Re: [ws-rx-implement] Interoperability and the F2F

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

If I thought it would change our dates
any, but I don't think it would.
-Doug

Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>

12/12/2005 02:05 PM

To	"Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>
cc	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	Re: [ws-rx-implement] Interoperability and the F2F

Guys

Would it be worth having a short review of the interop scenarios at the
F2F? We already had one at the first F2F, but I'm wondering if we need
our minds refreshed.

Paul

Patil, Sanjay wrote:
>  
> It will be desirable to get the input  from the Interop Subcommittee
> (bugs in the spec, essentially new issues if any) before the March
> (tentatively) F2Fin order to have enough time to accommodate the input
> before sending the specs out for public review. Doug, would that be
> possible with your proposed schedule for the Interop Subcommittee?
>  
> Thanks,
> Sanjay
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
>     *Sent:* Monday, Dec 12, 2005 8:41 AM
>     *To:* ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org
>     *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
>              and doc(s).
>
>     + 6wks - Shoot for an interop event this week.
>              Previous interops
allowed for 6 weeks between scenario doc
>              being published and
the event itself.
>
>     [*] Questions:  
>
>     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?
>
>     thoughts?
>
>     thanks
>     -Doug
>


-- 

Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com

Yahoo IM: paulfremantle
VOIP: +44 844 986 2874
Cell/Mobile: +44 (0) 7740 199 729
Fax:  +44 844 484 7459 
paul@wso2.com