[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] We need to reschedule WS-RM conference call
I am planning to attend the call on 8/15. And I am available on 8/22 also, if we are going to have the call on the week. Iwasa ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Rutt" <tom@coastin.com> To: <tom@coastin.com> Cc: "Alan Weissberger" <ajwdct@technologist.com>; <wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 5:03 AM Subject: Re: [wsrm] We need to reschedule WS-RM conference call > Tom Rutt wrote: > > Perhaps if enough people can attend we can get some work done with a > "not counting towards > voting " meeting. > > > We schedule our meetings way in advance. > > One alternative, if not enought people can attend, would be skip this > 15 th meeting > but have meetings on the 22nd and 29 th . (i.e postponed the 15th > meeting by one week, keeping > the scheduled meting for the 29th as is. > > Again, let me know if you can or cannot attend the WSRM meeting on the > 15th.. Also let me know if you could attend on the 22nd, as an > alternate to the 15th meeting. > > Tom Rutt > WSRM chair > > > > > I would prefer to go ahead with the call, and give a special "excused" > > absence > > to people who go on an inteligence gathering mission in Redmond during > > our conference meeting. > > > > Perhaps you could arrange for a small room with call in for those who > > are together > > in Redmond. > > > > Anyway, who will be able to attend the Tuesday Teleconference? > > > > I am able to attend and run the meeting. > > > > Please respond either if you know you will or know you will not > > atttend on tuesday. > > > > Changing dates is not a good Idea. There are too many people with > > schedule calls at various > > times. > > > > Tom Rutt > > WSRM Chair > > > > PS, If there were some comments from that group to be discussed on > > changes to our > > WS-Reliability requirements and spec to avoid "collisions" with their > > architecture, we could > > vote to let the experts at that meeting to Join our call for > > discussion purposes. > > > > Alan wrote: > > > >> Tom > >> > >> In the interests of harmony and peace, I suggest postponing the call. > >> How about later the same week? > >> > >> alan > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> > >> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:34:48 -0400 > >> To: Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM> > >> Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: [wsrm] RE: WS-ReliableMessaging Spec Workshop > >> Invitation -- Please Forward as Appropriate] > >> > >> > >>> I just realized, that Tuesday July 15 is the date for our WSRM > >>> conference call > >>> from 2:30 to 4:30 Pacific time. > >>> > >>> Tom Rutt > >>> \ > >>> Doug Bunting wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Colleen, > >>>> > >>>> If specifications are separated appropriately, separate and > >>>> independent development should be straight-forward. Are you saying > >>>> Microsoft has done a poor job architecting GXA? Composability of > >>>> the results and broad involvement in specification development > >>>> should not be contradictory aims. Besides all that, one of the > >>>> main enemies of interoperability is competitive specifications. > >>>> > >>>> Sun strongly agrees with the points Magdolna and Alan have already > >>>> raised. If WS-ReliableMessaging, unlike at least BPEL4WS and > >>>> WS-Security, cannot be brought forward without the rest of the > >>>> architecture you are developing, fine. Please submit the whole > >>>> ball of wax to this or another standards venue. We believe > >>>> specifications need to be publicly and openly discussed and > >>>> improved before they are designated as standards. > >>>> > >>>> thanx, > >>>> doug > >>>> > >>>> On 07-Jul-03 07:22, Tom Rutt wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> I forward this from Colleen Evans, from Microsoft. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Subject: > >>>>> FW: [wsrm] RE: WS-ReliableMessaging Spec Workshop Invitation -- > >>>>> Please Forward as Appropriate > >>>>> From: > >>>>> "Colleen Evans" <coevans@microsoft.com> > >>>>> Date: > >>>>> Sun, 6 Jul 2003 21:18:30 -0700 > >>>>> To: > >>>>> "Tom Rutt" <tom@coastin.com>, "Doug Bunting" <doug.bunting@Sun.com> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Tom and Doug, > >>>>> > >>>>> I received a reject from the TC list (only contributing members > >>>>> may post). As I believe Magdolna and Alan are both out of the > >>>>> office, could one of you please forward this to the list? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>> Colleen > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> *From:* Colleen Evans > >>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 06, 2003 10:08 PM > >>>>> *To:* 'Alan Weissberger'; magdolna.gerendai@nokia.com > >>>>> *Cc:* wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org; Felipe Cabrera > >>>>> *Subject:* RE: [wsrm] RE: WS-ReliableMessaging Spec Workshop > >>>>> Invitation -- Please Forward as Appropriate > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Magdolna and Alan, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> We are soliciting technical input that relates to improving > >>>>> technical aspects such as the performance, simplicity, robustness > >>>>> and composability of the WS-ReliableMessaging specification. > >>>>> > >>>>> A core requirement that drives the WS-ReliableMessaging > >>>>> specification is maintaining architectural cohesion within the > >>>>> specification and in relation to other web services specifications > >>>>> (WS-Security, Policy, and so on) and composability with other > >>>>> specifications that describe assurances (e.g. WS-Transactions). > >>>>> It is therefore very hard to proceed on final design of any one > >>>>> particular specification without commensurate progress on the > >>>>> others. Separating this specification?s process from the other > >>>>> Web Services specifications it composes with would harm the goals > >>>>> of composability and architectural coherence. A litmus test for > >>>>> the web services architecture is /bone fide/ interoperability and > >>>>> composability demonstrated between various implementations from > >>>>> several vendors. