OASIS Open: Committees

What to do about piggybacking acks

see issue 119

[ ]	Close No Action
[ ]	Agree a form of EPR comparison
[ ]	Add an explicit warning about this to our text
[ ]	Remove piggybacking
[ ]	Other:

Opening:		Thursday, 18 May 2006 @ 02:00 pm PDT
Closing:		Monday, 22 May 2006 @ 05:00 pm PDT
Group:		OASIS Web Services Reliable Exchange (WS-RX) TC

Ballot has closed.

Voting Details

Voting Summary

Options with highest number of votes are bold

Option	# Votes	% of Total
Close No Action	6	26%
Agree a form of EPR comparison	15	65%
Add an explicit warning about this to our text	0	0%
Remove piggybacking	1	4%
Other	1	4%

Eligible members who have voted:	23 of 44	52%
Eligible members who have abstained:	0 of 44	0%
Eligible members who have not voted:	21 of 44	48%

Voting Details

Voter	Company	Vote	Reference Document and/or Comment
Alexander Leyfer	Actional Corporation	--
Charlton Barreto	Adobe Systems	--
Dave Orchard	BEA Systems, Inc.	--
Lei Jin	BEA Systems, Inc.	--
Gilbert Pilz	BEA Systems, Inc.	Remove piggybacking	Hom necessary is piggy-backing? Given that acknowledgments cover a range of messages, it's clear that you don't need one ack per message, so what is the real savings? Simplify, simplify, simplify . .
Ian Jones	BTplc	--
Nilo Mitra	Ericsson	--
Jacques Durand	Fujitsu Limited	--
Kazunori Iwasa	Fujitsu Limited	--
Tom Rutt	Fujitsu Limited	Other: simple epr comparison which gurantees same endpoint, also allowing out of band determination of endpoint suitable for piggybacking acks.
Eisaku Nishiyama	Hitachi, Ltd.	--
Nobuyuki Yamamoto	Hitachi, Ltd.	Agree a form of EPR comparison
Robert Freund	Hitachi, Ltd.	Agree a form of EPR comparison
Peter Niblett	IBM	Agree a form of EPR comparison
Doug Davis	IBM	Agree a form of EPR comparison
Matt Lovett	IBM	Agree a form of EPR comparison
Christopher Ferris	IBM	Agree a form of EPR comparison	removing piggybacking would be a very bad idea, IMO.
Mark Little	JBoss Inc.	Agree a form of EPR comparison
Stefan Batres	Microsoft Corporation	Close No Action
Asir Vedamuthu	Microsoft Corporation	Close No Action
Colleen Evans	Microsoft Corporation	Close No Action	EPR comparison is a very difficult problem. To specify how it should be accomplished would unnecessarily complicate the spec.
Marc Goodner	Microsoft Corporation	Close No Action	Rmoving piggybacking and EPR comparrison are both bad ideas. Comparing EPR's is not a string compare. To do a general comparrison we would need to compare XML, as an illustration of how difficult this
Jonathan Marsh	Microsoft Corporation	Close No Action	I'll send my comments to the list.
Chouthri Palanisamy	NEC Corporation	--
Paul Knight	Nortel Networks Limited	--
Lloyd Burch	Novell	--
Steve Carter	Novell	--
Sumit Gupta	Oracle Corporation	--
jeff mischkinsky	Oracle Corporation	Agree a form of EPR comparison
Eric Rajkovic	Oracle Corporation	Agree a form of EPR comparison
Ashok Malhotra	Oracle Corporation	Agree a form of EPR comparison
Anish Karmarkar	Oracle Corporation	Agree a form of EPR comparison	We can always define a restrictive criteria for comparison and state it in a positive way (the comparison criteria will tell you whether two EPRs are the same, not whether they are different). I.e., i
Martin Chapman	Oracle Corporation	Agree a form of EPR comparison	I think we can only talk about bit-by-bit comparison of EPRs. if two eprs are bit-by-bit the same then ok, otherwise who knows! But yes it must be more that the wsa:address
Umit Yalcinalp	SAP AG	--
Stefan Rossmanith	SAP AG	--
Sanjay Patil	SAP AG	Agree a form of EPR comparison
Steve Winkler	SAP AG	Agree a form of EPR comparison
Pete Wenzel	Sun Microsystems	--
Mike Grogan	Sun Microsystems	--
Doug Bunting	Sun Microsystems	Close No Action
Shivajee Samdarshi	Tibco Software Inc.	--
Dan Leshchiner	Tibco Software Inc.	--
Paul Fremantle	WSO2	Agree a form of EPR comparison	I believe as long as the comparison is restrictive (i.e. that you might miss an opportunity to piggyback, but you never incorrectly piggyback) then this is good. I also think we should restrict piggyb
Lily Liu	webMethods, Inc.	--