RE: [regrep-comresolve] Issue database distribution: 3/15/2002

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

Farrukh, et al

We are both referring to the same note [1] from the Oasis ebXML Registry TC
chair, Kathryn.  We are interpreting it 180 degrees differently.  Please
indulge me by carefully reading my complete argument below.

I would like to expand on my argument a little in support of the proposed
discussion on Monday.  A key "customer" (BP Catalog Team) of the Oasis V2
Reg/Rep specifications has stated that the design of the unique ID based on
UUID does not currently meet their requirements [2].  The V2 Reg/Rep
specifications reference the standard and well-used UUID scheme. [3, section
7.3.1]

The use/adoption of the UUID scheme by the Reg/Rep team is consistent with
how many current specifications (within and outside of the ebXML effort) are
structuring the definition of unique keys.  Some relevant questions to ask
then are: Are the requirements [2] being proposed by the BP catalog team
unique to the catalog team?  Additionally, were these requirements known to
the ebXML effort at its inception or are they new?  Other groups across the
ebXML effort are discussing this issue also. [4]

If the requirement was recorded early in the ebXML [5,6] effort and the
current specifications do not meet the requirement, then it should be
recorded within this team's V2 issues log.  It is my assertion that this
requirement did exist early as evidenced by [6, lines 868:872].  If you all
believe that the requirements noted in [2] have been added since the ebXML
effort began its latter (i.e., V2) phases or the described requirements for
identification have been expanded, then I agree that this issue is not
unique to the Reg/Rep team but in fact is a limitation of all current ebXML
V2 specifications.  

It shows a great deal of maturity and prudence to show your limitations or
to clearly delineate them within an issues log along side the specifications
themselves.  There is nothing wrong with doing this.

[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/200203/msg00030.html
[2] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/200202/msg00014.html
[3] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/regrep/documents/2.0/specs/ebrs.pdf
[4] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-cppa/200202/msg00065.html
[5] http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebREQ.pdf
[6] http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebTA.pdf

Joel

-----Original Message-----
From: Munter, Joel D [mailto:joel.d.munter@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 2:26 PM
To: 'Oasis RR Comment Resolution'
Subject: RE: [regrep-comresolve] Issue database distribution: 3/15/2002



And I based my opinion upon the same criteria so that is why I ask to
discuss this on Monday.  

<snip>
	What I want to focus on right now is comments 
	that are specific to version 2.0 of the specs.
</snip>

Joel

-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 2:02 PM
To: Munter, Joel D
Cc: 'Oasis RR Comment Resolution'
Subject: Re: [regrep-comresolve] Issue database distribution: 3/15/2002


Joel,

I did not make this decision unilaterally. It was based on Katheryn's email
at:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/200203/msg00030.html

I applied the criterea she had laid out.

--
Regards,
Farrukh


"Munter, Joel D" wrote:

> Farrukh,
>
> I ask you to please place this as a discussion item on the agenda.  This
is
> not your sole decision to make.  This is why we have the resolution
> sub-team.  The fact is that Kathryn discussed this in several team Reg/Rep
> meetings and the comments themselves from Nita indicate specific things in
> the V2 Reg/Rep that DO NOT meet their requirements.  In my mind, that
would
> make this a valid V2 comment.
>
> <snip>
>         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:...
> </snip>
>
> I agree that this may in fact become a V3 work item but I strongly
recommend
> that please record the comment and the agreed disposition.  I at least ask
> that we discuss this in our sub-team.
>
> Thanks,
> Joel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 10:42 AM
> To: 'Oasis RR Comment Resolution'
> Subject: Re: [regrep-comresolve] Issue database distribution: 3/15/2002
>
> I should have noted that I did not include Nita's comments at:
>
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/200202/msg00014.html
>
> because:
>
> -They were not directed to V2 specs
>
> -They were part of ongoing discussions between Registry TC and other TCs
> focused on what we need to do for V3.
>
> Please bring to the team's attention any other issues that I might have
> missed. Thanks.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>



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