[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Groups - Latest Editors WSRX Files (Latest WSRX.zip)uploaded
I think changing the spec along these lines, i.e. allowing only 1.2 or 1.5 version of the policy would allow us to move forward (with better interop than allowing any version of wsp). So +1. -Anish -- Marc Goodner wrote: > I think we should address this the same way SP handled it, allow reference to 1.2 or 1.5. That has a much more complicated usage of Policy than what we have here. This change would also permit an updated reference to the final Rec or even a future revision as an errata rather than a full revision of our own specs. I think we could still progress the specs with this change. > > --- Text updates > Add this text to the end of the paragraph in section 2 of the WS-RM Policy spec and 3.4 of MakeConnection: > "The assertions defined within this specification have been designed to work independently of a specific version of WS-Policy. At the time of the publication of this specification the versions of WS-Policy known to correctly compose with this specification are WS-Policy 1.2 and 1.5. Within this specification the use of the namespace prefix wsp refers generically to the WS-Policy namespace, not a specific version." > > No text update is required for RM, it only mentions Policy non-normatively. No assertions or usage of features is described. > > --- Namespace prefix table updates > Strike wsp from the namespace prefix table of WS-RM Policy. > > The wsp prefix is not in RM or MC. > > --- References > Here are what the updated references would be for all three specs: > [WS-Policy] W3C Member Submission "Web Services Policy 1.2 - Framework", 25 168 April 2006. > http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-Policy-20060425/ > > W3C Candidate Recommendation "Web Services Policy 1.5 - 171 Framework", 28 February 2007 > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-framework-20070228/ 173 > > [WS-PolicyAttachment] W3C Member Submission "Web Services Policy 1.2 - Attachment", 25 April 2006. > http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-PolicyAttachment-20060425/ > > W3C Candidate Recommendation "Web Services Policy 1.5 - 178 Attachment", 28 February 2007 > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-attach-20070228/ > > --- > There are no schema changes required for any of the specs. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:26 PM > To: Christopher B Ferris > Cc: Ashok Malhotra; Doug Davis; Martin Chapman; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Groups - Latest Editors WSRX Files (Latest WSRX.zip) uploaded > > In that case, shouldn't the normative reference point to the CR version > not the member submission? Or at least to the LC draft. > > -Anish > -- > > Christopher B Ferris wrote: >> WS-Policy 1.5 Framework and Attachment specs are in Candidate >> Recommendation status >> as of yesterday. >> >> Is that "not far enough along in the standards process"? Basically, >> there are two stages remaining. >> PR and REC. The CR phase is the Call for Implementations phase. The WG >> has identified exit >> criteria of 4 interoperating implementations of each of the features of >> the specs with the exclusion of >> 4 features that require only 2. As of this week, we have 2 published >> endpoints that are interoperating >> on the set of interop test scenarios defined for the first 3 rounds of >> the interop scenarios. >> >> To me, that suggests that the specs are far enough along in the >> standards process to be referenced. >> The namespace is final (unless the specs revert to Working Draft) in the >> CR. >> >> When we went though the CR transition, it was pretty clear that the >> changes made to the specs >> since the Last Call were of a non-substantive nature (e.g. no features >> added or removed). The most significant >> change was to the namespace itself. >> >> Must we go through another review period just to change a reference from >> the LC draft to the CR? I certainly >> hope not. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Christopher Ferris >> STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy >> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com >> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris >> phone: +1 508 377 9295 >> >> "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 03/01/2007 >> 12:51:45 PM: >> >> > Martin means CR. WS-Policy CR was approved recently. Perhaps even >> yesterday. >> > >> > All the best, Ashok >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] >> > > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:43 AM >> > > To: dug@us.ibm.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >> > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Groups - Latest Editors WSRX Files (Latest >> WSRX.zip) >> > > uploaded >> > > >> > > Sorry if this is a late comment, but the normative ws-policy >> reference in >> > > wsrmp seems inappropriate to me. >> > > The charter says: >> > > >> > > The TC will not attempt to define functionality duplicating that >> of any >> > > normatively referenced specification in the input >> > > WS-ReliableMessaging or WS-RM Policy specifications. If the >> referenced >> > > specification is outside of a standardization >> > > process at the time this TC moves to ratify its deliverables, or >> is not >> > > far along enough in the standardization process, >> > > any normative references to it in the TC output will be expressed >> in an >> > > abstract manner, and the incarnation will be left >> > > at that time as an exercise in interoperability. >> > > >> > > I don't believe in this case the member submission is "far along >> enough" >> > > since there is a Last Call version. >> > > >> > > Cheers, >> > > Martin. >> > > >> > > >-----Original Message----- >> > > >From: dug@us.ibm.com [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] >> > > >Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 4:18 PM >> > > >To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >> > > >Subject: [ws-rx] Groups - Latest Editors WSRX Files (Latest >> > > >WSRX.zip) uploaded >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >The document revision named Latest Editors WSRX Files (Latest >> > > >WSRX.zip) has been submitted by Mr. Doug Davis to the OASIS >> > > >Web Services Reliable Exchange (WS-RX) TC document repository. >> > > > This document is revision #44 of Latest WSRX.zip. >> > > > >> > > >Document Description: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >View Document Details: >> > > >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/document.php >> > > >?document_id=22657 >> > > > >> > > >Download Document: >> > > >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php >> > > /22657/Latest%20WSRX.zip >> > > >> > > Revision: >> > > This document is revision #44 of Latest WSRX.zip. The document details >> > > page referenced above will show the complete revision history. >> > > >> > > >> > > PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email >> > > application may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be >> able to >> > > copy and paste the entire link address into the address field of >> your web >> > > browser. >> > > >> > > -OASIS Open Administration >> > > >> > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]