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


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]