RE: Draft package for OS submission

From
Mary McRae <>
Date
2007-04-12T19:16:39+00:00
ID
016d01c77d37$120502a0$640fa8c0@espresso
Thread
RE: Draft package for OS submission
Title: Draft package for OS submission

Hi Sanjay,

 

  I can't upload the docs until they've been checked, 
but yes, it is okay to use those links in the submission package. Alternatively, 
you could reference the 'attached zip file' in which case I'll replace that bit 
when send out the official notice. Either is acceptable.

 

Mary

  

  
  From: Patil, Sanjay 
  [mailto:] 
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:45 
  PM
To: ; 
Cc: 
  
Subject: RE: Draft package for OS 
  submission

  

  
 

  
Hi Mary,

  
 

  
I believe the links to "this version" for the CS 
  drafts will be activated only after OASIS staff deploys the ZIP file 
  containing the CS drafts. Do you want me to create the OS submission package 
  with to-be-activated links?

  
 

  
Attached email has link to the ZIP containing the CS 
  drafts. If you could expand it on the doc tree (before I submit the OS 
  package), that will be great.

  
 

  
-- 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.