RE: [ws-rx-editors] FW: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on the 7/28 conf-call

["Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

Yeah that was why I proposed 14 and 16, the others seem to need a little
further clarification as the proposals for 15 and 17 are lacking in some
details to just use them to resolve the issue. I agree they don't seem
to be controversial, we should fill in the missing details for the
proposals on 15 and 17 on this list and post back to the main one. 

Any one want to own these? I'll volunteer but I can't look at these in
detail until Friday (at least one requires reviwing the Artifact IDs
doc). The owner should probably be someone who will edit the docs and I
guess that isn't me. Gilbert?

-----Original Message-----
From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:10 PM
To: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] FW: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for
discussion on the 7/28 conf-call

I have received some minor feedback on a couple of issues, but I don't
know if I could say we have reached consensus. My general feeling is
that people don't really care about these issues, so I think we should
just proceed with the proposals with a few ammendments.

i015: Need "artifactName" values for WS-RM and WS-RM Policy documents. I
sent email to 'oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org' in an attempt
to clarify what this value should look like, but have received no
response. Need to change the "productVersion" value to something that
can indicate minor versions (i.e. "1.0").

i016: Need to change the identifiers to reflect the above change:

wsreliablemessaging-1.0-spec-wd-01.*
wsrmpolicy-1.0-spec-wd-01.*

i017: URL values need to be co-ordinated with Jamie, Scott, et. al.

- g 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:32 PM
> To: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-rx-editors] FW: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues 
> for discussion on the 7/28 conf-call
> 
>  
> I had meant to post it to the editors list ...
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
> >Sent: Tuesday, Jul 26, 2005 23:24 PM
> >To: wsrx
> >Subject: FW: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion 
> on the 7/28 
> >conf-call
> >
> >
> >I am thinking of scheduling one or more of the issues 14, 
> 15, 16 and 17 
> >for discussion on the 7/28 call. Is there a consensus among 
> the editors 
> >about the resolution of these issues. Any suggestions 
> regarding which 
> >ones are easy targets and which ones require further 
> deliberations by 
> >the editors team?
> >
> >Basically, I am looking for simple issues for scheduling along with 
> >some of the core design issues and wanted to get a feel from 
> you about 
> >which ones are straightforward, etc.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Sanjay
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
> >>Sent: Monday, Jul 25, 2005 13:04 PM
> >>To: Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on the 
> >>7/28 conf-call
> >>
> >>Can we also discuss i014 Document names and i016 document 
> identifiers 
> >>to try to get some more of the editorial issues into he 
> pending queue?
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
> >>Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 11:59 AM
> >>To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>Subject: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on the 7/28 
> >>conf-call
> >>
> >>
> >>Here is a proposed list of issues for discussion on the 7/28
> >conf-call.
> >>
> >>- Issue  i013: Max message number in policy
> >> 
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php
> >>/13697/Re
> >>liableMessagingIssues.xml#i013
> >>
> >>- Issue (i018): Is an implementation supporting a smaller 
> max message 
> >>number valid?
> >>  See the first issue in the email:
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archiv
> >>es/200507
> >>/msg00193.html
> >>
> >>- Issue (i019): Sequence termination on Fault
> >>  See the second issue in the email:
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archiv
> >>es/200507
> >>/msg00193.html
> >>
> >>I urge the originators of these issues to come prepared for 
> describing 
> >>on the conf-call the motivating requirements as well as the 
> proposed 
> >>resolution for the issues.
> >>
> >>The three issues (i006, i008 and i009) discussed on the 
> last conf-call
> >>(7/21) are currently waiting for a clear statement of
> >requirements from
> >>their owners. Let us carry the discussion of these issues on the 
> >>mailing list until their requirements are clearly hashed out.
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Sanjay
> >>
> >
>