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

["Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>]

-1 
saying that, roberts rules really do help!!!!

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@jboss.com] 
>Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 10:26 AM
>To: Ian Robinson
>Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: Fw: [ws-tx] Issue 030 - consolidated refinement 
>of Proposal 2
>
>
>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
>