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] Groups - Latest Editors WSRX Files (Latest WSRX.zip) uploaded



Excellent! I (and PaulF and others I believe) had supported this idea in
the past (of referencing a closed set of 1.2 and 1.5 WSP versions from
the RM specs).

Is there anybody fundamentally opposed to this idea at this point of
time? If there are no objections, I suggest the editors to produce and
circulate a new draft with corresponding changes in advance of the next
week's call.

-- Sanjay

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, Mar 22, 2007 11:43 AM
>To: Anish Karmarkar; 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 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]