The chat log:
Simon Holdsworth1: Participant Code: 7059536 USA Toll-Free 888-426-6840 end_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting USA Caller Paid 215-861-6239 UNITED KINGDOM Toll-Free 0800-368-0638 UNITED KINGDOM Caller Paid 0-20-30596451 Ireland Toll-Free 1-800-943-427 Ireland Caller Paid 0-1-5264424 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 Holdsworth1: Agenda
Simon Holdsworth1: 1. Opening Introductions Scribe assignment Top of the scribe list: Plamen Pavlov SAP AG Tom Rutt Fujitsu Limited Eric Johnson TIBCO Software Inc. Anish Karmarkar Oracle Corporation Martin Chapman Oracle Corporation Bryan Aupperle IBM Ashok Malhotra Oracle Corporation Agenda bashing 2. Approval of the minutes from 16 June: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/42594/SCA%20Bindings%20minutes%202011-06-16.doc 3. Actions No actions 4. New Issues No new issues 5. Open Issues http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-153 write new tests for TA-20021 TA-20022 TA-20028 TA-20032TA-20034 TA-20035 TA-40007 TA-50008 TA-50009 Status: summary in email http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/201106/msg00048.html 6. Potential new JMS binding testcase Discuss potential new JMS binding testcase as described in: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/201105/msg00036.html 7. TC Exit criteria Discuss formal exit criteria for the 1.1 specifications for Web services and JMS. Proposed exit criteria: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/201106/msg00052.html 8. AOB
Simon Holdsworth1 morphed into Simon Holdsworth
Eric Johnson: Scribe: Eric
anonymous morphed into anish
Eric Johnson: Topic: Agenda
Eric Johnson: No comments on the agenda
Eric Johnson: Topic: Approval of the minutes
Eric Johnson: No objections to approving the minutes, minutes approved.
Eric Johnson: Topic: open issues
Eric Johnson: Simon reviews email linked from the agenda.
Eric Johnson: Simon: Anish is my summary complete?
Eric Johnson: Anish: Looks complete. Looks like a good way to resolve 153.
Eric Johnson: Simon: Should any of the assertions that are missing test cases have test cases before we go to our next CSD?
Eric Johnson: Anish moves to resolve BINDINGS-153 with the proposal in Simon's email (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/201106/msg00048.html).
Eric Johnson: Ashok 2nds.
Eric Johnson: No objections to unanimous consent, motion passes, issue resolved.
Eric Johnson: Simon: I urge members of the TC to review the changes in the updated wd doc of the WS binding that Mike prepared. Will put a vote on the CSD for next week.
Eric Johnson: Topic: Potential new test case
Eric Johnson: Simon reviews his email (linked from the agenda)
Eric Johnson: Simon: Given all the assumptions we'd need to make, I question whether or not it makes sense to test.
Mike Edwards: A classic messy corner case
Eric Johnson: Anish: Wondering if it is worth the effort to test. This is an error case, and less important than testing things are as they should be. Inclined to say "not worth it."
Eric Johnson: ... without someone volunteering, happy to drop it.
Eric Johnson: Simon: Both JMS and WS binding have at least one un-tested normative statement. TC needs to decide whether this is acceptable.
Mike Edwards: I believe that we did not originally say that the test suites would test all normative statements
Eric Johnson: Topic: TC exit criteria.
Mike Edwards: so some gaps in awkward corner cases seem fine to me
Eric Johnson: Simon: Added this to the agenda following the Assembly TC's resolution of this issue.
Eric Johnson: Simon reviews his email linked from the agenda.
anish if everyone on the phone is in the chat, then I *think* everyone here was present on the assembly call
Eric Johnson: Mike moves to accept the exit criteria as stated in Simon's email (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/201106/msg00052.html)
Eric Johnson: Martin: Main concern that binding WS is all about interop, just saying you conform doesn't mean that interop will happen.
Eric Johnson: ... concerned that we might end up in WS-I land where we end up creating profiles.
Eric Johnson: Simon: We do still have a motion.
Eric Johnson: Simon: motion fails due to lack of 2nd.
Eric Johnson: Mike moves to accept the exit criteria for the JMS binding as stated in Simon's email http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/201106/msg00052.html
Eric Johnson: Anish: Trying to channel Jeff. His concern is that the charter requires us to have an exit criteria that demonstrates interoperability and portability as appropriate. Presumably the concern here is interoperability.
Eric Johnson: ... we need to decide a criteria, and without that, we've not satisfied what's in the charter.
Eric Johnson: Mike: What kind of interoperability would you imagine is needed?
