Re: [ebxml-msg] Edit Items.

David,

This type of closing the issues list, including items submitted against
the 1.09 document, does not reflect an attempt to put forward the best
possible document.  I disagree with your interpretation of those teleconference
votes as a closing of the issues list or a narrowing of possible submissions
to that list.  I suggest we continue to resolve the editorial issues
in this document.  At the very least, we must deal with conflicts
in the document and issues remaining from previous rounds of comments.

thanx,

    doug

David Fischer wrote:
 We
already voted NOT to do this kind of editorial round again. Excerpt
from Conference Call 1-22-02   
Motion:Following the validation
of the specifications, if any clarifications
to the    specification
are required, we will ballot that
specification for consideration for   
submission prior to submitting
to OASIS. – Bob, second: David F.

Question:What
do we mean by freezing technical changes?(Doug)Changing
PositiveInteger to nonNegativeInteger is correcting

an inconsistency not
a technical change.

 <?xml:namespace
prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Friendly Amendment:Voting
would be to consider any errata

from items received
or implementation experience before it is

submitted to the OASIS
membership.These will be voted on
as a new TC specification. – Chris. 
Bob did not accept.

Comment:We
need a Change Control Officer for the next 6 weeks – Ian. (Doug agree).

Ian – any objections
(no) motion passes.

 

 
Most
of the items marked as Disagree are to comply with the vote cited above. These
items are not *correcting an inconsistency* nor *required clarifications*. We
can deal with this kind of thing in v3.0. I
would like to withdraw my submission titled ebMS_v2_0revA.pdf.  Ian,
please do not post to the web site.Regards,David
FischerDrummond
Group.