During the
TC call you had some concerns
about the wording of the resolution of 33 so I would encourage you to
work with
Prasad on it regardless of whether Prasad wants your help :-)
From: Liu,
Kevin [mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004
1:19 PM
To: Satish Thatte; Prasad Yendluri
Cc: bpel spec
Subject: RE:
[wsbpel-spec-edit]
issues to assign for editorial update
good, all
issues are taken care of and
nothing left for me:).
Prasad, if
you think you have too much in
your plate, I may help with 33.
Best
Regards,
Kevin
-----Original
Message-----
From: Satish Thatte
[mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004
09:26 AM
To: Prasad Yendluri
Cc: bpel spec
Subject: RE:
[wsbpel-spec-edit]
issues to assign for editorial update
Importance: High
OK so Prasad
wants to take 33, 101 and
117. I will take 25 and 53. Prasad can go first.
It turns out
that I have to run for a last
minute fire fighting exercise, so I have to cancel out of the meeting
today.
My deepest apologies for the lack of notice!
From:
Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 8:58 AM
To: Satish Thatte
Subject: Re:
[wsbpel-spec-edit]
issues to assign for editorial update
Works
for me..
Satish Thatte wrote:
There is also the resolution of 53 which involves removing Appendix C
and all refs to transaction protocols in the spec. I will take that one
as well as 25. You go first.
That should keep this really short!
-----Original Message-----
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 7:34 AM
To: Satish Thatte
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] issues to assign for editorial update
Satish,
To keep the con call short ;) I can take 33 and 101 and if needed 107.
Perhaps Yaron should pick 25?
Regards, Prasad
Satish Thatte wrote:
Dear Editors,
25, 33, 101 and 117 have been resolved with recommended changes and
need to be incorporated.Peter's list says 11 was also resolved during
the last call but I don't recall discussing it!
Let us talk tomorrow.
Satish