Thx Marc!
Yes, i013 is done. The email I sent was about the WSRM doc (i013 is for
WSRM-Policy doc). For the policy doc: in addition to i013, i001 and i009
are done.
Please note that I sent one correction to the email that you quoted. The
correction was:
proposed04 is now issue i039
which is also 'editor done'.
FYI: all the closed issues that required action from the editors are in
the 'Revision History' of both the WSRM and WSRMP docs.
HTH.
-Anish
--
Marc Goodner wrote:
> These should all be tagged correctly in the next update. I013 is done to
> right? I'll note any more I se as I find 'em.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 5:08 PM
> To: Doug Davis
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Committee Draft issues
>
> As you may have seen I checked in drafts to fix issues i017, i045 and
> i046. For 17, I picked 200510 as the 'YYYYMM'.
>
> +1 to waiting to have a fix for i024.
>
> I think we are done wrt wsrm doc based on the issues that Paul sent.
> Thanks Dug for doing the heavy lifting.
>
> Here is a summary (of the issues that Paul sent out) for the WSRM doc:
>
> 1) Closed issues that require no change to the doc --
> 3, 4, 12, 14, 18, 26
>
> 2) Issues that do require action and should now be 'editors - done' --
> 5, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 27, 28, 20, 25, 29, 31, 33, 34, 39, 40
>
> 3) New proposed issues --
> NewProposed01 (issue i036) closed with no action
> Proposed04 (issue i036) done
> Proposed05 (issue i040) done
> Proposed11 (issue i045) done
> Proposed12 (issue i046) done
>
> -Anish
> --
>
> Doug Davis wrote:
>
>>Editors,
>> I think the only one left is: i024 - didn't do because I wanted the
>
> TC
>
>>to agree on Ashok's text first.
>>and haven't looked at the 'proposed' issues yet.
>>
>>-Doug
>>
>>
>>
>>*Paul Fremantle <>*
>>
>>09/25/2005 07:03 PM
>>Please respond to
>>paul
>>
>>
>>
>>To
>>
>>cc
>>
>>Subject
>> [ws-rx-editors] Committee Draft issues
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Editors
>>
>>Here is my figuring on what needs to go into the Committee Draft:
>>
>>Issues resolved up to and including the F2F to be included in CD
>>================================================================
>>
>>Issues closed, 4, 12, 14, 18
>>
>>Issues requiring editor input from F2F
>>======================================
>>
>>i001 Bilateral sequence negotiation
>>i005 Source resend of nacks messages when ack already received
>>i011 Typo in expires P0S
>>i013 Max message number in policy
>>i015 Required Artifact Metadata
>>i016 Document Identifiers
>>i017 XML Namespace URIs
>>i019 Sequence termination on Fault
>>i027 InOrder delivery assurance spanning multiple sequences
>>i028 Accurate final acknowledgement of a Sequence with gaps
>
> when
>
>>RMS decides to stop using it
>>
>>Issues resolved at the Seattle F2F
>>==================================
>>
>>Issue 20 - meaning of at most once DA
>>Issue 9 - policy assertion for Delivery Assurance.
>> While this doesn't make HUGE amounts of sense without the text
>>describing where it goes, I suggest we add it to the document - which
>
> is
>
>>what the vote agreed
>>
>>Issue 26 - space greedy. Closed
>>Issue 24 - Observed text.
>>Issue 25 - Seqack when no messages received.
>>Issue 29 - Security Token Reference removed
>>Issue 3 - Close, no action
>>Issue 25 - Sequence ack where no messages received
>>Issue 31 - Schema inconsistency
>>Issue 33 - NACK processing
>>Issue 34 - Faults on piggybacking
>>
>>NewProposed01 - DuplicateDetection of CSMs - closed no action
>>
>>Edits from Seattle F2F agreed as Action Items
>>======================================
>>Proposed04
>>Proposed05
>>Proposed11
>>Proposed12
>>
>>
>>Proposed13 is NOT to be in CD (so as to minimise change bars)
>>
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>
>>--
>>Paul Fremantle
>>Co-Founder, Vice President of Technology
>>WSO2, "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform"
>>
>>Yahoo IM: paulfremantle
>>Cell/Mobile: +44 (0) 7740 199 729
>>Fax: +1 360 485-4275
>>
>>
>>
