RE: Open Issues for TR&P Discussion in San Jose

[David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>]

Folks
 
From my scanning of the email lists, I think we also need to include ...
 
8. Discuss and agree whether to have a separate transport envelope that
allows the transport protocol to be swapped without changing the ebXML
headers (see last email in the thread: RE: ebXML Proof of Concept Proposal
v0.5. From Dale Moberg [ Dale_Moberg@stercomm.com
<mailto:Dale_Moberg@stercomm.com> ] on Mon 07/31/2000 6:53 AM)
 
I've also made some comments on various emails that I have been catching up
on that we might want to include.
 
David
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Hughes [mailto:jfh@fs.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 4:44 PM
To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Open Issues for TR&P Discussion in San Jose


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