OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Preliminary minutes for WSRX TC F2F for Friday


The prelim Friday minutes are attached.

I will produce a merged prelim minutes file, as soon as the final roll 
call is available from Paul C, the convenor.

Tom Rutt

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133


Title: Preliminary Minutes OASIS (WS-RX) TC formation meeting

 

Preliminary Minutes for Friday Meeting of WSRX

 

Meeting resumed at 9:00 AM Friday

 

Paul C continued to maintain the roll.

 

He will send out a final roll spreadsheet, which will be included in the full prelim minutes.

 

The following contributions were posted to the email exploder:

 

BEA Systems WS-RM and WS-RMPolicy contribution to WS-RX TC

Dave Orchard

23 Jun 2005 18:09:05

 

TIBCO WS-RM and WS-RMPolicy contribution to WS-RX TC@tibco.com

Shivajee Samdarshi

23 Jun 2005 17:57:45

 

IBM WS-RM and WS-RMPolicy contribution to WS-RX TC

Christopher Ferris

23 Jun 2005 17:56:13

 

Microsoft WS-RM and WS-RMPolicy contribution to WS-RX TC

Paul Cotton

23 Jun 2005 17:47:20

 

8         Contribution Overview (continued)

 

 

Chris continued on Friday morning with the review of the WS-RM Policy Assertion Spec.

 

Chris stated that this is not necessary (E.g, such negotiation could be done out of band via configuration etc), but its intent is to provide a standard mechanism for policy assertions.

 

There are four child elements of RMAssertion

  • Inactivity timeout – if no activity beyond time either endpoint may terminate sequence
  • Base transmission interval – The interval at which retransmission will start
  • Exponential backoff -
  • Acknowledgement interval

 

In the current spec policy Assertions apply to endpoints

 

Ψ  Potential New ISSUE: Is there a need to attach policy assertion to something other than an endpoint.

In WSDL binding, policy can be associated with binding, service, or portType.  In wsdl an endpoint is associated with a Port.

 

Hamid: Not all services have wsdl, is attaching policy to wsdl the only way to negotiated agreements.

 

Chris F: This spec is optional, so other ways to negotiate such policies are allowed.

 

Martin C: what assurance to we have that WS-Policy will be far enough along on the standards track to have our TC spec completed within the one year timeline.

 

Paul F: If policy is not ready, we need to define an abstract model for these policy assertions for WS-Reliable messaging.

 

Martin C: why not do the abstract model first.

 

Paul F: I do not see it as a big problem to do the abstraction later.

 

Jorgen: there is a good chance that policy will be far enough along.

 

Doug B: a lot of these parameters only matter on one side of the exchange.

 

Chris F: if we made some for the client, others for the server, there is no way to guarantee consistency.

 

 

 

b) ReliableMessaging interop scenarios,,  Jorgen Thelin

 

Jorgen gave a presentation on the interop experience the submitters of WS-Reliable Messaging have experienced: posted as: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200506/ppt00000.ppt

 

He stressed that this is a historical presentation, based on earlier versions of Reliable Messaging Spec from that submitted to the TC.

 

He stated 7 companies are shipping product based on earlier versions of the Spec.

 

He described scenarios used in three interop workshops involving 7 implementations.

 

WS-RM Spec refinements suggested from Interop workshops

•         NACK

•         Resource reclamation points

•         Extensibility points

•         Absolute URI (vs. relative)

•         Sequence expiration

•         Last Message and ACK usage

•         Clarified SOAP mustUnderstand usage

•         Clarified FAULT handling

•         RM Policy assertions

 

The last slide presented the following links to workshop summaries

•         WS-RM Interop Workshop #1

–        Meeting Summary

•         http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/community/workshops/rminteropwsOct2003.aspx

•         http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/offers/WS-Specworkshops/ws-pwrmfest1.html

–        Interop Scenarios:

•         http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WS-RM-Workshops/files/Scenarios.doc

•         WS-RM Interop Workshop #2

•         WS-RM Feedback Workshop

–        Meeting summary:

•         http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/community/workshops/rmspecwsjul2003.aspx

•         http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/offers/WS-Specworkshops/ws-rm1.html

–        Presentation Decks

•         http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/d/4/6d48120a-878e-4f0d-af20-3e900b004c3d/presentations-july2003-ws-wkshp.zip

•         ftp://www6.software.ibm.com/software/developer/library/WS-specworkshopspwrm1.zip

–        Meeting Summary:

•         http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/community/workshops/rminterop052004.aspx

•         http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/offers/WS-Specworkshops/ws-rm200405post.html

–        Interop Scenarios:

•         http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WS-RM-Workshops/files/Interop2-Scenarios.doc

•         WS-RM Interop Workshop #3

–        Meeting Summary

•         http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/community/workshops/composability042005.aspx

•         http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/offers/WS-Specworkshops/ws-rmsecon200504post.html

–        Interop Scenarios:

•         http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WS-RM-Workshops/files/RM%2BSC%26T%20Composition%20Scenario-2005-02-25.doc

 

Doug B suggested they post these documents on the TC document server.

 

Jorgen stated that there are no further plans for RM workshops.  However they do have public interop endpoints available for on-going testing.

 

Vadim expressed a concern expressed that the scenarios did not cover failure of the source or destination.  He stated that such scenarios should be included in interops for the OASIS spec.

 

Jorgen stated that the interops were intended just to test the protocol.

 

Paul C: He stated he could help anyone who wants to interact with the Microsoft endpoints.

