RE: [ws-rx] Proposed issues for discussion 1st June

["Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>]

I agree that we should decide i115 on its own merits. I was just
pointing out to Paul that the TC had previously made a decision about
this on the 5/25 concall. I think we should leave it on the agenda.

- gp  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:13 AM
> To: Paul Fremantle; Gilbert Pilz
> Cc: wsrx
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposed issues for discussion 1st June
> 
> Isn't that backwards? If 122 depends on the outcome of 115 
> shouldn't 115 be discussed and resolved in case it impacts 
> the proposal for 122?
> Shouldn't we decide 115 on its own merits rather than 
> deciding it on the outcome of 122?
> 
> 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: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:03 PM
> To: Gilbert Pilz
> Cc: wsrx
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Proposed issues for discussion 1st June
> 
> Gil
> 
> I too didn't understand why these were linked. It seems to me 
> that any elements that are part of the specification can 
> define their own "mustUnderstand" behaviour as part of their 
> normative text.
> I would be happy to put 115 after 122/123/etc if you prefer, 
> but I figured we were waiting on updated proposals.
> 
> Paul
> 
> Gilbert Pilz wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > I thought we had agreed to postpone any discussion of i115 
> until after
> 
> > we had resolved i122?
> >
> > I just mention this as a reminder; personally I don't feel 
> that i115 
> > and
> > i122 are linked. It is true that the proposal for i122 does 
> contain a 
> > reference to wsrm:mustUnderstand, but that is an optimization to 
> > prevent the creation of unwanted Sequences (several off-color jokes 
> > come to mind but I'll spare the TC). The proposal of i122 
> could easily
> 
> > be ammended to remove this reference although (obviously) 
> we would not
> 
> > gain the benefits of the optimization.
> >
> > - gp
> >
> >   
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:18 PM
> >> To: wsrx
> >> Subject: [ws-rx] Proposed issues for discussion 1st June
> >>
> >> Folks
> >>
> >> Here is the proposed list of issues for this weeks call:
> >>
> >> i089    Doug Davis     suggest the restricted use of anonymous URI
> >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue
> >> s.xml#i089
> >>
> >> i119    Doug Davis    When to piggy-back RM headers
> >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue
> >> s.xml#i119
> >>
> >> i115    Gilbert Pilz    "must understand" attribute for 
> >> extensions to RM
> >> components
> >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue
> >> s.xml#i115
> >>
> >> i125    Paul Fremantle   Protocol precondition requires 
> knowledge of 
> >> policies
> >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue
> >> s.xml#i125
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Paul Fremantle
> >> VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
> >>
> >> http://feeds.feedburner.com/bloglines/pzf
> >> paul@wso2.com
> >>
> >> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
> >>
> >>
> >>     
> 
> -- 
> 
> Paul Fremantle
> VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
> 
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/bloglines/pzf
> paul@wso2.com
> 
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
> 
>