I agree with Doug
here. It wouldn’t really be that helpful. I reviewed them fairly recently
and concluded that they are not going to serve as a very good starting point. The
app there might, i.e. the ping thing, but the docs themselves would need so
much restructuring etc. we might as well start fresh or review any other input
scenarios anyone might have.
We need to spend more
time on what the schedule should be and what our min bar is.
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005
11:21 AM
To: Paul Fremantle
Cc: Patil, Sanjay;
ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-implement]
Interoperability and the F2F
If I thought it would change our dates any, but I don't
think it would.
-Doug
|
Paul Fremantle
<paul@wso2.com>
12/12/2005 02:05 PM
|
|
To
|
"Patil, Sanjay"
<sanjay.patil@sap.com>
|
|
cc
|
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org
|
|
Subject
|
Re: [ws-rx-implement] Interoperability and
the F2F
|
|
Guys
Would it be worth having a short review of the
interop scenarios at the
F2F? We already had one at the first F2F, but I'm
wondering if we need
our minds refreshed.
Paul
Patil, Sanjay wrote:
>
> It will be desirable to get the input
from the Interop Subcommittee
> (bugs in the spec, essentially new issues if
any) before the March
> (tentatively) F2Fin order to have enough time
to accommodate the input
> before sending the specs out for public
review. Doug, would that be
> possible with your proposed schedule for the
Interop Subcommittee?
>
> Thanks,
> Sanjay
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, Dec 12, 2005
8:41 AM
> *To:*
ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org
> *Subject:* [ws-rx-implement]
Interoperability and the F2F
>
>
> Updated the proposal to make it
relative to the next CD since
> basing an interop
> on WDs doesn't make as much
sense. Changed dates to be relative
> dates.
> __________________
>
> In terms of presenting
something to the TC during next week's
> F2F, what about this:
>
> DD/MM - TC approves next
CD
>
> + 4wks - Send a draft scenario
document to the TC.
>
This scenario doc should try to cover interoperability
>
for the features defined in the core spec. [*]
>
> + 2wks - Final date for
feedback from the TC on the doc.
>
TC doesn't need to formally approve it but we request
>
suggestions/comments by this date.
>
> + 2wks - Unless we totally
messed up the first draft and just need
>
to make minor changes based on the feedback, we
>
produce the official scenario doc that will be used
>
for the interop event.
>
Send out an official notification of the interop event
>
and doc(s).
>
> + 6wks - Shoot for an interop
event this week.
>
Previous interops allowed for 6 weeks between scenario doc
>
being published and the event itself.
>
> [*] Questions:
>
> Both specs or just core spec?
Do we want people to support
> ws-policy? I'm leaning
towards just the core spec.
>
> What type of event do we want?
Personally, I like the idea of
> a virtual interop but I know
that the pressure of a f2f helps
> force people to make the dates.
> (virtual == put up an endpoint
(RMS and RMD) on the web)
> for example:
http://wsi.alphaworks.ibm.com:8080/wsrm/index.html
> so people can test at
will)
>
> What kind of results do we want
to publish and how do we want to
> publish them? Generic:
"it went well" - or specific "company X
> passed 1,2,3 but not
4,5,6" ??? Do we even want to publish
> anything at all? What
does Oasis require?
>
> thoughts?
>
> thanks
> -Doug
>
--
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform",
www.wso2.com
Yahoo IM: paulfremantle
VOIP: +44 844 986 2874
Cell/Mobile: +44 (0) 7740 199 729
Fax: +44 844 484 7459
paul@wso2.com