RE: [uddi-spec] Second objection - OASIS UDDI v3 Specification

In the absence of clarification, that seems a safe assumption.

  
-----Original Message----- 
From: Andrew Hately 
  [mailto:] 
Sent: Tue 01-Feb-05 14:37 
To: 
  Luc Clement 
Cc:  
Subject: 
  Re: [uddi-spec] Second objection - OASIS UDDI v3 
  Specification

Was a 
  definition of federate provided with the feedback? 

If none was provided, we can probably assume that the 
  comment was related to affiliation for tommorow's call. 

Regards,

Andrew Hately
IBM Software Group, 
  Emerging Technologies 
email: 
phone: (512) 
  838-2866

  
    
    

      "Luc Clement" 
        <> 
        
01/31/2005 09:07 PM 

      
        
          
          

            
              
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".