W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > April 2005

Re: Proposal against issue 1001

From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@pi4tech.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:52:29 +0100
Message-Id: <08e17b81632d0bbc82b9f64b46e3414a@pi4tech.com>
Cc: "Gary Brown" <gary@pi4tech.com>, "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
To: "Nickolas Kavantzas" <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>

Nick,

the problem for us is as I have stated, that the minutes are 
insufficient to determine the objections to the proposal. For example 
the F2F minutes did not capture the stuff you did on the board. What 
was captured was the fact that you did something on the board. Alas the 
content was missing. Likewise for points raised by Martin and Charlton. 
So we are left not really knowing which way to turn. This is why I have 
asked for clarification by email so that the objections can be lodged 
formally and we can then deal with the proposal on a sound basis.

Cheers

Steve T

On 19 Apr 2005, at 19:13, Nickolas Kavantzas wrote:

> Steve/Gary,
>  
>  
> A) If i remember correctly, we spent ~1h discussing this isssue at the 
> Redwood Shores
> F2F in Nov 2004 and at that time the proposals you guys made were all
> about *session identity*:
>  
> 1)  Correlation Issue: Pre-Proposal (Thursday, 11 November)
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2004Nov/0052.html
>  
> 2)  Correlation proposal (Thursday, 18 November)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2004Nov/0070.html
>  
> 3)  Updated correlation proposal (Friday, 19 November)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2004Nov/0074.html
>  
>  
> B) Then we spent ~1h in the Boston F2F discussing this new
> proposal, which is not about session identity.
>   
> But, there were many questions/concerns raised by me, Martin, Charlton,
>  Abbie (the minutes should have this recording) regarding this 
> approach.
>  
>
> I would like to understand why there is such a difference between the 
> two proposals you guys made?
> We can have a bried discussion about this in today's call, or we can 
> do it through email.
>  
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> --
> Nick
> ----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Steve Ross-Talbot" <steve@pi4tech.com>
> To: "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>; "Nickolas 
> Kavantzas" <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>
> Cc: "Gary Brown" <gary@pi4tech.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposal against issue 1001
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> Thanks (as ever) for you prompt response. I think that we have some mix
>  up along the line and I think this has caused a degree of confusion or
> uncertainty around issue 1001. To be clear from our side the issue that
> was raised was related to correlating multiple channel instances within
> a choreography session - it was not about providing session identity.
>  This may be an issue in and of itself but is not central to issue 
> 1001.
>  Issues relating to session identity we see as separate and if you wish
>  to raise them yourself then that is fine too.
>
> The proposal addresses the issue that was raised (correlating multiple
> channel instances), and is important in achieving endpoint monitoring
> and end point generation. This is why we raised the issue in the first
> place.
>
> While we understand your points about sessions they are not required to
> resolve issue 1001. Rather than mix these issues up let us concentrate
>  on issue 1001 and the proposal to resolve issue 1001. What we need 
> from
> you in particular and the group are comment raised against this
> proposal, to enable us to either defend the proposal, or identify gaps
> that need to be addressed as they relate to issue 1001.
>
> Cheers
>
> Steve T
> >
> >>
> >> PROPOSAL:
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005Feb/0032.html
> >>
> >> We would ask the WG members to raise issues against this proposal by
> >> email rather than using a conf call.
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Steve T
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2005 18:52:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:01:29 GMT