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: Draft teleconf minutes for 18 August 2005


Attached is the draft of the minutes. Please notify if you feel there is
anything missing or incorrect and I'll fix it before I upload this
document (probably on Monday). I'm sorry for the parts that simply say
(back and forth) but when everyone talks at once it is very hard to
catch what is being said.

- g


  1. Roll Call

1:02PM Roll-call starts

1:08PM Roll-call ends (results here); 32 out of 53 (6 minutes for roll, not bad. - ed.)

  1. Agenda Hacking

Tom: (provides a high-level overview of the agenda)

Marc: Can we limit the debate on the use cases?

Tom: To what?

Marc: 15 minutes

Dave Orchard: Don't raise any objections and there won't be any problems.

Tom: Does anyone motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting?

Rich Salz: Motions to approve the minutes from the last meeting.

Anish Karmarkar: Seconds.

1:13PM Tom: Motion passes.

  1. AI Review

#0013 – remains open, no update

#0016 – no progress. Marc recommends that we set a deadline for resolving this.

Anish: Who is on the team.

Marc: Gil and Duane

Tom: Does anyone else want to join?

Anish: I would like to.

(general agreement to work out membership for interop team over email)

#0018 – Marc; I've attempted to fix the URLs. There are still problems with the XSL when using the public links. AI remains open.

#0022 – Done; close it.

#0023 – Done; close it.

#0024 – Andreas is not on the call. Will have to remain open.

  1. New Issues

1:16PM

(Proposed Issue #0001)

Jacques: Has been reworded so that it does not assume that TerminateSequence will be sent. If there are gaps in a sequence and the RMS still wants to stop using the sequence (won't send any more messages). In such cases the RMS may still want to have a precise account of what messages have been received by the RMD. This issue is very close to i0019, which is the same issue except that the RMD has decided to terminate the sequence based on a fault.

No objections; issue added.

(Proposed Issue #0002)

Gil: So WS-RM is dependent upon WS-Security (WSS). This dependency isn't necessary and it causes problems both in the usability of the spec (in terms of negotiating the use of the STR between the RMS and RMD) as well as for people trying to implement the spec (they have to include an implementation of WSS).

Marc Goodner: I have a problem with an issue that is in direct conflict with the charter. Charter calls for composition with WSS.

Martin Chapman: I think the issue is how we compose WS-RM and WS-Security.

Chris Ferris: What alternatives are there to WSS? In any case, where is the tight coupling? This is an optional feature.

Gil: There are a number of different ways of doing security.

Paul: Asks Mart Chapman what his alternatives are?

Mart Chapman: Don't have one right now.

Paul: (Addressing Gil's point) Point-to-point solutions won't cut it. We need an alternate way. WSS is extremely important and we can't just throw it out.

Dave: This exact issue came up in the charter. We had a number of discussions about changing the charter around this exact issue. Microsoft's position at that time was that we couldn't change the charter because we didn't have a specific issue. Now we're being told we can't raise this as an issue because of the charter. While I appreciate what the charter says, there are other mechanisms for preserving the integrity of the context. To address Chris's point; its hard to see how it could be any more tightly coupled (missed some stuff)

Chris: The STR is optional, which means optional to implement as well as optional to use. A service is not required to support it, that's what optional means. We could be a little bit tighter in the spec about the fault mechanisms if it isn't support it. I don't understand why we would want to remove it. If you want to protect the integrity of the sequence the only way to do it is to tie it to a set of credentials.

Anish: I think the discussion is getting into a debate about the proposal. I think we need to concentrate on the issue. At the core this concerns the tension between composability and flexibility.

Gil: Can we just accept this as an issue and move on?

Paul: David spoke directly about some discussions that took place during (prior?) the forming of the charter. I wouldn't have permitted this (missed some of this)

Tom: Is anyone opposed to adding this as an issue? (none)

1:33PM: (proposed issue #0002 added to issues list)

  1. Use Case Motion

(some discussion about whether or not we need to read the motion - not read)

Jacques: Comment on the second bullet item. Can you be more specific? I would assume that the first part of the process would be used.

