Prelim Minutes of OASIS WS-RX Teleconference

Oct 4, 2007

Start Time:4:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Pqul acted as chair.

Textual Conventions

Ų Action Item

Motion

§ Resolution

1 Roll Call

From Kavi:

meeting is quorate (23 of 32 voting members present.

Tom Rutt agreed to take minutes.

2 Agenda Approval

Agenda

Dial-in details: Thanks to Microsoft

(866) 500-6738

(203) 480-8000

PC: 2365501

IRC/Q Mgmt (thanks to DougD): http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/wsrx

1) Roll Call

2) Review and approval of the agenda

3) Approval of the Sep 6, 2007 meeting minutes

4) AI Review http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/members/action_items.php

5) New issue:

Doug's nits

6) Review of Anish's issues

7) WS-Policy 1.5 Primer/Guidelines Review

8) Conf-call schedule / sponsorship

9) Any other business

Tom: have 5 be new issues, Marc G issue, and have 6 be the numbered issues 150 160, 161,

3 Approval of the September Minutes;

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/25550/MinutesWSRX-090607-b.htm

Gil moved to approve Sep minutes, Paul seconded.

§ No objections, minutes of Sep 6, 2007 approved.

4 AI Review

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/members/action_items.php

None

5 New issues:

New Issue: Update WS-SecurityPolicy, WS-SecureConversation, andWS-Trust references

Marc Goodner

03 Oct 2007 16:54:52

Title: Update WS-SecurityPolicy, WS-SecureConversation, and WS-Trust references

Target: all

Description:

The current references to these specifications should be updated to point to the OASIS standard versions, which also reference WS-Policy 1.5, that will eventually be produced by the OASIS WS-SX TC. The WS-SX TC charter (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ws-sx/charter.php) states the following “Following this, ratification of updated specifications as revised OASIS standards to address any errata to fix errors and to replace policy references to the WS-Policy W3C Recommendation as soon as that Recommendation is available will mark the end of the TCs lifecycle.”

Marc: this will be issue 162.

No opposition to accept 162 as new issue.

Tom: I think we should keep this open until there is an actual V.next Spec to point at.

Anish: if they point at us, how can be advance two specs at same time with us pointing at them.

Martin C: the OASIS board are discussing ways around this problem. However, this is a reference issue, the cd and oasis spec are the same normative material.

Paul: does sx spec point to us.

Marc G: no they SX do not point at TX oar RX. We do not have such a problem.

Action: Marc G to report to us on the expected progression of V.next for the SX tx.

6 Review of Numbered issues

RX TC issue list update 51

Marc Goodner

02 Oct 2007 14:09:32

Revision: 51

http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues-051.xml

6.1 Issue 159

Issue 159: Update references to WS-Policy and WS-PolicyAttachment to point to W3C RECs

Marc Goodner

02 Oct 2007 13:25:32

Title: Update references to WS-Policy and WS-PolicyAttachment to point

to W3C RECs

Description:

WSRM, WSRMP and MC specs point to WS-Policy/Attachment version 1.2 & W3C

CR specs and not the W3C Recommendations (version 1.5).

Justification:

Per the charter clarification ballot [1] which passed, the TC agreed to

update the deliverable section in the charter to:

"... Ratification of the above specifications as OASIS standards.

Following this, ratification of updated specifications as revised OASIS

standards to address any errata to fix errors and to replace policy

references to the WS-Policy W3C Recommendation as soon as that

Recommendation is available will mark the end of the TC's lifecycle."

Target: core, policy, mc

Proposal:

Per the ballot text:

1) replace the specs pointed to by [WS-Policy] with the one at

http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-ws-policy-20070904/ in WSRM, WSRMP and MC

specification:

"[WS-Policy] W3C Recommendation "Web Services Policy 1.5 - Framework", 4

Sept, 2007."

2) replace the specs pointed to by [WS-PolicyAttachment] with the one at

http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-ws-policy-attach-20070904/

"[WS-PolicyAttachment] W3C Recommendation "Web Services Policy 1.5 -

Attachment", 4 Sept, 2007."

3) In WSRM and MC spec:

In Table 1 add a new row:

| wsp | http://www.w3.org/ns/ws-policy | WS-Policy 1.5 |

Remove the following text in section 1.4:

"The assertions defined within this specification have been designed to

work independently of a specific version of WS-Policy. At the time of

the publication of this specification the versions of WS-Policy known to

correctly compose with this specification are WS-Policy 1.2 and 1.5.

Within this specification the use of the namespace prefix wsp refers

generically to the WS-Policy namespace, not a specific version."

-Anish

[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/ballot.php?id=1302

Marc G: there was one namespace value that is missing in the above list, but the editors can catch that.

Anish: example appendix?