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> The authors have organized this workshop to solicit public input > >>>>> and discussion on these specifications while they are early in > >>>>> their development. We believe that specifications need to > >>>>> demonstrate their value before it is appropriate to consider > >>>>> designating them a standard. Successful workshops with community > >>>>> input facilitate reaching the interoperability and composability > >>>>> target needed to assure that these specifications meet their > >>>>> goals. As the specification matures and this extent of > >>>>> interoperability has been demonstrated, the authors will decide on > >>>>> the appropriate relation to standards organizations and/or any > >>>>> other specification efforts. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Colleen > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> *From:* Alan Weissberger [mailto:ajwdct@technologist.com] > >>>>> *Sent:* Friday, July 04, 2003 9:27 AM > >>>>> *To:* magdolna.gerendai@nokia.com; Colleen Evans > >>>>> *Cc:* wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org; Felipe Cabrera > >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [wsrm] RE: WS-ReliableMessaging Spec Workshop > >>>>> Invitation -- Please Forward as Appropriate > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Colleen > >>>>> > >>>>> What standards body are you planning to take your revised spec > >>>>> to? As far as I know, OASIS is the only appropriate standards > >>>>> body for this work. > >>>>> > >>>>> As I mentioned to you today, not only is the WS-RM TC open, but we > >>>>> ARE NOT about to rubber stamp the spec that was brought in to > >>>>> initiate the TC. > >>>>> The WS-RM TC members have spent all our time and efforts on > >>>>> establishing functional requirements. These will be incorporate > >>>>> into the spec (with additions and deletions), as agreed. For > >>>>> example, on last week's telecon we got rid of Message ID, as it > >>>>> was considered to be redundant with Group ID/Sequence number as a > >>>>> unique identifier. > >>>>> > >>>>> At GGF8 in Seattle, I talked to Felipe Cabrera of Microsoft about > >>>>> participating in the WS-RM TC. He was not very receptive and told > >>>>> me to read your spec, as it was clearly superior. > >>>>> > >>>>> My opinion is that competing specs are harmful to the industry. > >>>>> It would be great if the two WS RM'g specs could be consolidated/ > >>>>> merged to incorporate the best features of both. This could take > >>>>> place in the WS-RM TC if Microsoft and the other authors decided > >>>>> to participate. > >>>>> > >>>>> I will attend your workshop on July 15, but will not offer any > >>>>> opinions or suggestions on how Microsoft and other authors should > >>>>> progress the work on Reliable Messaging.. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Sincerely > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> alan > >>>>> > >>>>> Alan Weissberger > >>>>> > >>>>> Technical Consultant- NEC > >>>>> 2013 Acacia Ct > >>>>> > >>>>> Santa Clara, CA 95050-3482 > >>>>> > >>>>> 1 408 863 6042 voice > >>>>> > >>>>> 1 408 863 6099 fax > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>> From: > >>>>> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:13:22 +0200 > >>>>> To: > >>>>> Subject: [wsrm] RE: WS-ReliableMessaging Spec Workshop Invitation > >>>>> -- Please Forward as Appropriate > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Colleen, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm a bit surprised. And have a question based on the quote from > >>>>> the document you sent: > >>>>> > >>>>> " > >>>>> > >>>>> The authors of the Specification intend to submit a revised > >>>>> version of the Specification to a standards body with a commitment > >>>>> to grant a royalty-free license to their necessary patents. We > >>>>> need assurance that your feedback and discussions are consistent > >>>>> with that goal. > >>>>> > >>>>> " > >>>>> > >>>>> Why don't they join to the OASIS WS-RM TC to work on ONE > >>>>> WS-Reliability standard instead of going to standardize another > >>>>> one ? The OASIS WS-RM TC is open. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> br, > >>>>> > >>>>> Magdolna > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> *From:* ext Colleen Evans [mailto:coevans@microsoft.com] > >>>>> *Sent:* July 03,2003 3:46 > >>>>> *Subject:* WS-ReliableMessaging Spec Workshop Invitation -- Please > >>>>> Forward as Appropriate > >>>>> > >>>>> The authors of the recently-published WS-ReliableMessaging > >>>>> specification are hosting a 1-day meeting on July 15, 2003, 9am to > >>>>> 5pm, to discuss this specification. This meeting will be held in > >>>>> Building 21, Columbia conference room on the Microsoft campus in > >>>>> Redmond, WA. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> This is an ad-hoc, open forum for 1) *SPECIFICATION AUTHORS* to > >>>>> share background information on the design of the specifications > >>>>> and to receive feedback and 2) *SOFTWARE VENDORS* to discuss their > >>>>> ideas about the practicality of implementing these and related Web > >>>>> Services specifications. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> We'd like this to be an open meeting and collect a broad range of > >>>>> ideas. If you are interested in participating in the discussions, > >>>>> please reply to this mail by *EOD 11 July 2003*. Feel free to > >>>>> pass this invitation along to other potential participants, either > >>>>> in your company or elsewhere. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Note that in order to attend, the attached legal agreement MUST be > >>>>> signed by each attendee. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you and we look forward to seeing you soon. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Colleen Evans > >>>>> > >>>>> XML Web Services Standards > >>>>> Microsoft Corporation > >>>>> 303 791-3090 or 425 703-9066 > >>>>> Mobile: 720 480-3919 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting > >>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting > >>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> ---------------------------------------------------- > >>> Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com > >>> Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting > >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Alan Weissberger > >> 2013 Acacia Ct > >> Santa Clara, CA 95050-3482 > >> 1 408 863 6042 voice > >> 1 408 863 6099 fax > >> > >> > >> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting > >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > > > > > > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]