[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
Another +.1 -Anish -- Marc Goodner wrote: > +1 > > Or would that be +.1? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:10 PM > To: 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 > > In the meantime we have to call it *something* so let's assume that > there will be no protocol changes and call it "1.1" for now with the > understanding that we can change our minds and call it "2.0" if it turns > out that we needed to change the protocol. > > - g > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] >>Sent: Thursday, July 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]