RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014

["Winkler, Steve" <steve.winkler@sap.com>]

Hi all,

As far as I can tell, the arguments for changing the name are: 

1. that it will be consistent with the TC's name, and 
2. that there will be 'significant changes' (it has yet to be defined
what constitutes a significant change) to the WS-ReliableMessaging
specification.  

For the first point, other TC's have already produced specs that have
names that don't align with the names of the TC that created them, so
precendent indicates that this really isn't much of an issue.  

Secondly, if there is no assumption or requirement that keeping the name
means that the TC is required to produce a spec that is backwards
compatible with the submission spec, then this is really a non-issue.
The changes that can be made to the document are outlined in the
charter.  The question of whether the changes are significant or not
seems to be more of an issue with what version modifier we decide to use
for the document, whether it be 1.x or 2.0.  This is a separate issue
from what the name of the document name should be.

The argument against changing the name is that it will add confusion to
an already confused market, especially to the customers of companies who
have already implemented the submission.  This seems compelling to me
and I would therefore favor closing the issue with no action.

Cheers,
Steve


------------------
Steve Winkler
SAP AG 

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Freund [mailto:bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, Aug 03, 2005 4:45 PM
> To: 'Bob Freund'; 'Abbie Barbir'; 'Christopher B Ferris'; 
> 'Marc Goodner'
> Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; 'Martin Chapman'; 'Rich Salz'; 
> ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
> 
> Another point,
> Names and colors are the province of Marketing, not us.
> -bob
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Freund [mailto:bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 7:44 PM
> > To: 'Abbie Barbir'; 'Christopher B Ferris'; 'Marc Goodner'
> > Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; 'Martin Chapman'; 'Rich Salz'; ws-
> > rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
> > 
> > Lets get on with the technical details and leave the name alone.
> > -bob
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Abbie Barbir [mailto:abbieb@nortel.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 1:27 PM
> > > To: Christopher B Ferris; Marc Goodner
> > > Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; Martin Chapman; Rich Salz; ws-
> > > rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
> > >
> > > +1
> > > abbie
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 12:44 PM
> > > > To: Marc Goodner
> > > > Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; Martin Chapman; Rich Salz;
> > > > ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Besides that, the namespace URI is different, regardless of
> > > > wether or not
> > > > some or all of the
> > > > path components are the same (and they are not in this case)
> > > > because the
> > > > two URIs have
> > > > different domains. Note that the [productname] != the
> > > > document title. They
> > > > are distinctly separate
> > > > metadata.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Christopher Ferris
> > > > STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> > > > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> > > > blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
> > > > phone: +1 508 377 9295
> > > >
> > > > "Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com> wrote on 08/03/2005
> > > > 12:09:44 PM:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes it is, ws-rm v1 contributed to OASIS, ws-rm v1.x 
> OASIS standard.
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 9:07 AM
> > > > > To: Marc Goodner; 'Rich Salz'
> > > > > Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
> > > > >
> > > > > you mean its easy to explain ws-rm v 1- pre oasis - and
> > > > ws-rm v1-oasis
> > > > > spec :-)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
> > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 4:13 AM
> > > > > >To: Rich Salz
> > > > > >Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > > >Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Changing the name has significant impact for vendors in
> > > > > >explaining what version they support, i.e. it is much simpler
> > > > > >to explain support for two different versions with the same
> > > > > >name than the relationship between two differently named
> > > > > >specifications.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Regards,
> > > > > >Marc g
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@datapower.com]
> > > > > >Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 10:53 AM
> > > > > >To: Marc Goodner
> > > > > >Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > > >Subject: Re: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Asking people to learn a
> > > > > >> new name for these specs to reduce confusion is counter
> > > > intuitive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Which is the greater audience -- those familiar with 
> the pre-TC
> > > > > >documents, or those whose first exposure will be through
> > > > > >OASIS?  My bet
> > > > > >is the latter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   /r$
> > > > > >
> > > > > >--
> > > > > >Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
> > > > > >DataPower Technology
> > > > http://www.datapower.com
> > > > > >XS40 XML Security Gateway
> > > > http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>