Open Issues for TR&P Discussion in San Jose

[Jim Hughes <jfh@fs.fujitsu.com>]

As discussed in this morning's TR&P telephone call, I have reviewed
the email archives for threads/comments that were opened after the
Burlington meeting and still seem open. Beyond an agenda of looking at
the specific documents which will go out for public review (and the
reliable messaging discussions), this list should be resolved in next
week's meeting...

1. Confirm distinction between and definitions of long- and short-lived
conversations, their relation to BP models (see
FW: Conversations, or BP alignment with
TR&P and Architecture, From Bob Haugen
<linkage@interaccess.com> on Sun, 2 Jul 2000)

2. Confirm closure on comments to TRP Overview (see
Review of comments on the requirements
document., From ian.c.jones@bt.com on Thu, 20 Jul
2000)

3. Close discussion on sub-service choreography (see
Motivation for sub-service
choreography?, From Joe Lapp
<jlapp@webMethods.com> on Fri, 21 Jul 2000)

4. Review TR&P terms in the ebXML glossary out for review (see
ebXML Glossary available for
comments, From Tim McGrath
<tmcgrath@tedis.com.au> on Wed, 26 Jul 2000)

5. Get consensus on use of Services in TR&P (see
BusinessServiceInterface or
ServiceInterface, From Christopher Ferris
<chris.ferris@east.sun.com> on Fri, 21 Jul 2000)

6. Resolve version and charset attributes in envelopes and headers (see
RE: Version 0.6 of the ebXML packaging spec
is now ready forreview/comment, From Dick Brooks
<dick@8760.com> on Fri, 28 Jul 2000)

7. Discuss W3C XML Protocol Activity (see Re:
FW: Call for Review: XML Protocol Activity Proposal,
From Ralph Berwanger <rab7067@earthlink.net> on Mon, 31 Jul
2000)

The good news is that there are not a lot of open issues in the email
lists. Maybe the bad news is that there are not a lot of open issues --
and we need more careful scrutiny of our documents, especially against
each other for consistency!

Regards,

"the new kid on the block", Jim