OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposed issues for discussion 1st June


Isn't that backwards? If 122 depends on the outcome of 115 shouldn't 115
be discussed and resolved in case it impacts the proposal for 122?
Shouldn't we decide 115 on its own merits rather than deciding it on the
outcome of 122?

Marc Goodner
Technical Diplomat
Microsoft Corporation
Tel: (425) 703-1903
Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:03 PM
To: Gilbert Pilz
Cc: wsrx
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Proposed issues for discussion 1st June

Gil

I too didn't understand why these were linked. It seems to me that any
elements that are part of the specification can define their own
"mustUnderstand" behaviour as part of their normative text.
I would be happy to put 115 after 122/123/etc if you prefer, but I
figured we were waiting on updated proposals.

Paul

Gilbert Pilz wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I thought we had agreed to postpone any discussion of i115 until after

> we had resolved i122?
>
> I just mention this as a reminder; personally I don't feel that i115 
> and
> i122 are linked. It is true that the proposal for i122 does contain a 
> reference to wsrm:mustUnderstand, but that is an optimization to 
> prevent the creation of unwanted Sequences (several off-color jokes 
> come to mind but I'll spare the TC). The proposal of i122 could easily

> be ammended to remove this reference although (obviously) we would not

> gain the benefits of the optimization.
>
> - gp
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:18 PM
>> To: wsrx
>> Subject: [ws-rx] Proposed issues for discussion 1st June
>>
>> Folks
>>
>> Here is the proposed list of issues for this weeks call:
>>
>> i089    Doug Davis     suggest the restricted use of anonymous URI
>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue
>> s.xml#i089
>>
>> i119    Doug Davis    When to piggy-back RM headers
>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue
>> s.xml#i119
>>
>> i115    Gilbert Pilz    "must understand" attribute for 
>> extensions to RM
>> components
>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue
>> s.xml#i115
>>
>> i125    Paul Fremantle   Protocol precondition requires knowledge of 
>> policies
>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue
>> s.xml#i125
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>>
>> Paul Fremantle
>> VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>>
>> http://feeds.feedburner.com/bloglines/pzf
>> paul@wso2.com
>>
>> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>>
>>
>>     

-- 

Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

http://feeds.feedburner.com/bloglines/pzf
paul@wso2.com

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]