI group is doing. This isn't the same sort of thing
as
| saying that we inadvertently specified an incorrect tag name somewhere
and
| we need to fix it (a very proper use of the errata process).
|
| The fact is that adding in a requirement for UTF-16 support would mean
that
| an implementation that today conforms entirely to UDDI 2.0 could find
that
| tomorrow it won't work with half the queries it receives and that it is
no
| longer UDDI 2.0 compliant. This would be akin to switching half of the
| gas/petrol stations in the world to compressed methane instead of
| gasoline/petrol, saying it was an inadvertent oversight that we ever told
| motorists to use only gasoline, and telling car owners that it's their
job
| to comply since they are not now complying with the requirements of the
| motoring world. (This is an exaggeration, of course, but it makes the
| point.)
|
| That said, I don't have any problem at all with somehow
| adding/patching/fixing/(pick an appropriate verb) UDDI 2.0 or 3.0, if
that
| is deemed necessary. We should do what makes the standard work for
people.
| But if we went through the trouble of setting up a process for how work
| should precede, then we really ought to follow what we voted to accept. I
| understand the desire of those who just want to fix the situation, but
let's
| do it right.
|
| I previously had suggested making a UDDI version 2.1, that would in all
| respects be identical to 2.0, except for adding what is needed to meet
the
| WS-I requirements in this matter. This idea was rejected (on good grounds
I
| think), but the fact that having a 2.1 is not desirable does not
conversely
| make use of the errata process in this manner desirable. I don't know
what
| the solution is. Perhaps those wiser than I can see their way clear of
this.
|
| -Arle Lommel
| LISA
|
|
| ----------------------------------------------------------------
| To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
| manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
| ----------------------------------------------------------------
| To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
| manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
|


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
 manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>