RE: [ws-rx-editors] Committee Draft issues

["Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

These should all be tagged correctly in the next update. I013 is done to
right? I'll note any more I se as I find 'em.

-----Original Message-----
From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 5:08 PM
To: Doug Davis
Cc: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Committee Draft issues

As you may have seen I checked in drafts to fix issues i017, i045 and 
i046. For 17, I picked 200510 as the 'YYYYMM'.

+1 to waiting to have a fix for i024.

I think we are done wrt wsrm doc based on the issues that Paul sent. 
Thanks Dug for doing the heavy lifting.

Here is a summary (of the issues that Paul sent out) for the WSRM doc:

1) Closed issues that require no change to the doc --
3, 4, 12, 14, 18, 26

2) Issues that do require action and should now be 'editors - done' --
5, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 27, 28, 20, 25, 29, 31, 33, 34, 39, 40

3) New proposed issues --
NewProposed01 (issue i036) closed with no action
Proposed04 (issue i036) done
Proposed05 (issue i040) done
Proposed11 (issue i045) done
Proposed12 (issue i046) done

-Anish
--

Doug Davis wrote:
> 
> Editors,
>   I think the only one left is: i024 - didn't do because I wanted the
TC 
> to agree on Ashok's text first.
> and haven't looked at the 'proposed' issues yet.
> 
> -Doug
> 
> 
> 
> *Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>*
> 
> 09/25/2005 07:03 PM
> Please respond to
> paul
> 
> 
> 	
> To
> 	
> cc
> 	ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject
> 	[ws-rx-editors] Committee Draft issues
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Editors
> 
> Here is my figuring on what needs to go into the Committee Draft:
> 
> Issues resolved up to and including the F2F to be included in CD
> ================================================================
> 
> Issues closed, 4, 12, 14, 18
> 
> Issues requiring editor input from F2F
> ======================================
> 
> i001        Bilateral sequence negotiation
> i005        Source resend of nacks messages when ack already received
> i011        Typo in expires P0S
> i013        Max message number in policy
> i015        Required Artifact Metadata
> i016        Document Identifiers
> i017        XML Namespace URIs
> i019        Sequence termination on Fault
> i027        InOrder delivery assurance spanning multiple sequences
> i028        Accurate final acknowledgement of a Sequence with gaps
when
> RMS decides to stop using it
> 
> Issues resolved at the Seattle F2F
> ==================================
> 
> Issue 20 - meaning of at most once DA
> Issue 9 - policy assertion for Delivery Assurance.
>    While this doesn't make HUGE amounts of sense without the text
> describing where it goes, I suggest we add it to the document - which
is
> what the vote agreed
>  
> Issue 26 - space greedy. Closed
> Issue 24 - Observed text.
> Issue 25 - Seqack when no messages received.
> Issue 29 - Security Token Reference removed
> Issue 3 - Close, no action
> Issue 25 - Sequence ack where no messages received
> Issue 31 - Schema inconsistency
> Issue 33 - NACK processing
> Issue 34 - Faults on piggybacking
> 
> NewProposed01 - DuplicateDetection of CSMs - closed no action
> 
> Edits from Seattle F2F agreed as Action Items
> ======================================
> Proposed04
> Proposed05
> Proposed11
> Proposed12
> 
> 
> Proposed13 is NOT to be in CD (so as to minimise change bars)
> 
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> -- 
> Paul Fremantle
> Co-Founder, Vice President of Technology
> WSO2, "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform"
> 
> Yahoo IM: paulfremantle
> Cell/Mobile: +44 (0) 7740 199 729
> Fax: +1 360 485-4275
> paul@wso2.com
> 
>