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] CD8


Martin

 > 2. I think changing from a specific version to a general model is a 
substantive change and would require another public review.

In that case we shouldn't have moved from the 1.2 reference to 1.5CR 
without another PR either. You (rightly) didn't argue for another PR at 
that time when you supported the proposal to move from 1.2 to 1.5CR.

I don't agree with your point.

Paul


Martin Chapman wrote:
> A couple of comments.
> 
> 1. Precendent on referencing WS-Addressing shows that people think CR is far enough a standards route
> 2. I think changing from a specific version to a general model is a substantive change and would require another public review.
> 
> 
> Martin.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pete Wenzel [mailto:pete.wenzel@Sun.COM] 
>> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:32 PM
>> To: Tom Rutt
>> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] CD8
>>
>>
>> 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.p
> hp/22965/wsrm-1.1-spec-cd-07.pdf 
>>>>>   WS-RMP:
>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.p
> hp/22966/wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-08.pdf 
>>>>>   WS-MC:
>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.p
> hp/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.p
> hp/22969/wsrm-1.1-spec-cd-07.pdf 
>>>>>   WS-RMP:
>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.p
> hp/22970/wsrmp-1.1-spec-cd-08.pdf 
>>>>>   WS-MC:
>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.p
> hp/22971/wsmc-1.0-spec-cd-04.pdf 
>>>>> and a zip file:
>>>>>   ZIP:
>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.p
> hp/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/>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
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]