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

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

Farrukh, 

Unfortunately it would be unwise for me take on the v2 spec issue lead role
until we receive a broader set of opinions from the full Oasis Registry TC
and Kathryn and Karl answer the question posted to them and the full TC
yesterday.  

If I take on the role, it will be with the understanding that all real and
relevant issues received or discussed on any [regrep...] related list since
the V2 Specifications were approved will be considered.  As there has never
been a single note posted to the "official" regrep comment list
[regrep-comment@lists.oasis-open.org], my assumption is that most reviewers
do not know of its existence or believe that their issues would be addressed
on other [regrep...] related lists.  

Joel

-----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


Joel,

I volunteered for the role of issue list keeper several meetings ago since
no
one else did.
You were probably not in attendence. Recall that I said in my earlier email
that
if anyone want the job they can have it.
Sounds like you want it. So I am hereby officially handing it off to you
unless
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
come
> 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
formally
submitted.
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
to
address
the comments. I want others to opie on this. In the absence of other
opinions
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
gaining
> 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
do
> 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
attend.

>
>
> 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
the
> next few weeks, then I'll take it.

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

>
>
> I am unsure why you chose to cross post my sub-team note back to the
parent
> Reg/Rep team list but since you have, I assume that you had good reason
to,
> 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
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>

--
Regards,
Farrukh