[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] FW: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on the 7/28 conf-call
Hmmmm . . . I have a problem with saying that the version is "1.1" or "2.0" since, in my mind, a spec is scoped by the organization that produces/publishes/recommends it. This is the first version of the *OASIS* WS-ReliableMessaging specification. As far as confusion goes; I don't think anyone should have a hard time telling the difference between: wsreliablemessaging-1.0-spec-os.pdf and ws-reliablemessaging200502.pdf A quick peek inside either document will tell you which is which. From a protocol level the namespace URIs will tell you which "version" you are dealing with . . . - g > -----Original Message----- > From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:46 AM > To: Gilbert Pilz > Cc: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] FW: [ws-rx] Proposed list of > issues for discussion on the 7/28 conf-call > > Gilbert Pilz wrote: > > I have received some minor feedback on a couple of issues, > but I don't > > know if I could say we have reached consensus. My general > feeling is > > that people don't really care about these issues, so I > think we should > > just proceed with the proposals with a few ammendments. > > > > i015: Need "artifactName" values for WS-RM and WS-RM Policy > documents. > > I sent email to 'oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org' in an > > attempt to clarify what this value should look like, but > have received > > no response. Need to change the "productVersion" value to something > > that can indicate minor versions (i.e. "1.0"). > > > > I *think* I had send some feedback on the version numbers, > but not sure. > > IMHO, if we keep the spec name the same we should have a > version number > 1.0 (1.1, 2.0, whatever) to avoid confusion > with the submission. > > -Anish > -- > > > i016: Need to change the identifiers to reflect the above change: > > > > wsreliablemessaging-1.0-spec-wd-01.* > > wsrmpolicy-1.0-spec-wd-01.* > > > > i017: URL values need to be co-ordinated with Jamie, Scott, et. al. > > > > - g > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] > >>Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:32 PM > >>To: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > >>Subject: [ws-rx-editors] FW: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for > >>discussion on the 7/28 conf-call > >> > >> > >>I had meant to post it to the editors list ... > >> > >> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] > >>>Sent: Tuesday, Jul 26, 2005 23:24 PM > >>>To: wsrx > >>>Subject: FW: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion > >> > >>on the 7/28 > >> > >>>conf-call > >>> > >>> > >>>I am thinking of scheduling one or more of the issues 14, > >> > >>15, 16 and 17 > >> > >>>for discussion on the 7/28 call. Is there a consensus among > >> > >>the editors > >> > >>>about the resolution of these issues. Any suggestions > >> > >>regarding which > >> > >>>ones are easy targets and which ones require further > >> > >>deliberations by > >> > >>>the editors team? > >>> > >>>Basically, I am looking for simple issues for scheduling > along with > >>>some of the core design issues and wanted to get a feel from > >> > >>you about > >> > >>>which ones are straightforward, etc. > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>>Sanjay > >>> > >>> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] > >>>>Sent: Monday, Jul 25, 2005 13:04 PM > >>>>To: Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > >>>>Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on the > >>>>7/28 conf-call > >>>> > >>>>Can we also discuss i014 Document names and i016 document > >> > >>identifiers > >> > >>>>to try to get some more of the editorial issues into he > >> > >>pending queue? > >> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] > >>>>Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 11:59 AM > >>>>To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > >>>>Subject: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion > on the 7/28 > >>>>conf-call > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Here is a proposed list of issues for discussion on the 7/28 > >>> > >>>conf-call. > >>> > >>>>- Issue i013: Max message number in policy > >>>> > >>>>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php > >>>>/13697/Re > >>>>liableMessagingIssues.xml#i013 > >>>> > >>>>- Issue (i018): Is an implementation supporting a smaller > >> > >>max message > >> > >>>>number valid? > >>>> See the first issue in the email: > >>>>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archiv > >>>>es/200507 > >>>>/msg00193.html > >>>> > >>>>- Issue (i019): Sequence termination on Fault See the > second issue > >>>>in the email: > >>>>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archiv > >>>>es/200507 > >>>>/msg00193.html > >>>> > >>>>I urge the originators of these issues to come prepared for > >> > >>describing > >> > >>>>on the conf-call the motivating requirements as well as the > >> > >>proposed > >> > >>>>resolution for the issues. > >>>> > >>>>The three issues (i006, i008 and i009) discussed on the > >> > >>last conf-call > >> > >>>>(7/21) are currently waiting for a clear statement of > >>> > >>>requirements from > >>> > >>>>their owners. Let us carry the discussion of these issues on the > >>>>mailing list until their requirements are clearly hashed out. > >>>> > >>>>Thanks, > >>>>Sanjay > >>>> > >>> > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]