[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
Since I am the only one arguing for "1.0" I think I can bring us to consensus by withdrawing my argument. I agree it should be "1.1" (if we don't touch the protocol) and "2.0" (if we change the protocol). - g > -----Original Message----- > From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 1:46 PM > To: Marc Goodner > Cc: Gilbert Pilz; 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 > > 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]