FW: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on the 7/28 conf-call

["Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>]

I am thinking of scheduling one or more of the issues 14, 15, 16 and 17
for discussion on the 7/28 call. Is there a consensus among the editors
about the resolution of these issues. Any suggestions regarding which
ones are easy targets and which ones require further deliberations by
the editors team?

Basically, I am looking for simple issues for scheduling along with some
of the core design issues and wanted to get a feel from you about which
ones are straightforward, etc.

Thanks, 
Sanjay 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
>Sent: Monday, Jul 25, 2005 13:04 PM
>To: Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on 
>the 7/28 conf-call
>
>Can we also discuss i014 Document names and i016 document 
>identifiers to
>try to get some more of the editorial issues into he pending queue?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] 
>Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 11:59 AM
>To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on the 7/28
>conf-call
>
>
>Here is a proposed list of issues for discussion on the 7/28 conf-call.
>
>- Issue  i013: Max message number in policy
> 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php
>/13697/Re
>liableMessagingIssues.xml#i013
>
>- Issue (i018): Is an implementation supporting a smaller max message
>number valid?
>  See the first issue in the email:
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archiv
>es/200507
>/msg00193.html
>
>- Issue (i019): Sequence termination on Fault
>  See the second issue in the email:
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archiv
>es/200507
>/msg00193.html
>
>I urge the originators of these issues to come prepared for describing
>on the conf-call the motivating requirements as well as the proposed
>resolution for the issues.
>
>The three issues (i006, i008 and i009) discussed on the last conf-call
>(7/21) are currently waiting for a clear statement of requirements from
>their owners. Let us carry the discussion of these issues on 
>the mailing
>list until their requirements are clearly hashed out.
>
>Thanks,
>Sanjay 
>