[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [regrep] 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>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC