Issues
which have been closed:
At
redwood f2f we pending
resolved Rel 29, leaving details to rel 92
On
2/10 we resolved: Rel 106 with no changes
to spe.
On
2/17 we resolved Rel 102
On
2/24 we resolved issues Rel 108, 115, 114, 116
On
3/2 we
resolved Rel
117, 118 – closed with no changes to spec
Rel 25 – close as requirement issue, spec issue 78
continues.
Rel 103 – close, already stated clearly in section
4.2.4.
Pending
issues: rel 97, 105 are already applied.
Outstanding Specification Issues
Other Outstanding Issues
Detailed
List of Issues
|
id
|
Spec
|
Section
|
Topic
|
Class
|
Status
|
Raised By
|
Owner
|
|
REL-49
|
Spec
|
feature
|
feature
|
Design
|
Active
|
Sunil
|
Sunil
|
|
Title: Non normative WSDL annotations
|
|
Description: Define non normative WSDL binding of WSRM operations in
appendix to specification. This will allow sender to discover that a
recipient supports the WS-Reliability protocol. Goes a bit deeper than just
"I support WS-Reliability" to cover some granularity such as
"I support ordered delivery". Granularity remains an open question.
Paulo concerned about closing REL-7.
His concern may be addressed through this issue.
6
Jan 2004: Sunil will resend his rather old (5-6 months old)
proposal to the list. It will only deal with server side annotation showing
WSRM support.
10
Feb 2004: At Oracle request, we will defer consideration of this
issue for at least a week.
|
|
Proposal:
15
Jan 2004: Discussed during this
meeting.
Sunil will provide complete proposal
3
Feb 2004: Sunil has instantiated Jacques idea of "RM
capabilities" in a WSDL extension. Text about capabilities still not
submitted though the WSDL syntax has been suggested. Both additions are
non-normative and may not be necessary in our specification. Doug asked about
this and Jacques somewhat accepted the point. Jacques intended his text (just
now sent to the list but a repetition of something sent earlier) to provide
context for WSDL extension Sunil proposed. A syntax
for general capabilities does remain in WSDL 2.0, some specifics still up in
the air with some opposition in general as well. Doug suggested words about
agreement context for reliable delivery message exchange with comments about
work on syntax for such agreements continuing elsewhere. Jeff M. would prefer
a normative syntax in our specification. Jacques suggested this syntax be
normative iff agreement (capabilities) is described
in WSDL 1.1 (normative but not REQUIRED). Also discussed whether defining a
namespace for this WSDL extension made it normative, as opposed to simply
available for use. Left open for return to email.
24
Feb 2004: See email Proposal
to resolve REL-49
Uses a backporting of WSDL 2.0 features and
properties
|
|
Resolution:
|
|
REL-77
|
Spec
|
|
feature
|
Design
|
Active
|
|
|
|
Title: Meet Realization, R7.4 requirement
|
|
Description: The Specification must describe the semantics of
Reliable Messaging processing parameters that affect both sides of the
protocol.
|
|
Proposal:
|
|
Resolution:
|
|
REL-78
|
Spec
|
|
feature
|
Design
|
Active
|
|
|
|
Title: Meet Compatibility, R8.1 requirement
|
|
Description: The Specification should be usable with other open
standard technologies, if appropriate.
R8.1.1
The Specification shall not preclude the use of Web Service message
attachments. (see also issue REL-10)
R8.1.2
Insure that the Specification is usable in combination with WSS SOAP Message
Security to implement secure reliable messaging. (see also issue REL-25)
|
|
Proposal: Attachments split to new issue REL-100
|
|
Resolution:
|
|
REL-92
|
Spec
|
|
feature
|
Design
|
Active
|
|
|
|
Title: Meet Realization, R7.5 requirement
|
|
Description: The Specification must have a conformance section which
clarifies what is required to claim conformance of the specification.
|
|
Proposal:
|
|
Resolution:
|
|
REL-104
|
Spec
|
|
meta
|
Design
|
Active
|
|
|
|
Title: Spec and schema conflicts
|
|
Description:
Is the spec or schema normative when they are in
conflict?
|
|
Proposal:
|
|
Resolution:
|
|
REL-119
|
Spec
|
|
feature
|
Design
|
Active
|
Sunil Kunisetty
|
Sunil Kunisetty
|
|
Title: Issue on Callback for Poll Request
|
|
Description:
|
|
Proposal: See mail New Issue
|
|
Resolution:
|