[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-implement] Interoperability and the F2F
Marc, I did not mean to imply that it would be a OASIS Standard. Just a TC deliverable -- i.e. something that is blessed by the TC. Sort of like the WSD/WS-Addr/XMLP test suite. This would prevent the impression that some SC within the TC did something to refine/change/validate the spec but the TC did not really approve any of their work. If this is thought to be problematic, I would be happy if the docs are publicly available with the right sort of wordings in the preamble/website. -Anish -- Marc Goodner wrote: > I don't see an issue with making them publicly accessible. I certainly > don't think they need to be on an OASIS standard track so I'm not sure > what the value or not of making them a official TC deliverable would be. > > Marc Goodner > Technical Diplomat > Microsoft Corporation > Tel: (425) 703-1903 > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/mrgoodner/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 11:29 AM > To: Patil, Sanjay > Cc: Doug Davis; ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [ws-rx-implement] Interoperability and the F2F > > I'm wondering if the testing material should be made a deliverable (have > > not checked the charter to see if this is prevented). This would help > the testing/interop cause, especially for those who do not participate > in the TC or decide to implement the spec after the TC has done its job. > > Regardless, IMHO, the testing documents (when they are done) should be > public and linked from the TC public home page. > > Comments? > > -Anish > -- > > Patil, Sanjay wrote: > >> >>I think this group should first clearly outline its touch points with >>the TC in regards to the inputs from this group to the TC that may >>possibly affect the TC deliverables, timeline dependencies, etc. For >>example, I don't see how a schedule for producing a scenario doc by >>itself would be of any interest to the larger TC. >> >>Given that a scenarios doc or an interop report is not part of the TC >>deliverables as such, I believe that the TC would at most expect this >>group to validate the spec by producing interop scenarios and by >>conducting the actual interop testing. In that regard, the TC may want > > >>to know the overall timeline of this subgroup so that any issues >>revealed in the process of creating the scenarios and conducting the >>interop get filed and resolved early on and more importantly well > > within > >>the chartered time period of the TC (one year from Jun 23, 2004). >> >>So may I suggest that this subgroup first present to the TC the high >>level roadmap and schedule of its activities (creating scenario doc, >>hosting interop, consolidating issues, second run of the previous > > steps, > >>etc). It will obviously be great if this subgroup can in addition > > report > >>on any concrete plans/material for the initial milestones at the F2F. >> >> >>Thanks, >>Sanjay >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *From:* Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, Dec 06, 2005 10:54 AM >> *To:* ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org >> *Subject:* Re: [ws-rx-implement] Interoperability and the F2F >> >> >> I think this group should give the a TC a date for when it can >> provide an initial draft of a scenario doc and a proposed date for >> an interop event. >> Perhaps we could, thru email, settle on a target date we could >> propose to the TC during the f2f? >> What about end of Jan (27th?) as a target? >> -Doug >> >> >> >> *Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>* >> >> 12/06/2005 01:33 PM >> >> >> To >> ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org >> cc >> >> Subject >> [ws-rx-implement] Interoperability and the F2F >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Folks >> >> This group has been silent since it started. In order that we are >> effective at the F2F it would be good to start the discussions > > now. > >> Firstly, what agenda items would you like to discuss at the F2F. >> >> We have a rough plan to have remote based interop following the > > next > >> Committee Draft. >> >> I think we need a review of the donated interop scenarios based on > > two > >> aspects: >> >> 1) are they complete enough? >> 2) how do they need to change based on the updated specifications? >> >> Paul >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> >>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]