 

Doug D: He stated he could help with the IBM endpoints.

 

9         TC administration, Chairs

 

9.1      Distributed meeting schedule (day of week and time of day)

The chairs are proposing a bi-weekly 90minute set of Teleconferences.

 

Paul C: I recall that the call for participation calls for weekly meetings.

 

Jeff M: We should let the TC decide.

 

Chris F: I think we should, at least initially, meet weekly to progress the work along.  Bi-weekly will tend to lead to much less happening in the in-between weeks.  We can always scale back.

 

Paul C: 90 minutes every two weeks is not enough.  I think we should meet for 90 minutes every week.  The meeting can always adjourn early.

 

Martin moved to have weekly 90 minute meetings, seconded by Toufic.

 

§    No opposition, motion for weekly 90 minute meetings passed.

 

Time 1) Pacific 8:30 AM: 11:30 Eastern, 5:30 PM CET, Japen 12:30 AM

Time 1a) Pac 8 am, Eastern 11 AM ,  CET 5 PM, Japan 12 AM

Time 2) 1 PM Pacific, 4:PM Eastern, 10 PM CET,  7:AM Japan

 

Time zone poll

Pacific -27

Eastern - 12

CET - 4

Pacific - 3

 

Can’t live with poll of face to face attendees

 

 

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

8:30 AM Pac

15

16

12

10

---

8 AM Pac

14

18

12

11

---

1 PM pac

12

12

7

7

---

 

First choice is 1 PM Pacific on Thursday (overlap with ws-I BSP group)

 

One of the chairs cannot make the wed slot every week.

 

Martin moved that weekly 90 min calls at 1 PM Pacific time Thursdays, Gilbert seconded.

 

In favor – 33

Opposed –  2

Abstain - 2

.

§    Motion Passes, meetings will be 90 minutes at 1 PM every Thursday.

 

Martin moved to start 7 July, Paul C seconded.

 

§    No objections, Motion passed.

 

Microsoft will supply the bridge for the first group of calls.

9.2      TC and meetings aids such as TC website, document repository, IRC, etc.

i) Email archive:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/

ii) Document repository

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/documents.php?wg_abbrev=ws-rx

iii) Minutes

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ws-rx/minutes.php

iv) FAQ

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ws-rx/faq.php

 

Sanjip stated that a TC process is a subject which will be formalized in the early calls.

 

Sanjip put up a set of slides for a formal discussion.:

TC process

·        Log and track progress of issues

·        Structure TC discussions and record TC decisions

o       Minutes

o       AI list

o       Issues List

·        Spec Naming and Versioning Schemes

 

Issue status

·        Open

o       Anyone can raise issue

o       TC discusses issue to understand and insure in scope and not duplicate

o       Issues editor clarifies wording and logs it

·        Open – approach agreed

o       May involve changes in spec

o       Agreed approach documented and provides guidelines to editors

·        Resolved

o       Editors incorporated changes that are reviewed by one or more TC members

·        Closed

o       TC Votes on a committee draft that includes the changes

 

Paul C: I think we need a status between pending (approach agreed), and Resolved.  The move to resolved should be driven by a vote on the proposed issue resolution.

 

General agreement that each issue resolution should be voted.

 

9.3      Future F2F meeting schedule

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/calendar.php?wg_abbrev=ws-rx  

 

Microsoft volunteers F2F in Redmond (either on or off campus)

 

Date Choices:

  • a) Wed-thu Sep 7-8
  • b) Wed-Thu Sept 21-22

 

Preference Counts:

a)      11

b)      19

 

Cannot do:

a)      3

b)      2

 

Wed-Thu Sept 21-22 was chosen for second face to face.

9.4      TC roles (secretary, issues list editor, specification authors, etc.)

 

Position nominations:

 

TC Secretary (minute taker,  and document page organizer) – Volunteer Tom Rutt

 

Issues Editor: (formulate, log and maintain issues list)  - Volunteer Mark Goodner

 

Spec Editors – Volunteers (Chris F, Anish K, Umit, Gilbert, Steve W)

 

Paul C: how do you have four people edit two documents.

 

Paul F: we are taking volunteers for an editing team, but we need to sort this thing out.

 

Martin C: the editing team can work amongst themselves to determine how to divide work.

 

Jeff M: have the chairs determined how the editing team will be selected.

 

Paul F: We now have to work that out.

 

Ψ  Action: the editing team should produce an editor’s draft in OASIS format with line numbers.

Ψ  Action: chairs will give Tom Rutt Secretary status for Kavi so he can organize the Document page

Jeff M: it would be good to have a web master.

 

For now the Chairs should fulfill web masters role.

 

10   Any other business

The chairs will work on an IRC channel for use in the meetings.

 

Paul C: I believe we need to be careful, we should have a web access.  I do not like something which requires installation of special software.

 

Tom R: As note taker, I would be careful to jump on using IRC for note taking, especially if it has a significant hit on the workload for producing minutes.

 

Martin: I would prefer that we have some IRC type of channel available for meetings.

 

Someone else asked about a collaborative meeting process tool.

 

Tom R stated he will set up a contributions section of the document server, and members should post to , sending the url in the email notice.

 

Jorgen asked if we have a clear sense of milestones.

 

Ψ  Action: Chairs will provide a set of milestones for the TC.

 

Jeff M: I would like to thank SAP for fine hosting job, and the chairs for their fine job.

11   Adjournment

 

Meeting adjourned at 12:15 PM.



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]