Marc G: in RM policy doc there is another example for contributed version of ws-policy. But the intent of the issue is clear, and that would be fixed by the editors.

Martin: is this for V.next?

General agreement that this is for v.next

Marc G moved to accept proposed resolution for 158 for V.next, Doug D seconded.

No opposition, 159 closed with proposed resolution.

6.2 Issue 160

Re: [ws-rx] New Issue: Update ws-addressing metadata namespace

Anish Karmarkar

n today's call the question was asked whether this change changes any

semantics or breaks backward compatibility.

[As Doug pointed out in the chat, my previous email (quoted below) said

that this change needs to be applied to WSRMP and MC. That is not

correct. It needs to be applied to WSRM and MC specs]

In both the WSRM and MC specs, wsam NS is used for the wsam:Action

attribute. This attribute is used only in examples. Additionally, the

semantics of the wsam:Action attribute (which allows one to specify the

value of the wsa:Action MAP for a message) has not changed between the

REC and the previous WD that used the

http://www.w3.org/2007/02/addressing/metadata spec.

-Anish

06 Sep 2007 16:43:07

RE: [ws-rx] Issue 160: Update ws-addressing metadata namespace

Marc Goodner

02 Oct 2007 13:26:45

Title: Update the namespace for ws-addressing metadata spec to use the

W3C REC NS

Description:

WS-Addressing metadata spec is now a W3C REC; MC and WSRMP specs point

to an older NS

Target: policy, mc

Proposal:

In both WSRMP and MC spec:

Change the wsam NS binding from

http://www.w3.org/2007/02/addressing/metadata to

http://www.w3.org/2007/05/addressing/metadata

in Table 1 as well as all the examples.

-Anish

Marc G: I am inclined to agree with Anish on This. This seems like an errata.

Doug D: is this an errata of V.next thing.

Anish: I see it as an errata.

Paul: lets mark this as an errata, we can roll errata into V.next when time comes.

No objections to close 160 with proposed resolution.

6.3 Issue 161

[NEW ISSUE] editoral nits

Doug Davis

06 Sep 2007 16:49:18

Issue 161: editoral nits

Marc Goodner

02 Oct 2007 13:27:54

RM spec:

- line 957 - "AcksTo" has a mixture of fonts used. Actually, we should scan the entire doc since I think we missed some cases where element names should be in "Courier New"

- In the state table we reference a [rollover] state but that state doesn't exist any more - I think its supposed to be "[Same]"

- RMS table - s/3.7/3.4/ for Expires event.

thanks

-Doug

Marc G: these fixes sound good to me. In the actual errata document you have to show the changes from and to. The font changes could be difficult

No objections to close 161 with proposed resolution.

7 WS-Policy 1.5 Primer/Guidelines Review

W3C WS-Policy 1.5 Primer and Guidelines Last Call review by OASISWS-RX TC

Paul Cotton

29 Sep 2007 13:48:28

Martin: we do not have time to get an official response to the WS-Policy group.

Tom: I am happy with the last call documents, and would not personally have any comments.

Agreed that members should can always their own comments to the WS-Policy review.

Bob F: if members have comments they can sent to our mailing list in the next week or two. If there are any that are contentious, we can deal with it at the next meeting.

Martin: they should send to the policy WG directly.

8 Conf-call schedule / sponsorship

Next meeting, Microsoft will sponsor

Nov 1 is next meeting.

9 Any other business

Discussion of our progression.

Martin: are each of these changes substantive or not. Holding on SX to do Job.

Paul: what about the Policy update.

Tom: V.next is only backwards compatible with the current version if the implementation took the Policy 1.5 option. If they did the 1.2 it would not conform to v.next.

Marc G: it is the removal of policy 1.2 which makes it not subject for an errata.

Martin: I see, but we still have a problem of waiting for SX . It would be nice if we did not have to block.

Paul: I suggest we prepare a pure errata, then get the TC to review that errata. If we cannot wait, we publish the errata. Otherwise we just publish V.next.

Tom: the errata has value for existing implementations. It is low cost, we should publish it in any case.

Anish: where do we refer to SX.

Marc G: I am not sure if the refs are non normative. But there is discussion in the security section. I think we need references to the v.next versions of sc and trust. Trust only referenced policy 1.2.

Paul: I hear we should do an errata, then do a v.next which incorporates the new references.

Martin: I think we should do the formal errata approval at the same time as V.next approval.

Action: editors shall prepare the first errata document (160, 161, and to point at the latest Rec for policy 1.5..

Paul: At next meeting we review the errata, and look at the SX timeline to decide on V.next.

Marc G: what is the next number.

Paul: how about 1.2

Agreed to take to email.

Meeting ended at 5:00 PM edt.

ws-rx message

1 Roll Call