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

["Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>]

Hmmmm . . . I have a problem with saying that the version is "1.1" or
"2.0" since, in my mind, a spec is scoped by the organization that
produces/publishes/recommends it. This is the first version of the
*OASIS* WS-ReliableMessaging specification. As far as confusion goes; I
don't think anyone should have a hard time telling the difference
between:

wsreliablemessaging-1.0-spec-os.pdf

and

ws-reliablemessaging200502.pdf

A quick peek inside either document will tell you which is which. From a
protocol level the namespace URIs will tell you which "version" you are
dealing with . . .

- g
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:46 AM
> To: Gilbert Pilz
> Cc: 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
> 
> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> > 
>