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

In general, we are amenable to moving to LC with this form of 
resolution.  There is something of a fine line here between giving the 
reasons for contention and advocating for a particular resolution.

The basic concern here has been whether MEPs currently defined by WSDL 
and MEPs outside those currently defined by WSDL can be supported with 
equal ease.  Much of the particular discussion has revolved around the 
reply and fault endpoints.  Accordingly, the note should mention this.  
I would favor a somewhat more specific wording:

"The Working Group requests feedback regarding the mechanism for and 
description of Message Addressing Property extensibility /beyond the 
MEPs currently described in the WSDL specifications/, 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."



Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 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 call.
>
> 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 like:
>
> "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."
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> 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
>