Title: Draft package for OS submission
Hi Sanjay,
I haven't had a chance to look at the documents
themselves as of yet, but yes, as far as the actual submission notice goes,
those are the only changes.
Regards,
Mary
From: Patil, Sanjay
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:52
PM
To: ;
Cc:
Subject: RE: Draft package for OS
submission
Hi Mary,
Thanks for the feedback. So I take it
that besides the two changes you suggested below, the package is ready for
submission.
I plan on submitting the package with the two changes
applied on Thursday (4/11) after the ballots close (on
Wed).
Thanks,
Sanjay
From: Mary McRae
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Mary McRae
Sent:
Monday, Apr 09, 2007 5:07 AM
To: Patil, Sanjay;
Cc:
Subject: RE: Draft package for
OS submission
Hi Sanjay,
Two things in your draft submission message need
to be fixed.
1. Links to specifications. You're using the "latest
version" links rather than the "this version" links. These links must be to
a fixed reference and not something that will change over
time.
2. statements of use. Please add the name of the
organization above each of the URIs.
Thanks!
Mary
From: Patil, Sanjay
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 1:38
AM
To: ;
Cc:
Subject: Draft package for OS
submission
Hi Mary,
Please see below for the draft package
for the OS submission. The ZIP package referenced in the attached email
includes the drafts for OS submission.
<<[ws-rx-editors] Groups -
WS-RX_CS_DirStructured.zip uploaded>>
Please let me know if anything is missing, or
needs to be corrected, etc.
Thanks,
Sanjay
_______________________________________________________________
The Web Services Reliable Exchange
(WS-RX) TC has submitted the
following specification set:
(a) Links to the approved Committee
Specification in the TC's document
repository, and any appropriate supplemental documentation for
the
specification, both of
which must be written using the OASIS templates.
The specification may not have been changed
between its approval as a
Committee Specification and its submission to OASIS for
consideration as
an OASIS
Standard, except for the changes on the title page and running
footer noting the approval status and
date.
Web Services ReliableMessaging
1.1
PDF - http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/v1.1/wsrm.pdf
HTML - http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/v1.1/wsrm.html
Schema -
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702/wsrm-1.1-schema-200702.xsd
WSDL -
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702/wsdl/wsrm-1.1-wsdl-200702.wsdl
Web Services ReliableMessaging Policy
1.1
PDF - http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrmp/v1.1/wsrmp.pdf
HTML - http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrmp/v1.1/wsrmp.html
Schema -
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrmp/200702/wsrmp-1.1-schema-200702.xsd
Web Services MakeConnection 1.0
PDF - http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsmc/v1.0/wsmc.pdf
HTML - http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsmc/v1.0/wsmc.html
SCHEMA -
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsmc/200702/wsmc-1.0-schema-200702.xsd
WSDL -
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsmc/200702/wsdl/wsmc-1.0-wsdl-200702.wsdl
(b) The editable version of all files
that are part of the Committee
Specification;
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/v1.1/wsrm.doc
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrmp/v1.1/wsrmp.doc
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsmc/v1.0/wsmc.doc
(c) Certification by the TC that all
schema and XML instances included
in the specification, whether by inclusion or reference,
including
fragments of such,
are well formed, and that all expressions are valid;
All schema and XML instances included
in the specification are well
formed and all expressions are valid.
(d) A clear English-language summary of
the specification;
The WS-ReliableMessaging 1.1
specification consists of multiple parts.
The core WS-ReliableMessaging 1.1
document defines a protocol for
reliable message exchange between two Web services, even in the
presence
of network or system
failures. For example, the protocol can ensure the
resending of messages that have been lost, and
can ensure that duplicate
messages are not delivered. The protocol allows Web service nodes
to
implement a variety of
delivery assurances, including At Most Once, At
Least Once, Exactly Once and In Order delivery
of messages. The protocol
fundamentally defines a one-way reliable channel (known as a
Sequence),
but also includes
mechanisms to optimize the creation of two-way
reliable exchanges. The protocol is designed to
compose with other
relevant
standards such as WS-Security and WS-SecureConversation. The
protocol allows developers to
add reliable delivery of messages to their
applications on a variety of platforms,
including Java and .NET.
The WS-ReliableMessaging Policy 1.1
document defines an XML policy
language that enables Web services to advertise their support for
the
WS-ReliableMessaging
specification. The specification is designed for
use with the WS-Policy Framework. The language
aids the interoperability
of
nodes that support WS-ReliableMessaging by publishing their support
and requirements for aspects of
reliable messaging. For example, an
endpoint may use this specification to indicate that it requires
that
the reliable message
protocol to be secured using transport level
security. WS-ReliableMessaging Policy is
designed to be used with other
policy languages, such as WS-Security Policy, in the scope of the
WS-Policy Framework.
The WS-MakeConnection 1.0 document
defines a protocol that can be
used to allow two-way communications when only a transport
specific
back-channel (such as
the HTTP response mechanism) is available. For
example, this allows a client to establish a
two-way reliable
message
exchange even in the presence of firewalls and network address
translation, that otherwise would
prevent the server from initiating
connections to the client.
(e) A statement regarding the
relationship of this specification to
similar work of other OASIS TCs or other standards developing
organizations;
-- The OASIS WS-Reliable Messaging
(WSRM) TC also defines a reliable
messaging specification for Web services. The WS-RX TC and
WS-ReliableMessaging specification
focuses on creating a specification
that works in conjunction with and composes with other
specifications,
in particular
the WS-Addressing, WS-Security and WS-SecureConversation,
and WS-Policy Framework specifications.
(f) Certification by at least three
OASIS member organizations that they
are successfully using the specification;
Certification via email:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200702/msg00068.html
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200702/msg00069.html
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200703/msg00000.html
Confirmation of applicability of the
certification for the latest drafts:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200703/msg00114.html
(g) The beginning and ending dates of
the public review(s), a pointer to
the announcement of the public review(s), and a pointer to an
account of
each of the
comments/issues raised during the public review period(s),
along with its resolution;
First Public Review: 24 August 2006 to
21 October 2006
Second Public
Review: 12 February 2007 to 27 February 2007
Announcement of the first Public
Review:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200608/msg00005.html
Announcement of the second Public
Review:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200702/msg00004.html
Public Review Issue and Resolution
Log:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/pr/Issues.xml
(h) An account of and results of the
voting to approve the specification
as a Committee Specification, including the date of the ballot and
a
pointer to the ballot;
TBD
(i) An account of or pointer to votes
and comments received in any
earlier attempts to standardize substantially the same
specification,
together with
the originating TC's response to each comment;
This is the first submission to the
OASIS membership
(j) A pointer to the publicly visible
comments archive for the
originating TC;
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx-comment/
(k) A pointer to any minority reports
submitted by one or more Members
who did not vote in favor of approving the Committee
Specification,
which report may
include statements regarding why the member voted
against the specification or that the member
believes that Substantive
Changes were made which have not gone through public review;
or
certification by the Chair
that no minority reports exist.
There are no minority reports.