Eric Johnson: ... The fact that test cases run against JMS implementation A & B, doesn't mean that A can talk to B.
Eric Johnson: Simon: In terms of JMS provider interoperability, we can't do anything. But if we do have services and references on the same provider - then the whole aim of what we've done has been to enable this.
Eric Johnson: ... From my point of view, the test cases exercise those normative statements. Interoperation is driven by the normative statements, and confirmed by the test cases.
Eric Johnson: Eric: Anish, from your perspective, if we added to the exit criteria that an implementation must pass the test cases, would that satisfy your concerns?
Eric Johnson: Anish: Yes. Alternately, an implementation will have to demonstrate something adequate to satisfy the TC.
Eric Johnson: Martin: When we talk about the callback stuff - the test suite is a valid implementation.... But then if we change the criteria as noted above, then we have to have the test suite test the test suite.
Eric Johnson: Mike: We could do that.
Eric Johnson: Mike: Question I'm asking for JMS, what kind of evidence would be good enough for interoperability.
MartinC: fwiw i gree with you mike jms hard/impossible to do interop test
MartinC: its actually more of a protability test iff using the same jms provider
MartinC lowered your hand
Eric Johnson: Eric: Anish - I don't understand why, since we have to vote on whether a particular implementation actually does implement the normative statements, why isn't it simply a question at the time we do that vote. Perhaps simply resolved by running the test suite, but maybe an implementation doesn't do that, and does better?
Eric Johnson: Martin: Not suggesting that the TC exit criteria include running the test suite.
Eric Johnson: ... how about adding "some level of interoperability must be demonstrated."
Eric Johnson: Simon: I struggle with words.
Eric Johnson: ... that won't cause problems.
Eric Johnson: ... it seems like people are envisaging a long queue of people.
MartinC: if only there is a long queue
Eric Johnson: Martin: We're just trying to come up with criteria so that when a motion is made that it is clear what we're voting on.
anish: The Concrete Exit Criteria for the SCA JMS Binding V1.1 specification are that: 1) there shall be at least 2 independent SCA runtimes each of which are compliant with all normative portions of the specification as described in Section 8.2 of the SCA JMS Binding V1.1 specification. 2) those two implementation would provide evidence of interop/portability, as appropriate. Passing the testsuite would be considered sufficient to satisfy this criteron.
MartinC: Passing the testsuite is considered sufficient to satisfy this criteron.
anish1: The Concrete Exit Criteria for the SCA JMS Binding V1.1 specification are that: 1) there shall be at least 2 independent SCA runtimes each of which are compliant with all normative portions of the specification as described in Section 8.2 of the SCA JMS Binding V1.1 specification. 2) those two implementation would provide evidence of interop/portability, as appropriate. Passing the testsuite is considered sufficient to satisfy this criteron.
Eric Johnson: Eric: I would drop the last sentence of #2, and change its wording.
Eric Johnson: ... that is, I disagree with the 2nd part, but if others wish to keep it, stronger wording appropriate.
Simon Holdsworth lowered your hand
MartinC: s/2) those two/2) each implementation
Eric Johnson: Simon: Disagree with Eric - don't believe it should be stronger in that way.
anish1: The Concrete Exit Criteria for the SCA JMS Binding V1.1 specification are that: 1) there shall be at least 2 independent SCA runtimes each of which are compliant with all normative portions of the specification as described in Section 8.2 of the SCA JMS Binding V1.1 specification. 2) each implementation would provide evidence of interop/portability, as appropriate. Passing the testsuite is considered sufficient to satisfy this criteron.
MartinC: s/would/should/
Eric Johnson: Martin: Move to accept the statement made by Anish as exit criteria for the JMS Binding V 1.1 specification
Eric Johnson: ... (the one immediately above)
MartinC: The Concrete Exit Criteria for the SCA JMS Binding V1.1 specification are that: 1) there shall be at least 2 independent SCA runtimes each of which are compliant with all normative portions of the specification as described in Section 8.2 of the SCA JMS Binding V1.1 specification. 2) each implementation should provide evidence of interop/portability, as appropriate. Passing the testsuite is considered sufficient to satisfy this criteron.
Eric Johnson: 2nd by Anish.
Mike Edwards: We're out of time folks
Eric Johnson: Eric: I don't believe the 2nd sentence of #2 is appropriate.
MartinC time gentlemen
MartinC
Eric Johnson: Anish: This statement only has to make sense to us. To address Simon, we're not going to get 100%.
Eric Johnson: Topic: AOB
Eric Johnson: Plamen added to the roll.