Re: [ws-rx] My vote on the current RX specs ballot

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

Paul Fremantle wrote:
> Marc
> 
> I certainly was of the opinion on the call that this wasn't the TC's 
> intention, and nor was so literal a reading of the spec.
> 
> My understanding is that the WSRMP usage of WSP is confined to the 
> subset of features that is the same from 1.2 to 1.5 CR.

Does that mean I can't use ignorable (or some other 1.5-specific 
feature), which is specific to 1.5?

I agree that WSRMP spec does not use any feature that is specific to 
1.5, but WSRMP assertions do not exist in a vacuum. They are used in a 
particular framework.

> Certainly I 
> didn't expect that Apache would confine itself to using WSRMP1.1 with 
> only WSP1.5.
> 

But isn't that a product decision rather than a spec decision? For 
example, Apache SOAP supported not just XML Schema REC NS but REC + two 
additional intermediate (CR and PR, I think) NSs.

-Anish
--

> Paul
> 
> Marc Goodner wrote:
>> I filed this as a comment with my ballot. Based on some private 
>> messages I have received I think it is worth posting this to the list. 
>> It seems that my reading of the change to the RM Policy spec may be 
>> more literal than the TC’s intent. I’m posting this here with the 
>> intent of seeing if people disagree or not with my reasoning with 
>> respect to whether or not the RM Policy assertion can be used with the 
>> Policy 1.2 namespace even though our reference is now solely to Policy 
>> 1.5. I am especially interested in how any interpretations contrary to 
>> my own are supported by what is written in the specification.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Marc g
>>
>>  
>>
>> The late change from referencing WS-Policy 1.2 to WS-Policy 1.5 in RM 
>> Policy required that I abstain from the current ballot for the RX TC 
>> specs.
>>
>>  
>>
>> This change was not technically necessary as the RM Policy assertion 
>> does not use any features of WS-Policy 1.5 alone and the assertion is 
>> backwards compatible with WS-Policy 1.2. The change does however mean 
>> that Microsoft cannot use the revised RM Policy assertion and be 
>> compliant to this specification until we also support the final 
>> version of WS-Policy 1.5.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I believe that the delay caused by waiting for WS-Policy 1.5 to be 
>> completed is going to hurt the market adoption of WS-RM and WS-RM Policy.
>>
>>  
>>
>> It is regretful that the TC made this change at the last minute 
>> thinking of the references alone rather than considering the change's 
>> impact on market adoption of the specifications.
>>
>>  
>>
>