[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
Marc Goodner wrote: > First off the contributed versions of the specifications were clearly > marked 1.0. Any output should be at least 1.1. > I must have missed that on the contributions. I was looking at: http://specs.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/02/rm/ws-reliablemessaging.pdf Thanks for pointing it out. > "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. > I'm not arguing for/against whether the name should be the same, here. As you know my colleagues from Oracle have already stated their opinion on the TC ML ;-) All I'm saying is that if we keep the ws-rm name then it should be something > 1.0, which, as you have stated earlier, agree. > > > -----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]