Since I raised issues i002 and i003, I would be happy to be the
owner.
I'm assuming that the owner is supposed to stimulate discussion on the
issue, keep track of the discussion, summarize the discussion/issue on
the call, etc, but is not necessarily responsible for generating
proposals/resolving the issues (although he/she may). Is that correct?
(Although in the cases above, I would be willing to provide proposals.)
Suggestion for Marc:
In the issue list, can we have a link to the emails in the
justification and proposal section. Currently, these two sections
contain cut-and-pasted text from the emails. This is helpful in most
cases, but sometimes it is necessary to look at the complete
email/thread to get the right context.
Thx.
-Anish
--
Marc Goodner wrote:
We need owners for the
following issues:
i001
Bilateral
sequence negotiation
i002
AckTo EPR
and seq lifetime
i003
EPRs and
sequence scope
i004
wsa:messageID
uniqueness requirments for retransmission
i005
Source
resend of nacks messages when ack already received
i007
WSS 1.0/1.1
token support
i010
Sequence
port spanning
i012
Anonymous
acksTo
i013
Max message
number in policy
i018
Is an
implementation supporting a smaller max message number valid?
i019
Sequence
termination on Fault
Gilbert Pilz has
volunteered on the editor list to take i014
– i017.
Personally I’ll volunteer
to take i007 will review
some the others for potentially volunteering prior to tomorrow’s call.
I
suggest others do the same.
I propose that we should
not allow issues to be accepted any
longer without identifying an owner at the same time.
Regards,
Marc g
