RE: Interface Primitives Draft V021.

["Munter, Joel D" <joel.d.munter@intel.com>]

david,

i did not say the things that you have just attributed to me.  in an earlier
message, i simply asked that you work directly with farrukh and scott to
resolve a better way of handling "working with each other issues".  i am
ready to accept and review all input from anybody on this team and hope that
you would feel the same way about reviewing input from me.  most of the
statements that you are addressing directly below came from one of farrukh's
replies to you.

i recommend that we "END THIS THREAD" now and ask that all on the Reg/Rep
team dutifully review david's interfaces draft and consider its content for
inclusion into the registry specification documentation that is currently
under development and in review.

tracing through the lengthy history of this "rich" thread, all problems
seemed to have begun, when at least one participant did not understand how
the interfaces draft document applied to the work at hand.  i recommend that
whoever does not understand what david what aiming at should simply ask
david.

joel


-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 12:15 PM
To: Munter, Joel D
Cc: 'Farrukh Najmi'; Klaus-Dieter Naujok; ebxml repository
Subject: RE: Interface Primitives Draft V021.


Message text written by "Munter, Joel D"
>-Ideas should be put on the table in their proper working group and
positioned
as a proposal.
-They should not be (mis)represented in other working groups as works of
the
proper working group.
-They should not contain misleading statements that position ones company's
product or specs as ebXML's products and specs.
-They should not contain technologies/protocols used by ones company as
ebXML's
supported and accepted technologies/protocols
-They should not be done as parallel universes to officially sanctioned
works
in the proper working group

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Once again this is a total mispresentation of the facts.

The information was VERY clearly annotated when posted to 
TRP - see below.

Further - there is a continued attempt to misrepresent this as
"company's product or spec's" and that is again simply not true.

This is a set of ideas based off brainstorming around the TRP
work, IETF DASL work, OASIS work and seeing how this
might all come together and XML/edi work on simple mechanisms
for business analysts and SME's.  This was also stated in the 
draft itself.

That is what TRP asked to discuss - the issues in using TRP to
implement RegRep interactions.  We need a start point on this
to at least get some ideas and issues discussed.

We can then accept or reject things in an open forum - and
put together matrix of validation parameters and 
business functional requirements that we can assess 
the various technology options with.

We still need to do that work.

It is unfortunate that that process has been sideswiped by
not reading what is being stated - but by unverified 
assumptions and prejudgement instead.

Following on from today's RegRep conference call - I 
now have a better understanding of the .05 spec 
transport mechanism interactions.  This was not at all clear
from the spec's.  As noted previously there is harmonization
needed here between the level of technical details - and
much better would have been a statement to that fact.

ie. hello TRP - I have some input here in terms of the
transport model that is a difference approach - that can
use some of the details here, and once I've worked
with David on that - then we will present something that
is a balance.  Standby please.

DW.
=================================================
reference: previously posted note to TRP
=================================================
Attached is the first draft of interface spec's for RegRep
using WebDav DASL -

WARNING - this has NOT been reviewed 
in detail by RegRep yet.

You will need to review the DASL spec's at

http://www.webdav.org  to understand the full fucntionality

here - as I have assumed this knowledge.

Also - I have NOT focused at all in harmonization with
TRP - that's why I have the draft!

First I just focused on solving the RegRep issues - and
that is a pile of work still - especially on the Add side;
Query is relatively clear.

So - I'm looking for positive input here to augment 
the RegRep functional with better and more rich 
transport details.