RE: Issue-6692 - Interim agreement draft

Attached is a joint proposal from IBM and Microsoft for Issue 6692 and, we hope, allows this issue to finally be resolved. It does cover the resolution of point 3) below.

Points 1) and 2), as agreed by the WG, should be dealt with as separate issues.
Avaya's issue on using policy assertions instead of qnames should also be raised as a separate issue.

Thanks,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bob Freund
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:43 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: Issue-6692 - Interim agreement draft

The following is a draft that incorporates the current state of agreement on Issue-6692.
Note that within the document there are several areas marked "TBD"
which represent further aspects that are yet to be thrashed out.
This version has been reviewed by both Microsoft and IBM and both are agreeable as to it use as the reference for further issue negotiation.
The summary of further work needed is :
1) Fault behavior relating to delivery extensions as the original fault definition related to @mode
2) extension negotiation behavior if any since the original @mode fault optional detail element was thought to provide some negotiation mechanism albeit unreliable
3) Use of the word "Push" rather than simply the one default method of notification delivery.  Nothing particularly distinguishes "Push" from normal asynchronous delivery and its use in th text is infrequent

I would be interested in discussing this on the next call as well as the opinion of folks as to the potential division of this issue into three additional issues as represented by the points above.
thanks
-bob