RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on 10/13 conf-call

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

+1

Thanks,
Sanjay 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, Oct 12, 2005 12:09 PM
> To: Anish Karmarkar; tom@coastin.com
> Cc: Christopher B Ferris; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion 
> on 10/13 conf-call
> 
> I don't think i006 needs to be linked to the others. As Tom already
> proposed on this issue no matter the outcome of i008 and i021 
> this would
> be outside the scope of WS-RM. Why don't we go ahead and try 
> to close at
> least that one?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:56 AM
> To: tom@coastin.com
> Cc: Christopher B Ferris; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on 10/13
> conf-call
> 
> Tom Rutt wrote:
> > Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >> Sanjay,
> >>
> >> I can appreciate that POV, but frankly, I think that the protocol
> spec 
> >> is far more important.
> >> There aren't many outstanding issues and it would be great if we
> could 
> >> close on the issues
> >> we have and nail down the protocol spec sooner rather than later.
> >>
> > Issue 006 could have impact on the protocol spec, and it depends on 
> > issues 008 and 021.
> > 
> > However, I agree that the email around these proposed solutions has
> not 
> > yet reached concensus.
> > 
> > Thus I do not mind postponing resolution of 6, 8, and 21 
> until further
> 
> > discussion occurs on the list.
> > 
> 
> Postponing these issues until there is further discussion 
> make sense to 
> me too.
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> <snip/>
>