OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [ws-rx] My vote on the current RX specs ballot


Marc

I think you're proposed wording is actually pretty decent and I support it.

Paul

Marc Goodner wrote:
> I don't think the current spec leads one clearly to an interpretation that either Policy 1.2, 1.5 or future versions are allowed. If that's the intent I think the proposal I made earlier regarding the reference to WS-Policy makes that clear.
> http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200703/msg00021.html
> 
> That would have fixed the namespace issue we have now since it strikes citing the wsp namespace in the spec. I think it also minimizes the issue of referencing the in flight CR. The reason is the text I proposed specifically cites that the assertion works independently of a specific version of WS-Policy. That opens the door for following the latest URI in the spec easier to accept. As it stands our reference is static and does not make any clear statement that future revisions of Policy beyond the referenced CR are acceptable.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:35 AM
> To: Marc Goodner
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] My vote on the current RX specs ballot
> 
> Marc
> 
> I certainly was of the opinion on the call that this wasn't the TC's
> intention, and nor was so literal a reading of the spec.
> 
> My understanding is that the WSRMP usage of WSP is confined to the
> subset of features that is the same from 1.2 to 1.5 CR. Certainly I
> didn't expect that Apache would confine itself to using WSRMP1.1 with
> only WSP1.5.
> 
> Paul
> 
> Marc Goodner wrote:
>> I filed this as a comment with my ballot. Based on some private messages
>> I have received I think it is worth posting this to the list. It seems
>> that my reading of the change to the RM Policy spec may be more literal
>> than the TC's intent. I'm posting this here with the intent of seeing if
>> people disagree or not with my reasoning with respect to whether or not
>> the RM Policy assertion can be used with the Policy 1.2 namespace even
>> though our reference is now solely to Policy 1.5. I am especially
>> interested in how any interpretations contrary to my own are supported
>> by what is written in the specification.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Marc g
>>
>>
>>
>> The late change from referencing WS-Policy 1.2 to WS-Policy 1.5 in RM
>> Policy required that I abstain from the current ballot for the RX TC specs.
>>
>>
>>
>> This change was not technically necessary as the RM Policy assertion
>> does not use any features of WS-Policy 1.5 alone and the assertion is
>> backwards compatible with WS-Policy 1.2. The change does however mean
>> that Microsoft cannot use the revised RM Policy assertion and be
>> compliant to this specification until we also support the final version
>> of WS-Policy 1.5.
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe that the delay caused by waiting for WS-Policy 1.5 to be
>> completed is going to hurt the market adoption of WS-RM and WS-RM Policy.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is regretful that the TC made this change at the last minute thinking
>> of the references alone rather than considering the change's impact on
>> market adoption of the specifications.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> --
> Paul Fremantle
> VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2
> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
> 
> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> paul@wso2.com
> (646) 290 8050
> 
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
> 
> 

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

http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
paul@wso2.com
(646) 290 8050

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



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]