OASIS Business Document Exchange (BDXR) TC

  • 1.  BDX Location

    Posted 01-14-2014 10:56
    Dear all, Sorry for missing the last BDX call. I am wondering if you discussed the BDX Location. I know we got some comments from TAB that need to be addressed. Draft specifications in a project I'm involved in reference the BDX Location specification. For acceptance, the specification should be more than a Committee Draft. Therefore I am hoping that we can address the comments, update the specification and readopt it as CD and soon after approve it as a Committee Specification. After that, we could also propose it as an OASIS Standard. I know Dale implemented the specification in Python and Javascript for client and Bind for server. I implemented it in Python for client support using Twisted Names as a DNS server. IT.NRW has implemented BDX Location in Java and is running it also with Bind. There may be other implementations but at least we have three statements of use. The OASIS process imposes a high minimum number of votes and recently a ballot failed due to lack of support. So submitting for OS vote has some risks .. When is our next scheduled meeting? Kind Regards, Pim van der Eijk


  • 2.  RE: [bdxr] BDX Location

    Posted 01-14-2014 15:40
    Hi Pim We did discuss the TAB comments briefly and a plan of response was organized roughly as follows: 1. We need to acknowledge receipt of the comments and offer thanks for producing them. 2. We need to sort the purely editorial comments out from those that might need more discussion. [This has been started.] 3. We need specific proposals on how to respond to each comment and a consensus on the response. We need to send that to the commenter. 4. The editor(s) should be instructed to make the changes. 5. We need to decide whether any substantive changes have been made and if so have a review again. 6. Proceed with standardization procedures. I particularly welcome any proposals on two clarification issues 1. How to make clearer what a (Dynamic Delegation Discovery System) DDDS application involves. This addresses the reviewer's confusion about whether the Location spec is a "profile," which it is, given the elastic character of the term "profile"! But I had hoped the references to DDDS would point to what the status of the specification was, but maybe we can call that out even more explicitly. 2. How to make clearer that conformity to this specification involves adhering to the IETF specifications concerning the query client and the responding DNS server overall, but that we define that a language "api" binding requirement. This conformance request is maybe a bit unusual in that it leaves quite a bit of freedom to the implementer. Maybe why a language binding requirement needs to allow some freedom to the implementer needs explanation? We did try to clarify the conformance part previously, but possibly it needs more work. I welcome other BDXR participants to join as editors for this final effort! Especially the bibiliography which has been a real struggle. Dale Moberg
    Original Message


Related Content