Message Service Interface

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

Since there seems consensus that this Message Service Interface should be 
treated as separate work for the time being (and maybe folded into the 
Messaging Spec later... or not), could the group decide who is the editor 
and who will make an initial strawman proposal? Without something to look 
at, it's hard to get going.

Alternatively, we may need to have a requirements discussion about this 
before someone invests time. I'm seeing differing opinions about what this 
interface is and should accomplish.

I'm happy to add it to the Work Plan once there is a concrete proposal for 
a work item with deliverables, start/stop date, responsible party, etc.

Jim

At 03:39 PM 8/28/2000 -0500, richard drummond wrote:
>we have always said we will do a message service interface. it need not be
>part of the existing documents.... but it is part of our effort... rik
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Hughes [mailto:jfh@fs.fujitsu.com]
>Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 11:24 AM
>To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
>Subject: Revised TRP Work Plan
>
>
>Revised Work Plan attached, based on discussions last week. Changes:
>
>- deleted the line for "Service API", since it is not clear that there will
>be a service interface specified in the document (and certainly not called
>an "API"!).
>
>- moved out approval of change to Messaging Services v0-1 by one week (to
>this Thursday), with the week shift taken out of a later review of v0-3 (in
>order to still make the Tokyo meeting approval date).
>
>- since we probably will still have work to do on the base MS document this
>week and there are some fundamental issues open for RM, I moved the
>completion date for RM v0-8 out by a week.
>
>Other comments:
>
>- could someone please confirm the dates for starting security work? The
>dates shown are just my guesses.
>
>- if the various editors could either use the document revision numbers
>shown in the Work Plan, or propose alternates, it will be appreciated. We
>need to keep the Work Plan consistent with doc numbers.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jim