[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-implement] Interoperability and the F2F
From: Doug Davis [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, Dec 12, 2005 8:41 AM
Subject: [ws-rx-implement] Interoperability and the F2F
Updated the proposal to make it relative to the next CD since basing an interop
on WDs doesn't make as much sense. Changed dates to be relative dates.
In terms of presenting something to the TC during next week's
F2F, what about this:
DD/MM - TC approves next CD
+ 4wks - Send a draft scenario document to the TC.
This scenario doc should try to cover interoperability
for the features defined in the core spec. [*]
+ 2wks - Final date for feedback from the TC on the doc.
TC doesn't need to formally approve it but we request
suggestions/comments by this date.
+ 2wks - Unless we totally messed up the first draft and just need
to make minor changes based on the feedback, we
produce the official scenario doc that will be used
for the interop event.
Send out an official notification of the interop event
+ 6wks - Shoot for an interop event this week.
Previous interops allowed for 6 weeks between scenario doc
being published and the event itself.
Both specs or just core spec? Do we want people to support
ws-policy? I'm leaning towards just the core spec.
What type of event do we want? Personally, I like the idea of
a virtual interop but I know that the pressure of a f2f helps
force people to make the dates.
(virtual == put up an endpoint (RMS and RMD) on the web)
for example: http://wsi.alphaworks.ibm.com:8080/wsrm/index.html
so people can test at will)
What kind of results do we want to publish and how do we want to
publish them? Generic: "it went well" - or specific "company X
passed 1,2,3 but not 4,5,6" ??? Do we even want to publish
anything at all? What does Oasis require?