[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
In case and before it causes any confusion, let me clarify that by "closed set" all I meant is to reference the existing versions of the policy frameworks (in particular 1.2 and 1.5) that we can comfortably claim to compose with the RM specs. -- Sanjay >-----Original Message----- >From: Patil, Sanjay >Sent: Thursday, Mar 22, 2007 11:56 AM >To: 'Gilbert Pilz'; 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 > > >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]