Re: [sca-bindings] Problem with application of BINDINGS-76

From
Eric Johnson <>
Date
2009-06-30T16:35:45+00:00
ID
Thread
Re: [sca-bindings] Problem with application of BINDINGS-76
Not sure I agree with Dave's assessment.  We have a step in our issue
process specifically for the case of issues incorrectly applied -
"edits rejected".

What other time would we be rejecting those edits except as part of a
vote for a CD?

In any case, my interpretation of the vote was that we were accepting
the documents as-is.  Which means that we now have two competing
decisions by the TC, which can probably only be resolved by another
vote of the TC.

-Eric.

David Booz wrote:

  
The accepted resolution of ISSUE-76 included those changes,
therefore I assert it is an editorial task to bring the document back
into line with the agreed resolution.

  

Dave Booz

STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture

Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC

"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"

Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093

e-mail:

  

  Simon
Holdsworth ---06/30/2009 10:22:30 AM---In extracting the .xsd for
binding.ws from the cd03 document (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/

  

  
    
      

        

        From:
        

        Simon Holdsworth
<>
      

      

        

        To:
        

        "OASIS Bindings"
<>
      

      

        

        Date:
        

        06/30/2009 10:22 AM
      

      

        

        Subject:
        

        [sca-bindings] Problem with application of
BINDINGS-76
      

    
  
  

  

  

  

  

In extracting the .xsd for binding.ws from the cd03 document (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/33170/sca-wsbinding-1.1-spec-cd03.doc)
I did a quick comparison against the xsd from cd02, and realised that
BINDINGS-76 resolution has not been fully applied, in that the schema
has not been updated to remove wireFormat and operationSelector
elements, modify the EPR type to EndpointReferenceType and remove the
anyAttribute element. 

  

What's the best way to handle this? Given that the document without
these changes has been approved by the TC, I'm not sure I can treat it
as editorial and just fix it in cd03; the only formal option I can see
is to raise a new issue. Is there any way to include an errata with the
Public Review Draft, or should we wait for publication, apply this
change in cd03 and have another vote on the next call? 

  

Regards, Simon 

  

Simon Holdsworth

STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC
Chair

MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK

Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898

Internet -  

  

  

  

  
  

  
  
Unless stated otherwise above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
number 741598. 

Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU