[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] My vote on the current RX specs ballot
I find this discussion amusing because when we first started up this TC we discussed options for dealing with WSP not being ready. At that point the discussion and proposal was that we would define a set of assertions independently of the WS-Policy Framework and define their meanings. Bizarrely this sounds a lot like what Marc is finally proposing. I seem to recall (and it was a long time ago, and senility is hitting me early) that Oracle was pushing this approach and Microsoft resisting it :-) Paul Anish Karmarkar wrote: > -1 > > We did discuss that proposal [1] during the last meeting [2], followed > by a motion to make 1.5 normative, which passed. My reasons for > normative reference to 1.5 remain the same as last week. We should fix > the NS typo and have another ballot. The only other alternative that > makes sense is to go to CS and then wait for WS-Policy to be a REC > before creating a WS-RM OASIS international standard. But if we are in a > rush, which we seem to be the case, normative CR seems to make the most > sense. > > -Anish > -- > > [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200703/msg00021.html > [2] > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/22937/MinutesWSRX030103.htm > > > Paul Fremantle wrote: >> Marc >> >> I think you're proposed wording is actually pretty decent and I >> support it. >> >> Paul >> >> Marc Goodner wrote: >>> I don't think the current spec leads one clearly to an interpretation >>> that either Policy 1.2, 1.5 or future versions are allowed. If that's >>> the intent I think the proposal I made earlier regarding the >>> reference to WS-Policy makes that clear. >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200703/msg00021.html >>> >>> That would have fixed the namespace issue we have now since it >>> strikes citing the wsp namespace in the spec. I think it also >>> minimizes the issue of referencing the in flight CR. The reason is >>> the text I proposed specifically cites that the assertion works >>> independently of a specific version of WS-Policy. That opens the door >>> for following the latest URI in the spec easier to accept. As it >>> stands our reference is static and does not make any clear statement >>> that future revisions of Policy beyond the referenced CR are acceptable. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:35 AM >>> To: Marc Goodner >>> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >>> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] My vote on the current RX specs ballot >>> >>> 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. Certainly I >>> didn't expect that Apache would confine itself to using WSRMP1.1 with >>> only WSP1.5. >>> >>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Paul Fremantle >>> VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2 >>> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair >>> >>> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle >>> paul@wso2.com >>> (646) 290 8050 >>> >>> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com >>> >>> >> > -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2 OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle paul@wso2.com (646) 290 8050 "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]