W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > March 2005

RE: TIBCO objects to last call

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:04:30 -0800
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A506F3B991@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Anish wrote:

> Oracle is sympathetic to Tibco's concerns, specifically we agree that:
> 1) Some critical issues have been closed hastily in a hurry to go to
> Last Call.

David's proposal would result in an on-the-wire change of adding one
attribute for the purpose of identifying extensions.  (An earlier
proposal also proposed changing a couple of element QNames and coining a
new URI).  These changes are modest.  We discussed them for several
weeks which seems commensurate with the scope of the changes.  I object
to your characterization of this process as hasty just because you
didn't like the outcome.

> In our opinion the unreasonable schedule specified in the
> charter (the so called "fast-track" approach) is to blame for this.

You are entitled to your opinion.  I'm entitled to mine.

It is my opinion that your opinion above is misguided.  Tibco joined the
group late, and raised these issues after the time the WG was scheduled
by the charter to go to LC.  This could have happened whether a schedule
is compressed or not.

I also am of the opinion that Oracle is using this as an opportunity for
some grandstanding against aggressive, meaningful schedules in charters.
I assume you put your best arguments forward during the last couple of
weeks of discussion.  They did not prove compelling and now you are
lashing out against the process.

> 2) Going to Last Call should not be a goal in itself.

Neither is delay for the sake of delay, which is what I believe you are
promoting.

> If concerns are
> expressed whose resolutions may result in changes that require us to
> go
> through yet another Last Call, then we should examine our decision to
> go
> to LC carefully.

I reject the implication that Microsoft's position was not the result of
careful consideration of the issue over a period of weeks.  I have no
evidence to suggest anyone else's position was uninformed.  You should
back that implication up with proof.

> We would rather see one LC period for the specs rather
> than multiple such LC periods. The concerns laid out in David's email
> regarding the ramifications of MAP extensibility (or lack thereof) are
> significant enough that it may change the specifications in ways that
> may require another LC period.
> These concerns are worth considering
> and
> are a result of the particular resolution adopted by the WG for issue
> i054.
> We do appreciate the fact that the WS-Addressing specification(s) is
> (are) needed urgently, but we believe that WS-Addressing is very
> fundamental to Web services infrastructure and it is worthwhile to
> spend
> the time to get it right.

Your posturing assumes that the status quo is sub-optimal.  We (and
apparently others) do not believe that and voted accordingly.  I don't
see any new information to warrant weeks of further discussion before
holding a formal vote to move to Last Call.
Received on Friday, 25 March 2005 19:05:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:04 GMT