In the absence of clarification, that seems a safe assumption.
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Hately
[mailto:hately@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tue 01-Feb-05 14:37 To:
Luc Clement Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org Subject:
Re: [uddi-spec] Second objection - OASIS UDDI v3
Specification
Was a
definition of federate provided with the feedback?
If none was provided, we can probably assume that the
comment was related to affiliation for tommorow's call.
Regards,
Andrew Hately IBM Software Group,
Emerging Technologies email: hately@us.ibm.com phone: (512)
838-2866
"Luc Clement"
<luc.clement@systinet.com>
01/31/2005 09:07 PM
|
To
| <uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [uddi-spec] Second
objection - OASIS UDDI v3
Specification |
|
Please note the second objection Luc Clément Senior Program Manager,
Systinet Tel: +1.781.362.1330 / Cell: +1.978.793.2162 / www.systinet.com http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/voting/vote_details.php?id=675&voter_id=777
Ballot:
Approve UDDI v3.0.2 as an OASIS standard Company:
Mitre Corporation Vote:
No Comment:
MITRE would like the TC to reconsider the current
wording in the standard regarding Subscription APIs, a functionality that is
being seriously considered by a MITRE customer. Specifically, the TC could
consider the foll. wording change "If a UDDI registry must federate with other
UDDI registries, then the registries SHOULD have at least one node that offers
the Subscription API, otherwise the Subscription API is OPTIONAL".
|