[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
+1 as well. > -----Original Message----- > From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] > Sent: Thursday, Jul 28, 2005 2:47 PM > To: Gilbert Pilz > Cc: Marc Goodner; 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 > > +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/do > wnload.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/em > ail/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/em > ail/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]