[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] FW: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussionon the 7/28 conf-call
Gilbert Pilz wrote: > I have received some minor feedback on a couple of issues, but I don't > know if I could say we have reached consensus. My general feeling is > that people don't really care about these issues, so I think we should > just proceed with the proposals with a few ammendments. > > i015: Need "artifactName" values for WS-RM and WS-RM Policy documents. I > sent email to 'oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org' in an attempt > to clarify what this value should look like, but have received no > response. Need to change the "productVersion" value to something that > can indicate minor versions (i.e. "1.0"). > I *think* I had send some feedback on the version numbers, but not sure. IMHO, if we keep the spec name the same we should have a version number > 1.0 (1.1, 2.0, whatever) to avoid confusion with the submission. -Anish -- > i016: Need to change the identifiers to reflect the above change: > > wsreliablemessaging-1.0-spec-wd-01.* > wsrmpolicy-1.0-spec-wd-01.* > > i017: URL values need to be co-ordinated with Jamie, Scott, et. al. > > - g > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:32 PM >>To: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org >>Subject: [ws-rx-editors] FW: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues >>for discussion on the 7/28 conf-call >> >> >>I had meant to post it to the editors list ... >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] >>>Sent: Tuesday, Jul 26, 2005 23:24 PM >>>To: wsrx >>>Subject: FW: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion >> >>on the 7/28 >> >>>conf-call >>> >>> >>>I am thinking of scheduling one or more of the issues 14, >> >>15, 16 and 17 >> >>>for discussion on the 7/28 call. Is there a consensus among >> >>the editors >> >>>about the resolution of these issues. Any suggestions >> >>regarding which >> >>>ones are easy targets and which ones require further >> >>deliberations by >> >>>the editors team? >>> >>>Basically, I am looking for simple issues for scheduling along with >>>some of the core design issues and wanted to get a feel from >> >>you about >> >>>which ones are straightforward, etc. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Sanjay >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] >>>>Sent: Monday, Jul 25, 2005 13:04 PM >>>>To: Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on the >>>>7/28 conf-call >>>> >>>>Can we also discuss i014 Document names and i016 document >> >>identifiers >> >>>>to try to get some more of the editorial issues into he >> >>pending queue? >> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] >>>>Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 11:59 AM >>>>To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>Subject: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on the 7/28 >>>>conf-call >>>> >>>> >>>>Here is a proposed list of issues for discussion on the 7/28 >>> >>>conf-call. >>> >>>>- Issue i013: Max message number in policy >>>> >>>>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php >>>>/13697/Re >>>>liableMessagingIssues.xml#i013 >>>> >>>>- Issue (i018): Is an implementation supporting a smaller >> >>max message >> >>>>number valid? >>>> See the first issue in the email: >>>>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archiv >>>>es/200507 >>>>/msg00193.html >>>> >>>>- Issue (i019): Sequence termination on Fault >>>> See the second issue in the email: >>>>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archiv >>>>es/200507 >>>>/msg00193.html >>>> >>>>I urge the originators of these issues to come prepared for >> >>describing >> >>>>on the conf-call the motivating requirements as well as the >> >>proposed >> >>>>resolution for the issues. >>>> >>>>The three issues (i006, i008 and i009) discussed on the >> >>last conf-call >> >>>>(7/21) are currently waiting for a clear statement of >>> >>>requirements from >>> >>>>their owners. Let us carry the discussion of these issues on the >>>>mailing list until their requirements are clearly hashed out. >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Sanjay >>>> >>> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]