Gil: Use cases get added to the use case document the same way issues get added to the issue list. Once in the use case document the working group has to decide if they are “in scope” or “out of scope” for the current version of the spec.

Jacques: So the first phase is to decide whether or not the issue is relevant to this group. The second phase to decide whether to decide whether.

Gil: Yes.

Paul: I'm going to vote against this. It will divert the TCs resources into a non-normative, non-exhaustive doc who's applicability to the work of the TC is unclear.

Marc Chapman: Is there a motion on the floor? I think its silly to discuss things with out a motion on the floor.

All: (murmurs of agreement)

Tom: We are just discussing the wording of the motion.

Anish: The process for handling use cases is very similar to the process for handling issues.

Gil: Makes the motion based on the text of the email.

(somebody): Seconds it.

Gil: (in response to Paul) I think we're going to end up wasting way more time discussing issues w/out the context of the use cases that motivate them.

Ashok: (question for Paul) We've been doing standards stuff for a while. You have always been an advocate of use cases. I'm suprised that you are asking that we do not do this.

Paul: I won't disagree with you. I take it you are referring to XQuery? That effort started with a blank slate. This TC started with completed specs as well as interop scenarios. I think this effort is beyond the need for use cases.

Jeff Mischkinsky: Then is this TC just supposed to be a pure rubber stamp? I'm assuming that the people that wrote the contributed specs had some use cases? What is the harm of surfacing those?

Tom: Anybody opposed to accepting this motion?

(some people): Yes

Tom: (starts to conducts vote)

Jacques: Can you restate exactly what 'yes' and 'no' mean?

Duane Nickell: I just joined the call.

Steve: Marc moved to limit discussion. Does that mean we've limited discussion to just this call or on the mailing list as well?

Martin Chapman: A motion is on the floor. We are voting on it.

Gil: (reads the motion)

Add use cases to the working group's process with the following guidelines:
  • Use cases will be collected in the non-normative "Web Services Reliable Exchange Use Cases" document (currently in the doc store).
  • The TC will use the existing issue process to accept and manage use cases.
  • Each use case will be raised as a separate issue and managed through the issue process.
  • Initially use cases will have an undecided scope, and the TC will vote to accept use cases into the working set.
  • The TC will decide whether use cases are in scope or out of scope for a given version of the specification.
  • The use cases will not form part of the deliverable specifications.
  • The use case list will not be exhaustive - other use cases or requirements can be discussed without necessarily being added to the list.
  • The TC encourages submitters to bring use cases to the TC in a well-formed and clearly written form.

Lei: We decided at the F2F that we wanted to use use cases.

1:48PM Tom: (conducts vote - again)

14 - yes; 8 no

Paul: How many abstained please?

Tom: 9 abstained

Steve Carter: I abstain.

Johnathan Marsh: (after finally unmuting himself) I vote no.

Tom: Do we need a majority?

Jeff: No. Just count the votes.

(somebody) "Abstain" means "I silently agree with the majority".

Tom: 14 - yes; 9 - no; 9 abstains

(1:54PM) motion passes (again)

  1. Issues

i0007 - WSS 1.0/1.1 token support

Chris: The version of WSS does not matter. I see no reason to add normative reference to specs that are needed. We are only referencing the WSS STR from 1.0, but it is not changed in WSS 1.1.

Tom: Does anybody else have any dicussion?

Marc Goodner: At the F2F there was some discussion as to whether WSS 1.1 tokens were OK. Although it looks like they are the same, we should clarify this for the implementers.

Chris: It's premature at this time since WSS 1.1 is still underway.

Marc: If that's what you think we should defer the resolution of this issue until WSS 1.1 moves to the next stage.

Doug Bunting: Its whichever comes first. If it changes state before we are done we can revisit this issue. If we are done before WSS 1.1 finishes we will have to make up our minds.

(general agreement)

Paul: What status does i0007 go into?

Marc: "deferred"

(issue status changed to “deferred”)

i0015 - Required Artifact Metadata

Marc: (general discussion of i0015, i0016). Some parts of i0016 are determined by what we decide on i0015.

Marc: (reads current proposals – follow the link)

Marc: I would suggest artifact names of "WS-RM" and "WS-ReliableMessaging".

