Simon Holdsworth: Audio conference *UPDATED 10th Jan 2011*
Participant Code: 7059536
USA Toll-Free 888-426-6840 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 888-426-6840 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 888-426-6840 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 888-426-6840 end_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting
USA Caller Paid 215-861-6239 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 215-861-6239 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
UNITED KINGDOM Toll-Free 0800-368-0638 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0800-368-0638 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
UNITED KINGDOM Caller Paid 0-20-30596451 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0-20-30596451 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Ireland Toll-Free 1-800-943-427
Ireland Caller Paid 0-1-5264424 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0-1-5264424 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Bulgaria Toll-Free 00800-117-4514
Other access codes can be found at:
https://www.teleconference.att.com/servlet/glbAccess?process=1&accessCode=7059536&accessNumber=02030596451
Simon Holdsworth2: Agenda
anonymous morphed into anish
Eric Johnson: Scribe: Eric
Eric Johnson: Present: 66% (6 of 9)
Eric Johnson: Topic: Agenda bashing
Eric Johnson: Topic: Approval of minutes
Eric Johnson: Minutes of March 31: No objections, minutes are approved.
Eric Johnson: Minutes of April 7: No comments, no objections, minutes are approved.
Eric Johnson: Topic: Action items
Eric Johnson: 20110331-02 - Simon believes it is done.
Eric Johnson: 20110331-04 - Anish - we had a misunderstanding on the meaning, but it can be considered done.
Eric Johnson: 20110407-01 - Complete
Eric Johnson: other actions remain open.
Eric Johnson: Topic: New Issues
Eric Johnson: Subtopic: BINDINGS-151
Eric Johnson: Anish moves to open BINDINGS-151, Mike 2nds
Eric Johnson: No discussion, no objections, motion passes, BINDINGS-151 opened.
Eric Johnson: Subtopic: BINDINGS-152
Eric Johnson: Mike: If you have an implementation that just supports BPEL, this would be problematic.
Eric Johnson: Anish: Not suggesting that we change the test suite. Suggesting that we change the table of tests to point at the POJO test suite.
Eric Johnson: Bryan: May need to add a reference.
Eric Johnson: Anish: ... or we could just point to the TC, but we'll need a reference of some kind.
Eric Johnson: Anish moves to open BINDINGS-152, Mike 2nds.
Eric Johnson: No further discussion, no objections, motion passes, BINDINGS-152 opened.
Eric Johnson: Anish: previous two issues are simple - should we try to resolve?
Eric Johnson: Subtopic: Resolving BINDINGS-151
anish: Mark BWS-TA-20029 as 'untestable'
Mark BWS-TA-50010 as 'untested'
Mark BWS-TA-50011 as 'untested'
Eric Johnson: Anish: Too much trouble to bother to test the second two.
Eric Johnson: Anish moves to resolve BINDINGS-151 with proposal in JIRA. Mike 2nds
Eric Johnson: NO further discussion, no objections, motion passes, BINDINGS-151 resolved.
Eric Johnson: Subtopic: Resolving BINDINGS-152
Eric Johnson: Anish: Question is what we point to for a reference. Don't think it is worth the trouble to do a designated cross reference.
Eric Johnson: Bryan: Wording along the lines of example tests of this can be found in the tests provided by the SCA-J TC.
Eric Johnson: Eric: What's the trouble of the designated cross reference?
Eric Johnson: Anish: Don't want to reference another editors draft, need to reference a CS - until the other spec reaches the CS stage, yours stays in purgatory.
Eric Johnson: Mike: Is this a normative cross reference?
Eric Johnson: Anish: I suppose we have several options. Don't have a preference. But we should have the status reflect that it is tested by someone.
Eric Johnson: Bryan: There are some normative assertions in assembly that cannot be tested by WSDL interface - and those have been deferred to language spec tests. For example, some of the overloading things. Or mixing local and remote, which you cannot do with WSDL interface.
Eric Johnson: ... explicitly deferred those.
Eric Johnson: Anish: Perhaps we should just resolve this next time, after looking that up.
Eric Johnson: ACTION: Bryan to look up what the Assembly TC did in the cases that Bryan referred to above.
Eric Johnson: Subtopic: BINDINGS-153
Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): osoa is working for me now
Eric Johnson: Mike: Don't think you can test BWS20037 - runtime can reject the request for a particularly valid reason - it doesn't support the optional feature.
