Personally I see no reason to revert, we
just need to make sure our proposals/resolutions clearly indicate what we’re
changing.
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005
4:17 PM
To:
ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors]
Groups - wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-07.sxw uploaded
I'm ok with explaining this to the TC on the call
tomorrow - but I think my note about the AI covers it too.
As
I mentioned in another note, as a result of accepting i019 the TC accepted this
new text - I messed up in applying the changes by adding a new entry instead of
replacing the existing one - but if the TC wishes to use i070 to revert back to
the old version I'm ok with that.
thanks
-Doug
|
"Patil, Sanjay"
<sanjay.patil@sap.com>
11/30/2005 04:33 PM
|
|
To
|
"Marc Goodner"
<mgoodner@microsoft.com>, Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
<ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [ws-rx-editors] Groups -
wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-07.sxw uploaded
|
|
I think that in acting upon the AI the editors
team should identify the
source of the dup and present their finding to the
TC and defer to the
resolution of the issue i070 for actual removal of
the dup.
Here is cut-paste from 11/10 conf call minutes
just for a recap of the
origin of the AI and the issue i070:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed 02 - Receive is defined twice in
wsrm-1.1-spec-cd-01
Accepted. Doug suggested create a new AI for
editors team to identify
where the text came from.
New ACTION ITEM: create a new AI for editors team
to identify where the
text came from.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner
[mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, Nov 30, 2005 12:31 PM
> To: dug@us.ibm.com;
ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] Groups -
wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-07.sxw uploaded
>
> There is an issue logged for the duped
receive, i070. Not
> sure if the TC
> will agree to the change before reviewing it.
Perhaps if you identify
> how it happened. This may be why I can't find
it as there is
> no mention
> of the term in i019. So where did the extra
one come from? Are you
> keeping the original or the new one.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dug@us.ibm.com [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:00 AM
> To: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-rx-editors] Groups -
wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-07.sxw uploaded
>
> Remove dup "Receive"
>
> -- Mr. Doug Davis
>
> The document revision named
wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-07.sxw has been submitted
> by
> Mr. Doug Davis to the WS-RX Editors SC
document repository. This
> document
> is revision #22 of wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-07.sxw.
>
> Document Description:
> i071 w/o period in Appendix heading removed -
also couldn't figure out
> how
> to make the appendix subsections indented in
the TOC
> i010 added
> i030 added
> i037 added
> i038 added
> i041 added
> i043 added
> i044 added
> i048 added
> i051 added
> i053 added
> i059 added
> i062 added
> i063 added
> i065 added
> i067 added
> i068 added
> i069 added
> Fixed a typo in sec 2.3 - from ChrisF
> i074 added
> i071 Fixed styles and formating for
TOC. Fixed styles of the appendix
> headings.
> Removed dup def. of "Receive"
>
> View Document Details:
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx-editors/doc
> ument.php?
> document_id=15676
>
> Download Document:
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx-editors/dow
> nload.php/
> 15676/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-07.sxw
>
> Revision:
> This document is revision #22 of
wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-07.sxw.
> The document
> details page referenced above will show the
complete revision history.
>
>
> PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not
work for you, your email
> application
> may be breaking the link into two pieces.
You may be able to copy and
> paste
> the entire link address into the address
field of your web browser.
>
> -OASIS Open Administration
>