ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] [NEW ISSUE] Remove references from WSRM to WSRMP
- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- To: tom@coastin.com
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:58:11 -0400
May not be a big deal - but it seems
a bit odd to define stuff in a spec that people are not supposed to do
anything with. e.g. Here's a thing that sounds kind of interesting
(we know lots of people want some thing called DAs) and we'll tease you
by defining the terms, but you can't do anything with 'em, nor do we even
point you to a spec that does :-)
thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com
Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
03/16/2007 09:04 PM
Please respond to
tom@coastin.com |
|
To
| Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
|
cc
| Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>,
"ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
| Re: [ws-rx] [NEW ISSUE] Remove references
from WSRM to WSRMP |
|
Doug Davis wrote:
>
> hmmm, some interesting things come to mind....
> - what does section 2.4 (DAs) mean w/o the notion of putting them
as
> Policy assertions?
I see no problem with having the base spec define the meaning of
Delivery assurance concepts.
The policy spec would be defining how to express the delivery assurance
as policy assertions suitable
for ws policy.
Tom
> What is a reader expected to do with them w/o some guidance? Or
would
> we move these to the WS-RMP spec?
> - how does removing the reference to WS-RMP help when we have other
> references to things like SecurityPolicy - which points to the
> submitted version of WSP? Perhaps we should consider removing
all
> refs to any kind of policy doc?
> - If pointing to SecurityPolicy is ok because its a non-normative
ref,
> then rather than removing refs to WS-RMP, we should just make it a
> non-normative one?
> - If we decouple RM and RMP, then it seems we should do the same for
> MC. Kind of sad since the real content in a WS-MCP spec would
be less
> than a page. sigh. Would you object to including that
as part of
> this issue/proposal if I did the work to split it out?
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software
Group
> (919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com
>
>
> *Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>*
>
> 03/15/2007 05:50 PM
>
>
> To
> "ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org"
<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [ws-rx]
[NEW ISSUE] Remove references from WSRM to WSRMP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I see no reason why WSRM should reference WSRMP. WSRM interoperates
and
> works fine without WSRMP in place. I propose we make the following
> changes to WSRM:
>
> Relative to the latest CD
>
> Delete lines 201-203 (reference to wsrmp)
> On line 378 delete the sentence starting with "These assertions...."
> until the end of line 379.
> On line 1786 delete the sentence starting with "See WS-RM Policy..."
to
> the end of line 1787.
>
> Paul
>
> --
> 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
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt
email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774
5133
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]