RE: Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-merrick-jms-uri-11: (with COMMENT)

In favor.

-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com



-----Original Message-----
From: public-soap-jms-request@w3.org on behalf of Eric Johnson
Sent: Wed 19-Jan-11 1:41 PM
To: SOAP-JMS; Peter Easton
Subject: Fwd: Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-merrick-jms-uri-11: (with  COMMENT)
 
I'm thinking of addressing the concern raised below with the following 
two sentences to replace the one we have:

The syntax of this 'jms' URI is not compatible with previously existing, 
but unregistered 'jms' URI schemes.  However, the expressiveness of the 
scheme described herein should satisfy the requirements of all existing 
circumstances.

Comments?

-Eric.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-merrick-jms-uri-11: (with 
COMMENT)
Date: 	Mon, 17 Jan 2011 02:09:35 -0800
From: 	Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
To: 	The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: 	eric@tibco.com, peaston@progress.com, derek.rokicki@softwareag.com, 
m8philli@uk.ibm.com, draft-merrick-jms-uri@tools.ietf.org



Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-merrick-jms-uri-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION, paragraph 4:
>     The syntax of this 'jms' URI is not compatible with any known current
>     vendor implementation, but the expressivity of the format should
>     permit all vendors to use it.

   So are there vendor implementations of 'jms' already? If yes, what it
   the value in publishing a specification that is not compatible with
   any of them? Or do we have an indication that the vendors will adopt
   this spec?