On 10/26/05, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In your draft, given a quick glance over,
Most of these seem like FUD to me... you might as well be saying "it won't scale" or "we need an Enterprise SOA Solution". So, could you elaborate? You seem to be saying there needs to be more text in several areas, but you don't say why. Usually, some other WG member would jump in with an unexplained +1 right about now... well screw that. Explain the technical problem. > I believe the XOXO based > service outline is entirely the wrong approach and is underspecified; Why. Give *technical* reasons. I really don't care what you believe. I do care about technical problems. > the definition pub:control is underspecified; Why. What needs to be added? > there is inadequate > treatment of failure conditions and error reporting; What's the technical problem you are worried about? > and member listing is underspecified. How's that? I was waiting for mnot to sort out the link relations. The sync stuff, whether by date or count, in the WG draft is hopelessly naive. Robert Sayre
