Minutes of the teleconference held on 13th December

[Tim Banks <tim_banks@uk.ibm.com>]

The minutes are stored here:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/10734  and attached to
this email as html
(See attached file: WSRF TC [13Dec04] notes[1].htm)

Regards, Tim Banks
IBM TP Architecture & Technology. Hursley, UK.
Phone: External +44 1962 815639, Internal 245639

Title: WSRF TC notes

Notes from the OASIS WSRF TC teleconference
13^th December 2004

 

Roll call

 

The roll call is kept on the TC web site under the meeting record.

See http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/event.php?event_id=4809

 

Approval of minutes from the previous teleconference call (29^th November)

 

See http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/10359

 

There were no comments on the minutes and no objections to approving them.

Other Action Review

(DaveS) Add to agenda for next call: Collect requirements for renewable references, including from Grid community (DaveS). Done – see discussion below.

(DaveS) Add to agenda for next call: Can the WSDL embodiment satisfy DAIS usage? (action for SueM)  Done – see discussion below.

(Tim) Resolve pending question re: issue 20 resolution regarding moving this to App notes. Done. A section header exists in AppNotes. Needs Detail.

(Tim) Draft a proposal on resolution to issue 81. Done – see discussion below.

(Bryan) Move issue 83 to Open. Delete issue 82, Move issue 51, 52 to ‘resolved’. Done.

(Igor) Put forward a proposal to resolve issue 72 - how this would be done with respect to the semantics issues etc. Carry fwd.

(MartinC): Write a clarification of the requirement for issue 64. Martin was not on the call Carry fwd.

 

AOB

Administration:

(IanR) WS-N have requested to take the last ½ hour of the WSRF telecon schedule time on January 10^th.  The call will be one hour long.
No Objections.

Action: IanR – coordinate with Peter Niblett.

 

Interop Document:

(TimB) There have been email reviews and no objections to submitting the interop document to the TC.  Are the other editors on the call to confirm this proposal?

(GlenW) It’s fine, apart from the include problem.

(DaveS) There are no objections.

Action: (TimB) Post the latest draft of the interop scenarios.

 

 

New Issues - Bryan

 

WSRF84: WS-ResourceLifetime wsdl/xsd need to include the OASIS copyright.

(DaveS) We can move this straight to resolved.

No Objections

Action: (Bryan) move to ‘resolved’.

 

WSRF85: WS-RL  portType needs to refer to the resource properties document.

(TimB) We need cross ref with issue 78 (Should resource lifetime require WS-Resource) Also, note this might be an issue of consistency among the specs, but is not technically needed because no-one uses the RP document directly from the WS-RL wsdl.  Applications of WS-RL copy the properties to their own RP document.

 

Action: (Bryan) Move to open            

 

 

(DaveS) Any more new issues?

(TimB) Email of 29^th Nov (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/email/archives/200411/msg00103.html ) identified an issue which needs to be discussed.

(IanR) Is this part of issue 50?

(TimB) WSRF50 was about use of ResourceUnkownFault in the wsrf specs. There is a different question about what we require/recommend for WSRF applications.  

(DaveS) Is there proposed resolution text?

(TimB) Yes, in the email.

Action: (Bryan) raise a new issue from the email.

 

 

Suitability of WSDL Binding -  Sue Malaika (for DAIS group)

 

(SueM) DAIS is discussing the binding: one of the issues it whether tools would support this binding because the tools must map wsdl parts (describing reference parameters) to message headers. Also, not all of the group members are dedicated to WSRF, so we may not have consensus on WSRF.  Discussion of the embodiment is not closed.

(DaveS) As WSRF, we do not prefer one embodiment over another, but because W3C are working on WS-Addressing, this may be more prevalent, and better tooled.

 

 

Many of the requests deal with a collection of resources; should we have a collection resources? Can this be dealt with in a single request? What form should it take?

(KatyW) Some of these use cases/requirements might be material for the appnotes.

 

Action: (SueM) Post collection requirements to the list.

 

Grid Requirements for renewable references – Dave Snelling.

 

(DaveS) One of the backgrounds to OGSI was that it had a two-level naming scheme: persistent handles and more volatile references. It appears that Renewable References cover the same issue. There is a wider picture in the gird space which covers naming.  The requirements for renewable references and naming seem the same at the high level.( This means uniqueness and comparability.) Thes requirements are explained in the a document sent to the list.

Action: (TimB) – post the December 12^th copy of the naming requirements document on the web site.

(IanR) This was an action from the face-to-Face meeting. The document provides motivation for the Renewable references. Alternatively, OGSA may decide to oroivde this function themselves.

(DaveS) There seems to be a large subset of the requirements addressed by RR. It will suit the grid community if naming can be layer on top of RR, but the Grid requirements are not, so far, sufficient on their own to justify WSRF’s adoption of RR.

(IanR) Proposed that this should be discussed at the next face to face.

(DaveS) Seconded.

Action: (Chairs) Add to the agenda for the face-to-face.

 

Open Issues

 

WSRF81: Some tooling does not correctly handle xsd:include

 

(TomM)

(DaveS) Is this an architectural problem?

 

(DaveS) Does this make any difference to the assembly of application portTypes from specification wsdls and xsds?

(SteveG) No – the applications import what they do today – things are in different places, but the basics are the same.

 

Any objections/questions about resolving this as proposed?

 

No objections.

 

With respect to the documents, we need to rev revision numbers and add a suffix. The namespace will be 2005/02

Action: (Editors) this resolution  to the spec wsdls/xsds.

(IanR) We need to follow the process for revising the specs: The namespace will be 2005/02, and we need to increase the draft revision numbers and an alphabetic suffix, so  File names should be wsrf-WS-[SpecName]-2.0-draft-[+1].a

 

(TimB) What about the interop?  There is a choice between inconvenience and the possibility of the 2005/02 specs changing. Although the new way is easier for implementers using tools which have problems with include, we should use 2004/11, since this is stable, yes?

No objections.

 

Meeting closed 13:21 est.  Next call is 10^th Jan.

 

 

 

 

Summary of actions

(Igor) Put forward a proposal to resolve issue 72 - how this would be done with respect to the semantics issues etc. (Carried fwd from 29^th Nov.)

(MartinC): Write a clarification of the requirement for issue 64. (Carried fwd from 29^th Nov.)

(TimB) Post the latest draft of the interop scenarios to the Web site.

(Bryan) raise a new issue about ResourceUnkownFault (from the email http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/email/archives/200411/msg00103.html)

(SueM) Post requirements from DAIS for dealing with collections to the list.

(TimB) – Post the December 12^th copy of the naming requirements document on the web site.

(Chairs) Add an item to the agenda for the next face-to-face to discuss requirements for Renewable References.