[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Fw: [ws-tx] Issue 030 - consolidated refinement of Proposal 2
-1 saying that, roberts rules really do help!!!! >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@jboss.com] >Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 10:26 AM >To: Ian Robinson >Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: Re: Fw: [ws-tx] Issue 030 - consolidated refinement >of Proposal 2 > > >Is it possible to make sure we vote on this on Thursday, >otherwise it'll >drag on? My worry is that we get into more discussion, more >modifications are suggested and then we have to go away and have yet >another proposal on the table which, at best, is voted on via >e-ballot a >week later. What I'd like to see is that the proposal is voted on on >Thursday, which means no new text/modifications to existing >text in the >meeting. I know your final paragraph probably means the same >thing, but >I'd slightly amend it to say: "All proposed modifications to >any of the >proposals up for vote on Issue 030 MUST be made available to the TC >before Wednesday." There's nothing procedurally that we can do to >enforce this, but it's in the interests of the TC effort as a whole if >we agree to work like this. As you say, a month is a long time for one >issue, at least as far as OASIS TCs go ;) > >Mark. > > >Ian Robinson wrote: >> >> >> There has been a lot of discussion and some good comments suggesting >> refinement of "Proposal 2" for issue 30. Specifically: >> Alastair's point that the WS-C spec defines the >Coodination faults as >> "reply messages" but the WS-AT spec defines AT faults as >"notification >> messages". The refined proposal clarifies that the >specific messages >> exchange patterns apply to the protocol rather than to individual >> messages and that protocol fault messages are constructed >according to >> the rules of the protocol in which they are used. >> Bob's objection to the use of phrases like ' "one way" pattern as >> defined in WS-Addressing '. The proposal replaces this with ' The >> protocols defined in WS-AtomicTransaction use a "one way" message >> exchange pattern consisting of a sequence of notification messages >> between a Coordinator and a Participant. ' >> Joe's observation of the inconsistency in specificity >between references >> to WS-A from Coordination on the one hand and AT on the >other. These are >> now uniformly precise. Also the proposed text now refer >to the abstract >> message addressing properties rather than to soap header elements. >> >> Max and I have updated our proposal to address these concerns. >> >> (See attached file: Issue30_Proposal_2_WSBA.doc)(See attached file: >> Issue30_Proposal_2_WSAT_updated.doc)(See attached file: >> Issue30_Proposal_WSCOOR_updated.doc) >> >> In accrodance with the decision of the TC on the last telecon, the >> text remains silent on the handling of non-TX fault messages. >> >> We have been discussing this issue for a month now, and we >have other >> work queued up. Could I suggest that any further refinements or >> counter-proposals be written in terms of concrete spec language that >> the TC would be able to vote upon on the next telecon. >> >> >> Regards, >> Ian >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]