Re: [ws-rx] CD8

[Pete Wenzel <pete.wenzel@Sun.COM>]

Dug's CD08.1 proposal accomplishes the same.  I agree that's the best
course of action at this point, and in the spirit of our charter.

--Pere

Thus spoke Tom Rutt (tom@coastin.com) on Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 01:02:35PM -0400:
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
> >Dug
> >
> >Thanks very much for all your hard work on this.
> >
> >Anish - what are your thoughts on the CD8.01 proposal outlined below?
> This is doing what our charter says "If a referenced standard is not far 
> enough along on
> standards track .... abstract its use"
> 
> With this, all ws policy references should be put in non normative 
> references section.
> 
> Also, I suggest useingthe wording
> 
> "wsp" is an abstraction pertaining to any ws policy namespace which is 
> compatible
> with the policy assertion types defined in this specification.
> 
> With this abstraction approach, we do not need to wait for ws policy to 
> complete.
> 
> Tom Rutt
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >Doug Davis wrote:
> >>
> >>All,
> >>A new folder called "CD08" has been created in the TC's document 
> >>section [1].  In there you'll find 3 pdf files that shows the latest 
> >>version of the specs with the WS-Policy namespace URI fixed:
> >>   WS-RM: 
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/22965/wsrm-1.1-spec-cd-07.pdf 
> >>
> >>   WS-RMP: 
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/22966/wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-08.pdf 
> >>
> >>   WS-MC: 
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/22967/wsmc-1.0-spec-cd-04.pdf 
> >>
> >>
> >>and there's also a zip file:
> >>   ZIP: 
> >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/22964/WSRX%20CD8.zip 
> >>
> >>that contains everything, including 2 *-diff.pdf files showing what 
> >>was changed from the old CD (for just MC and RMP - RM did not 
> >>change). The only changes you should see in there are:
> >>1 - increase in the CD version # (on title page and footers)
> >>2 - update to the "previous version" names/URL - needed since we 
> >>bumped up the CD version #
> >>3 - fix to the WS-Policy namespace URI
> >>
> >>I encourage everyone to look these over to ensure that not only is 
> >>the URI correct but also that no other unintended changes were made.
> >>
> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> >>
> >>
> >>Odds are the issue of pointing to the CR version of WS-Policy will 
> >>come up on today's conf call, so to see if we can move things along 
> >>there's also a new "CD08.1" folder. In there, again, you'll find 3 
> >>pdf files:
> >>   WS-RM: 
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/22969/wsrm-1.1-spec-cd-07.pdf 
> >>
> >>   WS-RMP: 
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/22970/wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-08.pdf 
> >>
> >>   WS-MC: 
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/22971/wsmc-1.0-spec-cd-04.pdf 
> >>
> >>and a zip file:
> >>   ZIP: 
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/22968/WSRX%20CD8.1.zip 
> >>
> >>The files in this folder contain all of the changes mentioned above. 
> >> However, WS-RMP and WS-MC also contain the following additional 
> >>changes (which you'll see in the *-diff pdfs):
> >>1 - removed "wsp" from the WS-RMP namespace table (not change needed 
> >>for WS-MC)
> >>2 - added the following sentence to the "Namespace" section of WS-RMP 
> >>and WS-MC:
> >>The assertions defined within this specification have been designed 
> >>to work independently of a specific version of WS-Policy and 
> >>WS-Policy Attachment. Within this specification the use of the 
> >>namespace prefix "wsp" refers generically to the WS-Policy namespace, 
> >>not a specific version.
> >>3 - In WS-RMP, moved the references for WS-Policy and 
> >>WS-PolicyAttachments to be non-normative (no change needed for WS-MC)
> >>
> >>Note that the WS-Policy/Attachments references themselves still point 
> >>to the CR versions of the specs.
> >>
> >>It seems we need to balance our desire to reference the latest 
> >>version of WS-Policy with our immediate need to also be able to 
> >>support existing customers. Maybe the above set of changes could 
> >>allow both camps to squint a little and be able to move on.  With 
> >>these changes our specs clearly push people towards the CR version of 
> >>WS-Policy but still acknowledges that these assertions we're defining 
> >>are really independent of any version of WS-Policy.  *Note that none 
> >>of the schema files actually reference WS-Policy at all*.  So, given 
> >>that all of these WS-* specs are supposed to be composible, it seems 
> >>reasonable to create our assertions (and specs) in such a way that 
> >>they not only work with the CR version but with any subsequence 
> >>versions of WS-Policy that the W3C may create. If the WS-Policy WG 
> >>were to rev the WS-Policy specs it would be a shame to have to update 
> >>WS-RMP and WS-MC just to update our WS-Policy namespaces/references.  
> >>(Of course, if WS-Policy were to change in such a way that our 
> >>assertions themselves needed to be changed to fit into some new 
> >>framework then we'd have to reopen our specs.)   Anyway, please look 
> >>over this proposal and see what you think....

-- 
Pete Wenzel <pete.wenzel@sun.com>
Open ESB Community <http://open-esb.org/>