Was there any attempt to raise this issue during the public review
period?
For that matter, was there any attempt to raise this during the time that
Version 3.0.0 and 3.0.1 were available?
Seems awfully late to be raising this.
Looks like we will have something to discuss on the call :-)
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: Luc Clement
[mailto:]
Sent: Tue 01-Feb-05 14:07
To:
Cc:
Subject: [uddi-spec] Second objection - OASIS UDDI v3
Specification
Please note the
second objection
Luc Cl幦ent
Senior Program Manager, Systinet
Tel: +1.781.362.1330 /
Cell: +1.978.793.2162 / www.systinet.com
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/voting/vote_details.php?id=675&voter_id=777
Ballot: Approve UDDI v3.0.2
as an OASIS standard
Company:
Mitre Corporation
Vote:
No
Comment:
MITRE would like the TC to reconsider the current wording in the
standard regarding Subscription APIs, a functionality that is being
seriously considered by a MITRE customer. Specifically, the TC could
consider the foll. wording change "If a UDDI registry must federate with
other UDDI registries, then the registries SHOULD have at least one node
that offers the Subscription API, otherwise the Subscription API is
OPTIONAL".
