[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] ws-caf draft minutes
>-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] >Sent: 21 September 2004 09:04 >To: Doug Bunting; Furniss, Peter >Cc: Martin Chapman; Newcomer, Eric; ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: Re: [ws-caf] ws-caf draft minutes > > >If we can reach agreement on this I'll amend the document. > >Mark. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Doug Bunting" <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM> >To: "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> >Cc: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>; "Newcomer, >Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>; <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org> >Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 7:15 PM >Subject: Re: [ws-caf] ws-caf draft minutes > > >> All, >> >> I had thought the discussion around the conformance clause >was amended >> twice (not once). In particular, I believe my second proposal >> (deleting "and protocols" from paragraph 4 as it was numbered in >> Greg's email) was successful; it passed without objection. >Certainly, >> as shown below, my last proposal (distinction between >implementations >> that must implement and those that just use) failed. >> >> All together, we need some text between "Jeff: seconds" and the >> following discussion describing the fate of that separate proposal. >> The "(once)" near the end of the snippet below should read "(twice)". The removal of "and protocols" was successfully passed. So lets just record after "Jeff: seconds" that the amendment was passed. >> >> thanx, >> doug >> >> On 13-Sep-04 09:20, Furniss, Peter wrote: >> >> ... >> >> > Doug: in the light of the discussion, proposes deleting para 3 >> > 2nded: Eric >> > >> > Jeff: what was the intent ? the words don't quite capture it - >> > what would we lose >> > by deletion >> > >> > Greg: intent was to disallow meaningless garbage, but perhaps >> > that's not quite >> > a conformance claim. Have to use identifiable addressing >> > schemes (long discussion >> > on this in section 2) >> > >> > This is generally covered in section 2 >> > >> > Martin: any objections: none, >> > amendment passes >> > >> > Doug: on (original) para 4: what exactly is a protocol in >> > "systems and protocols" - >> > should that be "systems and referencing specification". >> > >> > anyone can do anything with the pass-by-reference must >implement >> > the ctx mgr, which is >> > too strong >> > >> > Jeff: but a ref spec isn't an implementation >> > >> > Tony: in another forum, they distinguished implementations >> > conforming and specifications >> > complying >> > >> > Peter: that was a bit silly really >> > >> > Doug: questions his own amendment ! >> > clarifies : delete "and protocols" from para 4 >> > Jeff: seconds >> > >> > Doug: that paragraph now says pass-by-reference use means must >implement >> > the context mgr, but really it only needs to support either >> > offering the >> > service or interacting with it. >> > >> > Martin: only the thing passing out the context needs to >> > implement the mgr service >> > >> > Doug: wishes to clarify the distinction between >implementations >> > that must >> > implement and those that just use >> > Proposes text to that effect, Peter seconds >> > >> > Peter: the text would appear to say any system using >pass-by-ref >> > must offer the Ctx mgr >> > service, though it clearly doesn't need to >> > >> > general disagreement that it could be so interpreted >> > >> > >> > Voice vote: 6 for , 8 against, 1 abstain >> > amendment fails >> > >> > The main motion was taken, as amended (once) - >> > >> > Passed, no objections >> >> ... >> >> > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]