Marc
I think i085 is the key issue to include in the interop. If we could get
a WD = CD2+i085 then I think that would be a great basis. I was going to
suggest this on the call. I also know that Dug suggested this on a
previous chat.
I'd be interested to know if there is anyone who would object to that model.
Paul
Marc Goodner wrote:
>
> I read tea leaves and incorporated the change to Close from i085 in
> the current interop doc. There is no spec that reflects that change
> today, certainly not CD02 that the interop doc points to. So the
> question is what version of the spec should this point to? Should it
> be a CD, like 02, + issues resolved up to N date? If the later then
> should we get a WD at that date, with a new namespace (making an
> exception to the rule in i088) that we could be given to a developer
> to reference? Or should we get to that date and do another extra CD
> from what we have already planned?
>
>
>
> Do we need all the issues closed before we can go forward with this?
> Sanjay indicated he thought we needed more progress on the issues, but
> with under ten already it seems to me that means all them are closed.
>
>
>
> Marc Goodner
>
> Technical Diplomat
>
> Microsoft Corporation
>
> Tel: (425) 703-1903
>
> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/mrgoodner/
>
>
>
--
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
