OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-transport message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: Re: More issues to resolve


Philippe,

If Ian has them, they will most certainly be considered in
due time. If you haven't sent them to Ian yet, please
do so.

Thanks!

Chris

Philippe DeSmedt wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> I've been holding off on conveying the list of TRP-related issues that the
> PoC team uncovered at Tokyo, as it was suggested to first get the concerns
> re. v0.21(d) and v0.8 resolved. When would be a good time to add the PoC
> issues to the mix? I don't want them to get lost in the current debates.
> Thanks.
> 
> -Philippe
> _______________________________
> Philippe De Smedt
> Architect
> Viquity Corporation (www.viquity.com)
> 1161 N. Fair Oaks Avenue
> Sunnyvale, CA 94089-2102
> (408) 548-9722
> (408) 747-5586 (fax)
> pdesmedt@viquity.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ian.c.jones@bt.com [mailto:ian.c.jones@bt.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 10:00 AM
> To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: More issues to resolve
> 
> All TR&P people
> 
>         here are the next batch of issues for us to discuss.  I am starting
> at 10 as we already have 7 points under discussion most ready for votes this
> week.  I started with 4!! This is why we need to deal with these in groups
> and not raise to many new ones in line with these discussions.  If you want
> to raise new things can you flag them and send me a copy to add to the list
> so we deal with them in order.  We have still not cleared all the
> outstanding issues form v0.21 and people are already raising issues against
> V0.8!!
> 
>         I hope 3 of these are a little less contentious to get a few quick
> results.  I have also put in 1 big one from the Tokyo meeting that we still
> did not resolve in a documented way.
> 
>         Once we have resolved the first batch I will repost the issue with
> the solution so that we have a visible record on the mail archive.
> 
> ####
> Issue 10
> Title - Multiple PartyID
> Detail -
> 7.9.1   - Recommend changing phrase PartyID element to 'one or more PartyID
> elements'.
> 
> Proposal -      See above
> Resolution -
> Response By - Vote December 14 2000
> 
> ####
> Issue 11
> Title - Version of Header
> Detail -
> 7.7.1.2 - Purpose to provide future capabilities: should be version of
> header document being referenced. Should describe content below that level.
> 
> Proposal - Clarify definition and usage - Someone to suggest wording!
> Resolution -
> Response By - Vote December 14 2000
> 
> ####
> Issue 12
> Title - Service interface name
> Detail -
> 7.9.2.3 - Element misname: reference an element as BusinessServiceInterface:
> should be as ServiceInterface as it defined in section 3.3.2 line 430 and in
> the XML DTD at line 566.
> 
> Proposal - Define exactly what is meant by and the exact term to be used -
> previous discussions favoured the ServiceInterface but it was never
> accurately define to remove ambiguity.
> Resolution -
> Response By - Vote December 14 2000
> 
> #################################################
> ######## A BIG ONE #############################
> Issue 13
> Title - Synchronous messaging
> Detail -
>         DO WE SUPPORT synchronous transports for the response/error message
> ?
>         How are we going to document it
> the following is a formal issue raised by Doug Bunting
> 7.13.4  The wording of this section explicitly prevents  leaving out the
> ErrorURI and relying on the immediate response available in some
> transports.  For example, sending a message via HTTP may not require the
> ErrorURI because the receiver always completes MS handling in "real time"
> and  returns an Error document (if necessary) in the immediate HTTP
> response.   Recommend this case be supported by including words to this
> effect rather than  leaving it "outside the scope of this document".
> 
> Proposal - The consensus seamed to be we need to do this! But, we need some
> one to put a formal proposal for us to discuss, NOT just another yes we
> should do this.
> <Editor comment>If we are going to do this we need to have a proposal ready
> for inclusion in the document for the January F2F </Editor Comment>
> Resolution -
> Response By - Vote December 14 2000 (If we are going to do this not actually
> do it> with the volunteer to write the proposal.
> ###################################
> 
> Ian Jones
> E-Commerce Engineer
begin:vcard 
n:Ferris;Christopher
tel;cell:508-667-0402
tel;work:781-442-3063
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc;XTC Advanced Development
adr:;;One Network Drive;Burlington;Ma;01803-0903;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:chris.ferris@east.sun.com
title:Senior Staff Engineer
fn:Christopher Ferris
end:vcard


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help


Powered by eList eXpress LLC