RE: [ws-rx-implement] Questions on interop doc

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

Paul,

Where is this second interop event in the schedule? The rough plan as
outlined was to do interop before the PR and then hopefully move quickly
to CS. I don't recall ever discussing that at the last F2F. 

So are you seeing a second PR after that interop event before going to
CS then? 

This sounds like it would push the schedule out further.

Marc Goodner
Technical Diplomat
Microsoft Corporation
Tel: (425) 703-1903
Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ 


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 11:47 AM
To: Doug Davis
Cc: Patil, Sanjay; Marc Goodner; ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-implement] Questions on interop doc

Doug

I agree this is unresolved, but it seems unlikely we are going to fix 
this in two weeks in time to get the interop scenarios done.

I am imagining we will do another interop after we publish our PR draft.

Paul

Doug Davis wrote:
>
> We need to figure out how RM is going to compose with Security - while

> the current spec
> says nothing I don't believe this is acceptable for the final version.

> Or, if it is then I'd like
> to have that conversation before the interop so we know its the final 
> outcome.
> -Doug
>
>
>
> *"Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>*
>
> 01/28/2006 01:20 PM
>
> 	
> To
> 	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Marc Goodner"
<mgoodner@microsoft.com>
> cc
> 	"Paul Fremantle" <paul@wso2.com>,
<ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Subject
> 	RE: [ws-rx-implement] Questions on interop doc
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> Doug,
>  
> Are you referring to a particular issue by "resolution of the STR". I 
> am a bit unclear about this.
>  
> -- Sanjay
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] *
> Sent:* Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 5:02 AM*
> To:* Marc Goodner*
> Cc:* Paul Fremantle; ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org*
> Subject:* RE: [ws-rx-implement] Questions on interop doc
>
>
> I'd be ok with including these issues in the interop as long as they 
> appeared, at least, in a WD.  Although, I'd add the resolution of the 
> STR to the list too.
> -Doug
>
>
> *"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>*
>
> 01/27/2006 05:30 PM
>
> 	
> To
> 	"Paul Fremantle" <paul@wso2.com>
> cc
> 	<ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Subject
> 	RE: [ws-rx-implement] Questions on interop doc
>
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It seems we should also evaluate other issues that are pending for a
WD
> like this as well as other issues that are not closed but we may be
> close on. A quick look at the issue list and I would pick the
following
> as potentially having the most impact to the interop scenarios:
> - i021
> - i078
> - i090
>
> Any reason we wouldn't want to go to another CD immediately from a new
> WD that at a minimum had i085 applied? That would give a pretty stable
> reference point for the interop activities.
>
> Marc Goodner
> Technical Diplomat
> Microsoft Corporation
> Tel: (425) 703-1903
> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 1:03 PM
> To: Marc Goodner
> Cc: ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx-implement] Questions on interop doc
>
> Marc
>
> I think i085 is the key issue to include in the interop. If we could
get
>
> a WD = CD2+i085 then I think that would be a great basis. I was going
to
>
> suggest this on the call. I also know that Dug suggested this on a
> previous chat.
>
> I'd be interested to know if there is anyone who would object to that
> model.
>
> Paul
>
> Marc Goodner wrote:
> >
> > I read tea leaves and incorporated the change to Close from i085 in
> > the current interop doc. There is no spec that reflects that change
> > today, certainly not CD02 that the interop doc points to. So the
> > question is what version of the spec should this point to? Should it
> > be a CD, like 02, + issues resolved up to N date? If the later then
> > should we get a WD at that date, with a new namespace (making an
> > exception to the rule in i088) that we could be given to a developer
> > to reference? Or should we get to that date and do another extra CD
> > from what we have already planned?
> >
> >  
> >
> > Do we need all the issues closed before we can go forward with this?
> > Sanjay indicated he thought we needed more progress on the issues,
but
>
> > with under ten already it seems to me that means all them are
closed.
> >
> >  
> >
> > Marc Goodner
> >
> > Technical Diplomat
> >
> > Microsoft Corporation
> >
> > Tel: (425) 703-1903
> >
> > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/mrgoodner/
> >
> >  
> >
>
> -- 
>
> Paul Fremantle
> VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>
> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> paul@wso2.com
>
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>
>

-- 

Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
paul@wso2.com

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com