[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 discussion on the 7/28 conf-call
First off the contributed versions of the specifications were clearly marked 1.0. Any output should be at least 1.1. "Given the history/confusion around reliable messaging (lower case), I'm afraid the distinction between *OASIS* WS-RM and the other version of WS-RM would be lost to most folks who are not standards wonks." That is exactly why the name of the specs should stay the same. People think of this as lower case "reliable messaging", not "reliable exchange". The name has immense value that should not be underestimated. -----Original Message----- From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:06 PM 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 AFAIK, the proprietary specification WS-ReliableMessaging (all its versions) were using dates (rather than version numbers). We are leaning towards using version numbers (modulo the discussion on issue i014 on the TC ML). Version 1.0 is typically associated with the 1st version of the spec/product. Within OASIS there have been two TCs (WSRM and WS-RX) chartered to do something very, very similar; one of those TCs is called 'Web Services Reliable Messaging'. There is already a lot of confusion around this. (I always get comments from folks saying -- I can never remember which is which). It is true that the file names 'wsreliablemessaging-1.0-spec-os.pdf' and 'wsreliablemessaging-1.0-spec-os.pdf' are different and so are the namespaces/boilerplate. But unless you are implementing the spec or are involved with the TC, this is not what folks look at (if you print the doc, the file name is not relevant anyway). Given the history/confusion around reliable messaging (lower case), I'm afraid the distinction between *OASIS* WS-RM and the other version of WS-RM would be lost to most folks who are not standards wonks. -Anish -- Gilbert Pilz wrote: > 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 >>>>>> >>>>>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]