Comments inline.
Ian,
We still have a couple of unresolved issues -- most notably the signature problem Sanjay pointed out. There is also the issue (item 6 below) that SyncReply does not work with Intermediate Acknowledgments. We are supposed to start voting tomorrow. What shall we do? If you would like, I can go ahead and post as version 1.093?
I want to thank everyone for all the help on editing/reviewing the specification. I think this is a much better spec than v1.0. That said, I will also say I plan to vote *no* on this spec for two reasons: 1) Our charter was to create a v1.1 spec with fixes and clarifications only which we have failed to do (if we could name this spec v2.0, as the RegRep team did, then this objection would go away), and 2) Our original charter was to create a set of orthogonal ebXML specifications which we have failed to do (we have tightly coupled Messaging with CPPA). I would like to urge everyone to consider a version number of v2.0 since v1.1 has the connotation of backward compatibility which we certainly have not achieved. Our next version could then be v3.0?
Please let me know what you want to do.
David.
