OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

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


I would like to hear other opinions as well.  I have clearly stated my
position with respect to the fact that all comments received or known about
since the V2 specifications were approved by this TC and before the Oasis
vote is taken should be considered and Farrukh has stated that only comments
that were received on the "official" comments list need to be considered.

I disagree strongly. We should only address comments that people have

Karl and Kathryn, I ask you both to please comment.


-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:51 AM
To: Munter, Joel D
Cc: 'Oasis RR Comment Resolution'; regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [regrep-comresolve] Some other V2 Spec comments


I volunteered for the role of issue list keeper several meetings ago since
one else did.
You were probably not in attendence. Recall that I said in my earlier email
if anyone want the job they can have it.
Sounds like you want it. So I am hereby officially handing it off to you
anyone objects.

More comments inline.

"Munter, Joel D" wrote:

> reply: Farrukh, et al
> Sifting through all comments received since the V2 Specs were released IS
> THE PRUDENT thing to do.  During the last call, we accepted the fact that
> some comments have come in through the "formal" list while others have
> into through other means.  Accepting some because they came in through one
> list while ignoring others is just plain wrong.

I disagree strongly. We should only address comments that people have
We can allow anyone to re-submit any past comment formally as we did you.
Otherwise, we will simply create a mountain of busy work for those who have
the comments. I want others to opie on this. In the absence of other
OASIS policy
is quite clear. There is an official alias for submitting comments.

> In my research (in this thread below) there are less than a dozen true
> comments.  Some were questions that simply needed clarification but some
> e.g., the BP catalog team) are crucial to the validity of key elements
> within the V2 Reg/Rep specs.  Reviewing all of these is critical to
> an understanding of the perceived and real issues that are present within
> the V2 Reg/Rep specifications.  To be very frank, having an Oasis voting
> member level awareness of these issues is critical to my company's vote on
> these specifications.

> I have provided pointers to my specific comments three times, but I will
> so in a separate note to the comment resolution team again.
> There are cases in this short list where you have replied either privately
> and or on the list where the question was posed.  Some of your individual
> responses may or may not reflect the feelings of the entire comment
> resolution sub-team.  Because some of your replies were private, it is
> difficult if not impossible to even assess them.

My private response to Duanne was made because you had raised an
issue about the agreed upon response process in a meeting that you did not

> As the comment resolution sub-team has yet to meet or conduct successful
> eMail threads on its own list yet, there has been no assignment of you as
> comment-list manager.  If you want it, you got it.  If you do not want it,
> or do not have the bandwidth to manage these dozen or so comments during
> next few weeks, then I'll take it.

Actually the team was formed in a meeting that you did not attend. It
of Nikola, Sanjay and myself.

> I am unsure why you chose to cross post my sub-team note back to the
> Reg/Rep team list but since you have, I assume that you had good reason
> so I copied that list on this reply as well.

I cross-posted because the issues you raise have broader implication of team
process etc.

> 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
> 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
> 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
> --
> 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
> > first level response to some of these, but I believe it is important
> we
> > discuss and agree with the disposition of these comments.
> >
> > Also, while the trivial ones have been addressed, I will again remind
> > that my own comments about the V2 spec continue to go ignored.
> >
> > Kit Ko, 7 March 2002,
> > In "sec Communication Bootstrapping for ebXML message
> > Service", I think all this section is only applied to a "thin client"
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > each of these issues/comments.  I propose either Friday 15 March 3-4pm
> > (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