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

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Marc Goodner wrote:

>I don't think i006 needs to be linked to the others. As Tom already
>proposed on this issue no matter the outcome of i008 and i021 this would
>be outside the scope of WS-RM. Why don't we go ahead and try to close at
>least that one?
>  
>
I disagree, if we have operation level policy attachment, then we need a 
way to signal which DA
level is on a given sequence.

My proposal to 6 assumed the proposal to 8 would pass.

Tom Rutt

Thus we need to agree to 8 before we can discuss 006.

Tom Rutt

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:56 AM
>To: tom@coastin.com
>Cc: Christopher B Ferris; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on 10/13
>conf-call
>
>Tom Rutt wrote:
>  
>
>>Christopher B Ferris wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Issue 006 could have impact on the protocol spec, and it depends on 
>>issues 008 and 021.
>>
>>However, I agree that the email around these proposed solutions has
>>    
>>
>not 
>  
>
>>yet reached concensus.
>>
>>Thus I do not mind postponing resolution of 6, 8, and 21 until further
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>discussion occurs on the list.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Postponing these issues until there is further discussion make sense to 
>me too.
>
>-Anish
>--
>
><snip/>
>
>  
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133