If I thought it would change our dates
any, but I don't think it would.
-Doug
Paul Fremantle <>
12/12/2005 02:05 PM
To
"Patil, Sanjay"
<>
cc
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
Subject
Re: [ws-rx-implement] Interoperability
and the F2F
Guys
Would it be worth having a short review of the interop scenarios at the
F2F? We already had one at the first F2F, but I'm wondering if we need
our minds refreshed.
Paul
Patil, Sanjay wrote:
>
> It will be desirable to get the input from the Interop Subcommittee
> (bugs in the spec, essentially new issues if any) before the March
> (tentatively) F2Fin order to have enough time to accommodate the input
> before sending the specs out for public review. Doug, would that be
> possible with your proposed schedule for the Interop Subcommittee?
>
> Thanks,
> Sanjay
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Doug Davis [mailto:]
> *Sent:* Monday, Dec 12, 2005 8:41 AM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* [ws-rx-implement] Interoperability and the
F2F
>
>
> Updated the proposal to make it relative to the next
CD since
> basing an interop
> on WDs doesn't make as much sense. Changed dates
to be relative
> dates.
> __________________
>
> In terms of presenting something to the TC during next
week's
> F2F, what about this:
>
> DD/MM - TC approves next CD
>
> + 4wks - Send a draft scenario document to the TC.
> This scenario doc
should try to cover interoperability
> for the features defined
in the core spec. [*]
>
> + 2wks - Final date for feedback from the TC on the
doc.
> TC doesn't need to
formally approve it but we request
> suggestions/comments
by this date.
>
> + 2wks - Unless we totally messed up the first draft
and just need
> to make minor changes
based on the feedback, we
> produce the official
scenario doc that will be used
> for the interop event.
> Send out an official
notification of the interop event
> and doc(s).
>
> + 6wks - Shoot for an interop event this week.
> Previous interops
allowed for 6 weeks between scenario doc
> being published and
the event itself.
>
> [*] Questions:
>
> Both specs or just core spec? Do we want people
to support
> ws-policy? I'm leaning towards just the core spec.
>
> What type of event do we want? Personally, I like
the idea of
> a virtual interop but I know that the pressure of a
f2f helps
> force people to make the dates.
> (virtual == put up an endpoint (RMS and RMD) on the
web)
> for example: http://wsi.alphaworks.ibm.com:8080/wsrm/index.html
> so people can test at will)
>
> What kind of results do we want to publish and how do
we want to
> publish them? Generic: "it went well"
- or specific "company X
> passed 1,2,3 but not 4,5,6" ??? Do
we even want to publish
> anything at all? What does Oasis require?
>
> thoughts?
>
> thanks
> -Doug
>
--
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
Yahoo IM: paulfremantle
VOIP: +44 844 986 2874
Cell/Mobile: +44 (0) 7740 199 729
Fax: +44 844 484 7459