(some back and forth)

Tom: Proposal is to use "wsrm" and "wsrmp" as the product names.

(more back and forth)

Paul: Can someone tell me what an "artifactName" is supposed to be?

Gil: That's just the problem.

(general conclusion is that the AR guidelines are not clear on what an “artifactName” is.

Marc: Let's just remove the "artifactName".

(back and forth)

Peter Niblett: Moves to close the issue with the proposed solution.

Marc Goodner: Seconds

(none opposed)

2:07PM - i00015 is closed; status is moved to pending. Final values are:

WS-ReliableMessaging:

tc: wsrx

product: wsrm

productVersion: 1.1

artifactType: spec

stage: wd

descriptiveName: Web Services Reliable Messaging Protocol Specification

WS-RM Policy:

tc: wsrx

product: wsrmp

productVersion: 1.1

artifactType: spec

stage: wd

descriptiveName: Web Services Reliable Messaging Policy Assertion Specification

i0016 - Document Identifiers

Tom: i00016 is pretty straightforward?

Marc: Yes, this should just flow from the values we decided to on i0015 (posts values to chat system).

Martin Chapman: What's the final 01 about?

Marc: That's the editors revisions.

Martin: Are we going to have a primer or something?

(all): Not at present.

Martin: Then why do we need to have 'spec'?

Chris: Because the AR guidelines say so.

(back and forth)

Martin: I would like to drop the 'spec'

(more back and forth)

Martin: (agreeing to leave 'spec' in) We can open a new issue if we need to tweak this later.

2:11 PM - motion passes; issue i0016 is closed; status moved to pending. Final values are:

wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-01.*

wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-01.*

i0017 - XML Namespace URIs

Chris: Proposal is:

http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/yyyymm/

http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrmp/yyymm /

Marc: We can revisit this when the AR guidelines are finalized.

Paul: That would be the URI for the RDL document? (yes). The RDL document would point you at the schema file?

Chris: The actual name of the schema file would be something like (missed details).

Paul: That would be the dated schema? Would we have a URI for the latest version of the schema?

Chris: ???

Paul: Is the choice of this URI going to have any impact on how we name the schemas?

(back and forth)

Paul: Would there be another, more stable URI, that didn't have the date built into it but instead just took you to the latest schema?

Chris: I think this is a separate issue.

Paul: You guys have been debating this, so I'll trust you on this one. It looks fine for now. The editors are going to have to figure out what the URI for the schema is.

Chris: We could put a link to the latest schema in the RDL doc.

Peter Nibblet: Are we going to put a schema location in the WSDL file?

(Paul and Peter - back and forth)

Peter: Are we going to have a policy for what goes into the YYYMM? What values will we use, etc.?

Gil: The editors are working on it.

Paul: Rasie that as a TC issue.

Peter: I don't like the idea of voting on a date if I don't know what the date is.

Marc: The editors have been working on the form, not the values.

Chris: I've been making a recommendation that we go with any date (today would do) but we should only ever make a change to the URI if and when there is some incompatible change to the schema. We may want to defer this until the schema and spec solidifies. The W3C just uses placeholder values.

(Chris and Marc - back and forth)

Paul: We need to clearly state what our namespace evolution policy is. I have no problems with the proposed policy, but we get into problems when people don't know what the policy is.

Chris: Do we want to defer this?

Paul: We should to defer this until we have explicit text.

Gil: We need to take down an action item and assign it to Chris:

(agreed)

Assign action item to Chris Ferris: Compose the "namespace change policy". Paul will help with contributed text.

Paul: I think this is orthogonal actually.

Tom: So you are willing to accept the proposal?

Paul: Personally, yes.

Tom: Are you ready to make a motion:

Paul: Motions to accept the URIs.

Marc: Seconds the motion.

2:25PM (no discussion, no opposition) - i0017 closed; status moved to pending; Final values are:

http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/yyyymm/

http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrmp/yyymm/

i0019 - Sequence termination on Fault

Tom: Jacques, you sent the latest mail.

Jacques: As you can see on the email, there is agreement on what the solution should be. We need to flush out the details.

