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
>