[regrep-comresolve] Some other V2 Spec comments

["Munter, Joel D" <joel.d.munter@intel.com>]

To date, within his MS Access database approach, Farrukh has captured a
single but vital comment from Duane Nickell about the V2 registry model
being a potential bottleneck and that there is a potential for DoS attacks,
and my two recent comments related to the normative V2 WSDL files affiliated
with the RAWS approach.  Duane has submitted both issues within a single
thread but for better visibility I believe that we should break them out
into two.  

There are other comments which have come in during the formal review period
that have not yet been captured.  Farrukh and/or others may have provided
first level response to some of these, but I believe it is important that we
discuss and agree with the disposition of these comments.  

Also, while the trivial ones have been addressed, I will again remind all
that my own comments about the V2 spec continue to go ignored.

Kit Ko, 7 March 2002,	
In "sec 6.6.2.2 Communication Bootstrapping for ebXML message
Service", I think all this section is only applied to a "thin client" (as
defined in sec 6.6.1).
Am I right?!

Kim Chaemee, 18 December 2001, 
(1) In Figure 6, there is no "Updated" status in lifecycle. Is it right or
missed? 
(2) In 8.4.2. GetContentResponse Message Structure, Is it
GetContentResponseMessage? In message fragment, there is <GetContentRequest>
instead of Response. 
(3) In 9.7. Access Control, there is only 3 role as Content owner, registry
administrator, registry guest.  However, there is no consistency between
5.3. Registry Users, Table1. Actors and Table11. Role. I think it's better
to have some consistency to describe the role of actors. 
(4) Do you have a plan not to provide RIM DTD anymore? From Developer's
perspective, sometimes we need DTD instead of Schema.  Some XML Binding SW
doesn't provide Schema yet. 
(5) Content based query in SQL Query.  Is there specific request & response
for content based query in SQL Query?

Kyu-Chul Lee, 9 January 2002,
I'd like to ask that the OASIS ebXML Registry V2.0 is backward compatible
with V1.0 or not.
There are already many implementations of ebXML Registry V1.0. 
I think it is required to guarantee the backward compatibility in order to
save their investments.

Nita Sharma, 11 February 2002,
We(the ebXML BP Catalog team) had a long conversation last week with Kathryn
about unique identification and what their scheme should be. We provided her
with our requirements for unique identification that was not satisfied by
the current UUID specification of regrep. The various things that we touched
base upon were:

1. Meaningful verses meaningless identification scheme
2. multiple identification scheme for the same item based on various usages.
3. A standard organization (like UCC/EAN) to control the uniqueness and
meaningfulness
4. Separate namespace for the various identification schemes
5. Analyze other schemes like IDEF, OID etc.

And finally, when can we all meet to assign tasks and review the status of
each of these issues/comments.  I propose either Friday 15 March 3-4pm MST
(5-6pm EST) or Monday 18 March 9-10am MST (11-12pm EST).

Thanks,
Joel Munter
Distributed Systems, Intel Labs
joel.d.munter@intel.com
(480) 552-3076
(602) 790-0924 (cell)