We need to figure out how RM is going
to compose with Security - while the current spec
says nothing I don't believe this is
acceptable for the final version. Or, if it is then I'd like
to have that conversation before the
interop so we know its the final outcome.
-Doug
"Patil, Sanjay"
<>
01/28/2006 01:20 PM
To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
"Marc Goodner" <>
cc
"Paul Fremantle"
<>, <>
Subject
RE: [ws-rx-implement] Questions
on interop doc
Doug,
Are you referring to a particular
issue by "resolution of the STR". I am a bit unclear about this.
-- Sanjay
From: Doug Davis [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 5:02 AM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: Paul Fremantle;
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-implement] Questions on interop doc
I'd be ok with including these issues in the interop as long as they appeared,
at least, in a WD. Although, I'd add the resolution of the STR to
the list too.
-Doug
"Marc Goodner"
<>
01/27/2006 05:30 PM
To
"Paul Fremantle"
<>
cc
<>
Subject
RE: [ws-rx-implement] Questions
on interop doc
It seems we should also evaluate other issues that are pending for a WD
like this as well as other issues that are not closed but we may be
close on. A quick look at the issue list and I would pick the following
as potentially having the most impact to the interop scenarios:
- i021
- i078
- i090
Any reason we wouldn't want to go to another CD immediately from a new
WD that at a minimum had i085 applied? That would give a pretty stable
reference point for the interop activities.
Marc Goodner
Technical Diplomat
Microsoft Corporation
Tel: (425) 703-1903
Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 1:03 PM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc:
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-implement] Questions on interop doc
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
