The issue resolution for i022 clearly
specified line numbers and these were not included. I don’t see anything
against process by raising this to the editors and the TC’s attention via
an issue. I’m only sorry that I didn’t catch this in time to make an
amendment to the proposal on our last call.
If the TC agrees that this is well
understood and obvious then there shouldn’t be a problem with accepting this
as an issue and adopting the proposal at the same time. We’ve done that
before with other easy to understand editorial issues. That is the reason I am
raising it now instead of waiting for another draft and perhaps letting it slip
by us again.
From: Yalcinalp, Umit
[mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005
3:13 PM
To: Marc Goodner; wsrx
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE:
Descriptive text of removed parameters also needs to be removed
Why is this a new issue?
We have not reflected the resolution of
i22 into the document yet. It is in the pending list. After the editors are
done with encorporating the resolutions of the issues to the document, if you
still have issues with the document you can raise an issue.
You need to trust the ability of the
editors to do the right thing. It is obvious that the definition of these will
not belong to the document.
I invite the issues list keeper to
follow the procedure which is already agreed upon.
Regards,
--umit
From: Marc
Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, Nov 08, 2005 2:51
PM
To: wsrx
Subject: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE:
Descriptive text of removed parameters also needs to be removed
Description: In the resolution to i022 the line numbers
specified neglected to include the descriptive text on the parameters
(BaseRetransmission and ExponentialBackoff) that were removed.
Target: policy
Type: editorial
Justification: No need to describe things that aren’t
there.
Proposal: Delete the descriptive text on BaseRetransmission
and ExponentialBackoff, lines 112 -119 of wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-01.