RE: [regrep-comresolve] Some other V2 Spec comments

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

Farrukh,

There are at least two links to my specific comments:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/200112/msg00039.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/200203/msg00003.html

Please note, some of these were addressed in the approved V2 specs.  For
instance the line number issue was successfully dealt with already. The
comment discussing several dangling references may or may not have been
addressed.  Lets discuss the rest.

Here is a link to Duane's original post:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/200202/msg00066.html

A link to Nita comments is:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/200202/msg00014.html

My WSDL issues note is:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/200203/msg00017.html

I will send another note with links to the other relevant V2 issues asap.  I
simply have run out of time and need to get to a meeting.
 
Joel

-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:59 AM
To: Munter, Joel D
Cc: 'Oasis RR Comment Resolution'; regrep@lists.oasis-open.org;
Breininger, Kathryn R
Subject: Re: [regrep-comresolve] Some other V2 Spec comments


Joel,

Please recall that the decision of the team in the last meeting was to
accept
any past comments from *you* that you re-submit
or send pointers to as formal comments. It was not a blanket YES to sifting
through all past email looking for
any question about the specs.

This process is getting out of hand and creates unnecessary confusion. I
think
that we should only accept formal comments on a formal alias.
Otherwise we will be arguing over what is a formal comment or not.

Kathryn, is there already a formal email alias for submitting external
comments?
If not then we can ignore my
suggestion above.

As to your comments that you feel are being ignored, could you please send a
link to the precise set of comments you would like to formally
submit as external comments. Kathryn, I would like to suggest that we
dedicate
our next meeting to addressing Joel's comments.

As for yet another meeting prposal, I propose for conducting issue
resolution by
email with each issue being assigned a number and initiated
in a separate thread by me (as the team's issue keeper). If anyone else
would
like to be the issue keeper I will be glad to hand over that responsibility.

--
Regards,
Farrukh


"Munter, Joel D" wrote:

> 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)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>