RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on 10/13 conf-call

[Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>]

Sanjay,

I can appreciate that POV, but frankly,
I think that the protocol spec is far more important.
There aren't many outstanding issues
and it would be great if we could close on the issues
we have and nail down the protocol spec
sooner rather than later.

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 10/12/2005 12:28:03 PM:

>  
> Hi Chris,
>  
> I wanted to give a good try to the policy related
issues on this 
> week's call and  that is why the other issues in my proposed
list 
> are purely editorial.  
>  
> I had privately requested the owners of the policy
related issues to
> submit proposals before this week's conf-call and thankfully they
> have responded with some proposals (may not be entirely formal) and
> there seems to be some discussion on the list. As we all know, the
> policy relaed issues are not very straightforward and personally I
> can understand the issue owner's sentiment and willingness to take
> some advice on resolution from the TC as opposed to bringing in a
> fully baked formal proposal for vote.
>  
> Let us give these issues a good try tomorrow
and if there is still 
> no significant outcome we may have to postopone these isssues for
> the next F2F, etc.
>  
> Having said that, if  the TC at large (including
the owners of the 
> policy issues) finds it prudent to postpone the policy related 
> issues, we could certainly decide to do so on the call tomorrow as
> the first order of business (agenda approval). Meanwhile it will be
> great to see concrete proposals for other open issues and be 
> prepared with some good subsitutes for the policy related issues.
>  
> Thanks,
> Sanjay
> 
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, Oct 12, 2005 8:44 AM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on 10/13conf-call

> 
> 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
> > 
> >