Re: Action-258: (Draft #2) Request to progress to Proposed Recommendation for SOAP-JMS

Thanks Eric, I have reviewed this, and the disposition of comments and both
look good.

One remaining item that I think we need to resolve is the paragraph in the
SOTD [1] which begins "The authors of this document consider it to be
stable".  The paragraph ends with the question "(QUESTION: what is the end
of this review period?)."

In his note on 3rd Oct [2] Yves suggested at least 4 weeks for this review
period - so does December 16th seem reasonable if we publish on November



From:	Eric Johnson <>
Date:	01/11/2011 14:24
Subject:	Action-258: (Draft #2) Request to progress to Proposed
            Recommendation  for SOAP-JMS

SOAP-JMS WG - the following is my 2nd draft of the request to progress
to PR, integrating feedback from Yves.

Specifically, Yves noted that it would be appropriate to link to:
  * a report of issues raised during our Last Call
  * declarations of conformance by implementations.

So I've done so.

Further comments welcome!


Dear Colleagues,

The SOAP-JMS Working Group requests transition to Proposed
Recommendation for the SOAP over Java Messaging Service 1.0 specification.

Document title
SOAP over Java Messaging Service 1.0


The abstract can be found at:

The status of the document can be found at:

Estimated publication date:
November 15, 2011

Decision to request the transition:

Significant Changes Since Previous Publication
  * clarified text around the use of BytesMessage and TextMessage
  * added support for "contentEncoding"
  * improvements to non-normative text
  * miscellaneous editorial changes

For a complete report, see:

Evidence That Documentation Satisfies Group's Requirements
The background section of the document establishes what the document
aims to define, and links to those portions of the specification:

Evidence that Dependencies Have Been Met
This specification has no normative dependency issues.

Evidence for Wide Review
There exist at least four implementations, including at least one open
source implementation. Comments arrived on our public mailing list from
parties previously unknown to members of the WG.

Evidence that issues have been formally addressed
All issues raised on the public mailing list resulted in issues entered
in our tracker, and all issues in the issue tracker have been addressed
to the satisfaction of the person who raised the issue.

Specifically, you can see our disposition of comments since our last
last public release:

Implementation Information
Three implementations have publicly stated that they pass the test suite
defined by the WG.

... and from the Apache CXF project, over a sequence of emails ...

None raised

Patent disclosures

Eric Johnson,
Chair, SOAP-JMS working group

Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 13:48:22 UTC