Re: TRP Messaging Service Spec status

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au>]

that makes sense - its just that you are so 'on the ball' with this one that we
didn't need the heads-up.

we still need an action plan of how to address this when it is released on
Sept. 4th

i shall post it to our list server and co-ordinate responses, but as this is
our first formal document we need guidelines of what level and type of comment
is necessary.

to start the ball rolling  i see some of the issues being...

a. use of core components (eg Trading partner aka Party) - how is this to be
handled
b. alignment/reference to technical architecture
c. should this document specifically identify the messaging with RegRep?

- any other ideas?


Joseph Baran wrote:

> To the QR team:
>
> I participated in the TRP team conference call this morning.
>
> The purpose of the conference call was to go over all of the previously
> posted comments to the Messaging Service spec which were listed as
> "category 2 or 3" in their comment list. (Category 1 consists of
> "non-controversial" editorial corrections such as obvious typos etc., which
> were implicitly accepted; 2 and 3 are "minor" and "major" technical
> issues).
>
> Before the actual comment review work started, I had the opportunity to ask
> team leader Rik Drummond about his recent posting of the current spec to
> the Steering Committee list with a note attached asking for the QR team to
> comment. He confirmed that the purpose of his posting was simply to give us
> a "heads up" in response to Dick's request at the Steering Committee
> meetings in San Jose.  The published TRP work plan shows our formal review
> period for this document starting next Monday (Sept. 4), and this date
> still stands as their goal. There will be another posting to the Steering
> Committee list as the formal "hand-off" for the QR review.
>
> The detailed comment review was mostly accomplished over a period of over 2
> hours. By the end of the call, there were still several comments which had
> not yet been discussed, and there were a few comments the resolution of
> which could not be agreed upon; these were recorded as still "pending
> resolution".  The TRP team has a regularly scheduled conference call on
> Thursday, during which they expect to resolve the remainder of the
> comments.
>
> There will be a revision of the document posted which will include the
> accepted changes.
>
> They are also attempting to re-format the document into a new "ietf-like"
> format (I presume there is a new official template for this?), although it
> was reported that a preliminary pass at the re-formatting suggested that
> there may be some technical difficulties with it. The point was made that
> the inclusion of the agreed-upon changes is the primary purpose of the next
> revision; the reformatting will be done only if time allows.
>
> I will continue to monitor the TRP list and report back to this team on the
> progress of the Messaging Service spec.
>
> Joe Baran

--
regards
tim mcgrath
TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142

begin:vcard 
n:McGrath;Tim
tel;pager:+61(0)299633829
tel;cell:+61 (0)438352228
tel;fax:+61(0)893352142
tel;work:+61(0)893352228
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:tmcgrath@tedis.com.au 
x-mozilla-cpt:;-19376
fn:tim mcgrath
end:vcard