W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > November 2006

RE: Assertion guidelines new version

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:29:25 -0800
Message-ID: <1E0F0378382054439F14D5450650478F0B54483E@RED-MSG-42.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Thank you for posting an updated version. Initial comments from Microsoft are in the attached document.

Regards,
 
Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation




From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yalcinalp, Umit
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:08 PM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: Assertion guidelines new version


Folks, 
There is a new version of the document [1] : 
-- Paul, your comments are incorporated 
-- Frederick, your comments with two exceptions are incorporated 
    (a) did not include any guidance about intermediateries as it should be an item that requires a proposal that I was not sure how to write. Should be tracked as a separate issue. Would you care to raise the issue? 
    (b) pretty printing. Last time I used it, you still sent me an indication that you did not like the result. I am still waiting guidance from our helpful editorial team as to which tool they use for this issue so that there is some coherence to the other specs :-) 
-- Assertions that target optional behaviors. 
    I incorporated the discussion we had from last week, Yakov's and Dan's feedback with one exception. Dan, I did not exclude the bullet you wanted excluded because the content is not incorrect except WSRMP related guidance. I agree that it is a general discussion but given why the optionality is a problem, I thought it would be clearer to call out scoping considerations. In order to accommodate the scoping,  I encapsulated all the scoping considerations for message policy subject, one-way attachment, etc. under a dedicated bullet for clarity. I also changed the guidance though to fit with what WS-RMP spec. You were right to indicate that the previous guidance was not accurate, so I do hope you like this approach. Have a look. 
This completes my unrecorded by assumed action items from last weeks concall as the direction given by the wg seemed to indicate that the wg needed to see the editorial items + optional assertion proposal addressed before tomorrows concall.  I did not see this explicitly recorded though in the minutes though. 
--umit 
[1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8

---------------------- 
Dr. Umit Yalcinalp 
Architect 
NetWeaver Industry Standards 
SAP Labs, LLC 
Email: umit.yalcinalp@sap.com Tel: (650) 320-3095 
SDN: https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/weblogs?blog=/pub/u/36238 
-------- 
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, 
then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi 


Received on Saturday, 18 November 2006 03:34:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:43 GMT