Eric Johnson: Anish: Aim is to make the test optional.
Eric Johnson: ... isn't this true for any optional test?
Eric Johnson: Mike: No. Because in this case there are two valid outcomes.
Eric Johnson: Anish: For an optional test, it could generate an error, why would that be a problem.
Eric Johnson: Tom: We don't have conformance classes for these items?
Eric Johnson: Anish: Right now, we don't have any optional tests. We could mark these tests such that if implementation claims to support a feature, then doc for the test suite can tell how to enable the test.
Eric Johnson: Tom: What is this issue telling us?
Eric Johnson: Anish: No proposal.
Eric Johnson: Anish: Two discussions. Do we want to have tests for optional items? And if yes, then we get to Tom's question - how do we do that?
Eric Johnson: ... On first thing: Mike & anish seem to have different views. Regardless of whether or not a feature is optional, if it cannot be tested, then we should just mark it as such.
Eric Johnson: ... Two implementations of normative statements might be tricky. Converting to mandatory doesn't necessarily solve this problem.
Eric Johnson: ... My conclusion - we should keep the normative statements, but that we should add tests that cover them, and figure out how to tell people to run the tests.
Eric Johnson: ... Whether we're going to get two implementations of a normative statement is a problem, optional or not.
Eric Johnson: Mike: Do have concerns, but willing to open.
Eric Johnson: Anish moves to open BINDINGS-153, 2nd by Bryan.
Eric Johnson: No further discussion, no objections, motion passes, BINDINGS-153 opened.
Eric Johnson: Subtopic: BINDINGS-154
Eric Johnson: No discussion. Mike moves to open BINDINGS-154, Anish 2nds.
Eric Johnson: No discussion. No objections, motion passes, BINDINGS-154 opened.
Eric Johnson: Subtopic: BINDINGS-155
Eric Johnson: Mike moves to open BINDINGS-155, Bryan 2nds.
anish: resovle it now 
Eric Johnson: No further discussion. No objections. motion passes, BINDINGS-155 opened.
Eric Johnson: Mike moves to resolve bindings 155 with proposal in JIRA, Anish 2nds.
Eric Johnson: No discussion, no objects. Motion passes, BINDINGS-155 resolved.
Eric Johnson: Subtopic: BINDINGS-156
anish: should we do a single motion to open all these similar issues?
Eric Johnson: Mike: Should someone else define a wire format somewhere else could we possibly need to make this normative.
Eric Johnson: Mike moves to open BINDINGS-156, Bryan 2nds.
Eric Johnson: No further discussion, no objections, motion passes, BINDINGS-156 opened.
Eric Johnson: Subtopic: BINDINGS-157
Eric Johnson: Mike: Think it should be a MUST
Eric Johnson: Simon: Yes, but it would still be untestable.
Eric Johnson: ... one possible approach - halt the request processing. Think we need more discussion to resolve.
Eric Johnson: Mike: I think it is a fine issue.
Eric Johnson: Mike moves to open BINDINGS-157, Bryan 2nds.
Eric Johnson: No further discussion, no objections, motion passes, BINDINGS-157 opened.
Eric Johnson: Subtopic: BINDINGS-158
Eric Johnson: Simon: Think this was a SHOULD simply because it was untestable. So eliminate the SHOULD and make clear that it is a MUST.
Eric Johnson: Mike: Another fine issue
Eric Johnson: Mike moves to open BINDINGS-158, Bryan 2nds.
Eric Johnson: No further discussion, no objections, motion passes, BINDINGS-158 opened
Eric Johnson: Subtopic: BINDINGS-159
Eric Johnson: Simon: This was a deliberate use of the word "SHOULD".
Eric Johnson: Mike: Again, I think a fine issue
Eric Johnson: Mike moves to open BINDINGS-159, Bryan 2nds
Mike Edwards: woo hoo - we got thru all the new issues !!!
Eric Johnson: No further discussion, no objections, motion passes, BINDINGS-159 opened
Eric Johnson: Simon: We now have seven open issues.
Eric Johnson: ... on vacation next week, intending to cancel next weeks call. Next call in two weeks time.
Eric Johnson: Topic: AOB?
Eric Johnson: Plamen for roll update.
|