Re: Decisions to-date for Issue 6692

It's simple logic; If there is no "Mode" how can there be a "Push" 
variant of it?

- gp

On 6/30/2009 9:07 AM, Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
>
> From the HTML doc, we cannot figure out who added, subtracted or 
> edited what section or sentence. Perhaps, yours is a /new/ write-up.
>
>  
>
> Anyway, we have not fully reviewed your new write-up. Bob documented 
> the directional resolution for issue 6692 in the bug. The bug says 
> that 'Agreed that the notion of delivery will be maintained'. And, we 
> are not aware of any WG decisions to drop the 'Push Mode' :-)
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
>  
>
> Asir S Vedamuthu
>
> Microsoft Corporation
>
>  
>
> *From:* Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:41 AM
> *To:* Asir Vedamuthu
> *Cc:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; Yves Lafon
> *Subject:* RE: Decisions to-date for Issue 6692
>
>  
>
>
> Asir,
>   the html file I posted has change marks/bars.
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>
> *Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>*
>
> 06/30/2009 11:39 AM
>
> 	
>
> To
>
> 	
>
> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
>
> cc
>
> 	
>
> "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
>
> Subject
>
> 	
>
> RE: Decisions to-date for Issue 6692
>
>  
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
> We are NOT able to figure out the diff between Geoff's and Doug's 
> written proposals. May we request you to post a diff?
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> Microsoft Corporation
>  
> *From:* public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Doug 
> Davis*
> Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:50 AM*
> To:* Yves Lafon*
> Cc:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org*
> Subject:* Re: Decisions to-date for Issue 6692
>  
>
> Yves - thanks and sorry I keep forgetting about the size limit.
> I uploaded the file here: 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/9/06/wseventing-DeliveryElement.html
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>
> *Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>*
>
> 06/30/2009 08:43 AM
>
> 	
>
>  
>
> To
>
> 	
>
> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
>
> cc
>
> 	
>
> public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
>
> Subject
>
> 	
>
> Re: Decisions to-date for Issue 6692
>
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Doug Davis wrote:
>
> [resent with a compressed version of the attachment]
>
> > Geoff,
> >  I think this write-up goes beyond what we agreed to at the f2f.  I seem
> > to recall that we agreed to remove the "mode" attribute but keep the
> > "Delivery" element as a wrapper for extensions related to the conveyance
> > of Notifications.  In particular, here are some of things that I noticed
> > that seemed to go beyond that:
> > - introduction of a "delivery pattern" concept
> > - the notion of a "Push pattern" - since we didn't agree to a new
> > "delivery pattern" concept, we didn't agree to a "Push pattern"
> > - the EndTo element appears to have moved in your proposal - just in the
> > pseudo schema
> > - Most of the text you put under "Delivery" is redundant with the
> > extensibility model we already have described in section 3.2.
> > - Also, text like "Two extension elements are equivalent if and only if
> > they have the same root QName." is not something we discussed and is not
> > correct.  Only the spec that defines the extension could make this claim
> > since its possible that attributes or children elements need to be
> > examined to determine equivalence.  I'm having horrible flashback to "EPR
> > comparison" discussions  :-)
> >
> > I've attached a new version that I think limits itself to just what we
> > agreed to.  From a coding perspective its the same thing as what you have
> > - it just doesn't introduce concepts that we didn't agree to and as a
> > result I think its easier to digest.
> >
> > btw - something I think the group should think about are examples.  Given
> > we have 3 extensibility points (Subscribe, Delivery, NotifyTo) we should
> > probably show at least one example of what kind of extension would go 
> into
> > each and how it will look.  Without this guidance I suspect a lot of
> > confusion and interop issues.
> >
> >
> >
> > thanks
> > -Doug
> > ______________________________________________________
> > STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
> > (919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
> > The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
> >
> >
> >
> > Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
> > Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
> > 06/25/2009 06:56 PM
> >
> > To
> > "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > Decisions to-date for Issue 6692
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> > This email is in response to my action item 70 to write up our ?decisions
> > to-date? as far as Issue 6692 is concerned.
> > We made good progress at the recent F2F, which is captured in the 
> attached
> > doc.
> > I also received some great feedback last week, which is incorporated as
> > well.
> >
> > Major decisions made:
> > ·        Retaining the delivery element
> > ·        Getting rid of the mode attribute and replacing it with a series
> > of composable options
> > ·        The initial suggestion was to use qnames to represent those
> > options
> >
> > There still seems to be a few discussion points remaining.  These 
> include:
> > ·        Using qnames or potentially using policy statements inside 
> of the
> > delivery element
> > ·        Should subscription response return indications about the
> > subscription?
> > ·        What should various faults return?
> >
> > --Geoff
> > [attachment "WS-Eventing-6692-8.docx" deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM]
> >
>
> -- 
> Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
>
>        ~~Yves[attachment "wseventing-DeliveryElement.html.bz2" deleted 
> by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM]
>