ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on 10/13 conf-call
- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:43:57 -0400
Sanjay/Paul,
I'm a little concerned that some of
the policy-related issues on the plate this week will result in
much lively discussion, but relatively
little in the way of consensus and resolution.
I would propose that we add some of
the RM-spec related issues for which there are
concrete proposals, and which IMO could
be easily and quickly resolved on the call. I would
prefer that we focus on issues that
we can resolve rather than spend time on the call
to hash over issues that are clearly
not yet approaching consensus on the email list.
i038 [1] looks like it could be easily
resolved. I could go either way to be honest (reference
RFC3986 or RFC3987 (IRI)). Since WS-Addressing
has referenced RFC3987 and RM leverages
the EPR for AcksTo, that we go with
the reference to RFC3987 and be done with it.
i042 [2] is another that we should be
able to close on quickly. I will send a separate proposal
to the list.
i023 [3] is an issue that IMO is out
of scope for the TC. I will send a separate proposal to the list
Finally, I would like to make a request
of the issues list editor. It would REALLY help if the issues
list could be updated to reflect the
issues resolved as soon as possible after they are resolved.
It has been over 2 weeks since the issues
list was last updated. Thus, two weeks of issues
resolutions are not reflected in the
list.
I know what is involved in maintaining
the list and that the editors are busy with other responsibilities
(aren't we all!), but possibly the addition
of an intermediate status that removes an issue from "open"
to a status that means that it has been
resolved but the specifics have not been documented in the issues
list would be in order for times like
these when there isn't enough time to devote to making a full pass
at updating issues with the details
of their resolutions, etc. It is quite difficult to have to compare the
issues list with the minutes from the
past meetings to determine which issues are really open and
which have simply not been updated to
reflect the decisions of the TC.
[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14682/Re#i038
[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14682/Re#i042
[3] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14682/Re#i023
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
"Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>
wrote on 10/10/2005 05:46:24 PM:
>
> Issue 37: WS-Addressing Endpoint redefined in WSRM
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14682/Re
> liableMessagingIssues.xml#i037
>
> Issue 41: Presence of NACK and ACK range in the same message
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14682/Re
> liableMessagingIssues.xml#i041
>
> Isssue 43: Why is wsa imported in the WSDL?
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14682/Re
> liableMessagingIssues.xml#i043
>
> Issue 21: An RM Policy applies two-way
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14682/Re
> liableMessagingIssues.xml#i021
>
> Issue 8: Policy assertions granularity
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14682/Re
> liableMessagingIssues.xml#i008
>
> Issue 6: Source based delivery QoS policy assertion
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14682/Re
> liableMessagingIssues.xml#i006
>
>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]