[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-comresolve] Some other V2 Spec comments
Thanks Joel for compiling the links. I will take a first stab at converting these to issues by COB tomorrow and send the result to the list. I think you are right that we should have a meeting to discuss the issue list. How is 2-3pm Eastern on Monday for sub-team members? -- Regards, Farrukh "Munter, Joel D" wrote: > 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> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC