RE: [ws-rx] Unowned issues

From
Marc Goodner <>
Date
2005-07-28T07:43:42+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: [ws-rx] Unowned issues
My interpretation of what owner means
match yours. Right now there is a link from the origin for all of the issues;
in a lot of them that is where the proposal is as well. In the next pass
through and for the future I’ll be sure to include the link in the
proposal section as well even if it has appeared earlier.

 

From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:] 

Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005
12:36 AM

To: Marc Goodner

Cc: 

Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Unowned
issues

 

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