[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
+1 to 1.1 if no big protocol change, 2.0 if there is a protocol change. -Anish -- Gilbert Pilz wrote: > 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]