2 comments below.
-Anish
--
Doug Davis wrote:
>
> In terms of presenting something to the TC during next week's
> F2F, what about this:
>
> Jan 27 - Send a draft scenario document to the TC.
> This scenario doc should try to cover interoperability
> for the features defined in the core spec.
>
> Feb 10 - 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.
>
> Feb 24 - 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).
>
> Apr 3 - Shoot for an interop event this week.
> This is 6 weeks after the scenario doc is published.
>
> Questions:
>
> Both specs or just core spec? Do we want people to support
> ws-policy? I'm leaning towards just the core spec.
>
This is tricky, since WS-Policy has not been submitted anywhere and the
TC will have to abstract out the policy assertion/parameters (whatever
that means) if WS-Policy is not 'sufficiently further along the
standards path' (whatever that means).
> 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)
>
> Do we need to shift the dates based on the next CD? With these
> dates I was assuming we'd use the current WDs available. What
> version of the spec(s) do we want to use?
>
> 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?
I don't think OASIS has any requirement in this area, so it is really up
to us. I would imagine companies may not want to publish publicly that
their endpoint does not pass tests p, q and r. I would suggest making
this member visible unless everyone agrees that it is OK to publish all
the results.
>
> thoughts?
>
> thanks
> -Doug
