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

Re: Compromise Proposal [was -- Re: TIBCO objects to last call]

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:56:37 -0800
Message-Id: <54ba620aa323213129019d7a542907ff@bea.com>
Cc: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>

Anish, this is a helpful proposal; thank you.

David, if there's any text in particular that would make this course of 
action more attractive to you, as the party who objected to LC, please 
make suggestions as appropriate. If other people have amendments to 
this text or other comments, please try to have them in before Monday's 

One suggestion from my standpoint -- the text needs to reflect the fact 
that we've closed i054; "it is possible that further work may have to 
be done in this area" doesn't do this. My preference would be something 

"The Working Group requests feedback regarding the mechanism for and 
description of Message Addressing Property extensibility, along with 
use cases that illustrate how referencing specifications and other 
users of Addressing intend to extend them. Although the Working Group 
has resolved upon a particular design [link], some participants believe 
it is not adequately specified. Such feedback will help the Working 
Group determine whether it needs to re-examine this issue."


On Mar 25, 2005, at 6:37 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:

> I would like to suggest a compromise to move us forward to LC. This 
> may perhaps make folks who are concerned with issues (raised but not 
> officially logged yet) arising out of resolution of issue i054 
> happier, and at the same time allow us to go to LC now.
> I suggest we add the following text to the LC draft highlighting the 
> issue and soliciting feedback on a priority basis from external as 
> well as internal reviewers and proceed to Last Call:
> "The extensibility [link to the issue i054] of Message Addressing 
> Properties has been contentious in the Working Group and it is 
> possible that further work may have to be done in this area. The 
> Working Group would like to seek feedback on whether any change is 
> needed to the treatment of extensibility in this section. Usecases 
> and/or requirements, if any, that bear upon the extensibility of 
> Message Addressing Properties would be very useful."
> -Anish
> --

Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Sunday, 27 March 2005 04:56:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:09 UTC