[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-implement] Questions on interop doc
Marc So firstly, I think it depends on the changes to the spec as we go forward. I hope we'll discuss this on Thursday. However, its not my intention to adjust any schedules based on further interop. I think having a wider online interop concurrent with the 60-day public review would be valuable. Paul Marc Goodner wrote: > 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]