[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 would have to agree. A finite set of WS-Policy versions is preferable to a open-ended set. - gp > -----Original Message----- > From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:20 AM > To: Marc Goodner > Cc: Christopher B Ferris; 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 > > 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]