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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx-editors message

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


Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] FW: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussionon the 7/28 conf-call


Gilbert Pilz wrote:
> 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").
> 

I *think* I had send some feedback on the version numbers, but not sure.

IMHO, if we keep the spec name the same we should have a version number 
 > 1.0 (1.1, 2.0, whatever) to avoid confusion with the submission.

-Anish
--

> 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
>>>>
>>>
> 


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