Re: Fw: [ws-tx] Issue 030 - consolidated refinement of Proposal 2

[Mark Little <mark.little@jboss.com>]

Is it possible to make sure we vote on this on Thursday, otherwise it'll 
drag on? My worry is that we get into more discussion, more 
modifications are suggested and then we have to go away and have yet 
another proposal on the table which, at best, is voted on via e-ballot a 
week later. What I'd like to see is that the proposal is voted on on 
Thursday, which means no new text/modifications to existing text in the 
meeting. I know your final paragraph probably means the same thing, but 
I'd slightly amend it to say: "All proposed modifications to any of the 
proposals up for vote on Issue 030 MUST be made available to the TC 
before Wednesday." There's nothing procedurally that we can do to 
enforce this, but it's in the interests of the TC effort as a whole if 
we agree to work like this. As you say, a month is a long time for one 
issue, at least as far as OASIS TCs go ;)

Mark.


Ian Robinson wrote:
>
>
> There has been a lot of discussion and some good comments suggesting
> refinement of "Proposal 2" for issue 30. Specifically:
>    Alastair's point that the WS-C spec defines the Coodination faults as
>    "reply messages" but the WS-AT spec defines AT faults as "notification
>    messages". The refined proposal clarifies that the specific messages
>    exchange patterns apply to the protocol rather than to individual
>    messages and that protocol fault messages are constructed according to
>    the rules of the protocol in which they are used.
>    Bob's objection to the use of phrases like ' "one way" pattern as
>    defined in WS-Addressing '. The proposal replaces this with ' The
>    protocols defined in WS-AtomicTransaction use a "one way" message
>    exchange pattern consisting of a sequence of notification messages
>    between a Coordinator and a Participant. '
>    Joe's observation of the inconsistency in specificity between references
>    to WS-A from Coordination on the one hand and AT on the other. These are
>    now uniformly precise. Also the proposed text now refer to the abstract
>    message addressing properties rather than to soap header elements.
>
> Max and I have updated our proposal to address these concerns.
>
> (See attached file: Issue30_Proposal_2_WSBA.doc)(See attached file:
> Issue30_Proposal_2_WSAT_updated.doc)(See attached file:
> Issue30_Proposal_WSCOOR_updated.doc)
>
> In accrodance with the decision of the TC on the last telecon, the text
> remains silent on the handling of non-TX fault messages.
>
> We have been discussing this issue for a month now, and we have other work
> queued up. Could I suggest that any further refinements or
> counter-proposals be written in terms of concrete spec language that the TC
> would be able to vote upon on the next telecon.
>
>
> Regards,
> Ian