Doug Davis: Can we get a sense from the TC if they agree with our general direction? (provides overview of solution – see http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200508/msg00103.html)

Tom: You can come up with a very tight proposal for the next meeting?

Doug Davis: Yes.

Anish: Does your proposal address both i00019 and "proposed 0001"?

(back and forth)

Doug: I think our proposed solution covers both issues.

Jacques: Essentially yes, but there needs to be some more detail:

Chris Ferris: In the last emails we exchanged, there was some sense that the "Final" attribute would take care of i0019 and that "Closed" would take care of "proposed 0001".

Anish: (basically agrees)

Stefan: I have an issue regarding the proposal for the "Close" message. I think there are issues with how that composes with ordered delivery. I don't have time to go into it now . . .

  1. Wrap Up

Tom: Ok, we're out of time. Paul, you posted more info about the F2F accomodations.

Paul: Yes, its in on the list.

Tom: The meeting is over, and next week we'll have the normal chairs.

(all): No.

Paul: Do you have a secretary for the next meeting?

Tom: No.

Paul: I suggest you get one now.

Tom: Any volunteers?

(all): (deafening silence)

Addendum: Roll Call and Voting

First Name

Last Name

Role

Company

useCaseMotionVote

Alexander

Leyfer

Voting Member

Actional Corporation*

 

Duane

Nickull

Voting Member

Adobe Systems*

a

Charlton

Barreto

Voting Member

Adobe Systems*

a

Mark

Little

Voting Member

Arjuna Technologies Ltd*

 

Gilbert

Pilz

Voting Member

BEA Systems, Inc.*

y

Lei

Jin

Voting Member

BEA Systems, Inc.*

y

Dave

Orchard

Voting Member

BEA Systems, Inc.*

y

Rich

Salz

Voting Member

Datapower Technology, Inc*

y

Andreas

Bjarlestam

Voting Member

Ericsson*

y

Jacques

Durand

Voting Member

Fujitsu Limited*

y

Tom

Rutt

TC Chair

Fujitsu Limited*

y

Robert

Freund

Voting Member

Hitachi, Ltd.*

y

Peter

Niblett

Voting Member

IBM*

a

Doug

Davis

Voting Member

IBM*

a

Christopher

Ferris

Voting Member

IBM*

a

Daniel

Millwood

Voting Member

IBM*

a

Jorgen

Thelin

Voting Member

Microsoft Corporation*

n

Paul

Cotton

Voting Member

Microsoft Corporation*

n

Marc

Goodner

Voting Member

Microsoft Corporation*

n

Stefan

Batres

Voting Member

Microsoft Corporation*

n

Christopher

Kurt

Voting Member

Microsoft Corporation*

n

Asir

Vedamuthu

Voting Member

Microsoft Corporation*

n

Jonathan

Marsh

Voting Member

Microsoft Corporation*

n

Colleen

Evans

Voting Member

Microsoft Corporation*

 

Chouthri

Palanisamy

Voting Member

NEC Corporation*

a

Paul

Knight

Voting Member

Nortel Networks Limited*

n

Abbie

Barbir

Voting Member

Nortel Networks Limited*

n

Steve

Carter

Voting Member

Novell*

a

Lloyd

Burch

Voting Member

Novell*

 

Ashok

Malhotra

Voting Member

Oracle Corporation*

y

Sumit

Gupta

Voting Member

Oracle Corporation*

y

Anish

Karmarkar

Voting Member

Oracle Corporation*

y

jeff

mischkinsky

Voting Member

Oracle Corporation*

y

Martin

Chapman

Voting Member

Oracle Corporation*

y

Steve

Winkler

Voting Member

SAP AG*

y

Dave

Chappell

Voting Member

Sonic Software

 

Doug

Bunting

Voting Member

Sun Microsystems*

a

Shivajee

Samdarshi

Voting Member

Tibco Software Inc.*

a

Dan

Leshchiner

Voting Member

Tibco Software Inc.*

 

Hamid

Ben Malek

Member

Fujitsu Limited*

 

Eric

Rajkovic

Member

Oracle Corporation*

 





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