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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-caf message

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


Subject: Re: [ws-caf] ws-caf draft minutes


All,

I had thought the discussion around the conformance clause was amended 
twice (not once).  In particular, I believe my second proposal (deleting 
"and protocols" from paragraph 4 as it was numbered in Greg's email) was 
successful; it passed without objection.  Certainly, as shown below, my 
last proposal (distinction between implementations that must implement and 
those that just use) failed.

All together, we need some text between "Jeff: seconds" and the following 
discussion describing the fate of that separate proposal.  The "(once)" 
near the end of the snippet below should read "(twice)".

thanx,
	doug

On 13-Sep-04 09:20, Furniss, Peter wrote:

...

>     Doug: in the light of the discussion, proposes deleting para 3
>     2nded: Eric
>    
>     Jeff: what was the intent ? the words don't quite capture it - what 
> would we lose
>     by deletion
>    
>     Greg: intent was to disallow meaningless garbage, but perhaps that's 
> not quite
>     a conformance claim.  Have to use identifiable addressing schemes 
> (long discussion
>     on this in section 2)
>    
>     This is generally covered in section 2
>    
>     Martin: any objections:  none,
>      amendment passes
>     
>     Doug: on (original) para 4: what exactly is a protocol in "systems 
> and protocols" -
>     should that be "systems and referencing specification".
>    
>     anyone can do anything with the pass-by-reference must implement the 
> ctx mgr, which is
>     too strong
>    
>     Jeff: but a ref spec isn't an implementation
>    
>     Tony: in another forum, they distinguished implementations 
> conforming and specifications
>     complying
>    
>     Peter: that was a bit silly really
>    
>     Doug: questions his own amendment !
>       clarifies : delete  "and protocols" from para 4
>       Jeff: seconds
>    
>     Doug: that paragraph now says pass-by-reference use means must implement
>     the context mgr, but really it only needs to support either offering 
> the
>     service or interacting with it.
>    
>     Martin: only the thing passing out the context needs to implement 
> the mgr service
>    
>     Doug: wishes to clarify the distinction between implementations that 
> must
>     implement and those that just use
>     Proposes text to that effect, Peter seconds
>    
>     Peter: the text would appear to say any system using pass-by-ref 
> must offer the Ctx mgr
>     service, though it clearly doesn't need to
>    
>     general disagreement that it could be so interpreted
>    
>    
>     Voice vote: 6 for , 8 against, 1 abstain
>        amendment fails
>       
>     The main motion was taken, as amended (once) -
>    
>        Passed, no objections

...



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