Minutes of the teleconference held on Monday 10th Jan

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

The minutes are stored here:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/10950 and also attached.

(See attached file: WSRF TC [10Jan05] notes[1].htm)


Regards, Tim Banks

Title: WSRF TC notes

Notes from the OASIS WSRF TC teleconference
10^th January 2005

 

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=4811

 

Approval of minutes from the previous teleconference call (13^th December)

 

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

(Igor) Put forward a proposal to resolve issue 72 - how this would be done with respect to the semantics issues etc. Done.
(MartinC): Write a clarification of the requirement for issue 64. (PostSchemeValidation)  (Carried fwd from 29th Nov.)  (Carry Fwd).
(TimB) Post the latest draft of the interop scenarios to the Web site. Done
(Bryan) raise a new issue about ResourceUnkownFault (from the email http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/email/archives/200411/msg00103.html) Done
(SueM) Post requirements from DAIS for dealing with collections to the list. Done
(TimB) – Post the December 12th copy of the naming requirements document on the web site. Done
(Chairs) Add an item to the agenda for the next face-to-face to discuss requirements for Renewable References. Done

New Issues - Bryan

 

See http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/download.php/10900/WSRF_IssuesList.doc

 

WSRF86: Standard faults (eg Resource Unknown)

Action: (Bryan) Move to open.

 

WSRF87: InitialTerminationTime.

 

(SamM) The response to ServiceGroup/Add should contain the CurrentTime and the TerminationTime

(DaveS) This should be the proposed resolution.

Action (Bryan) Move to open.

 

WSRF88: Rules of RP document construction

(Bryan) This proposes to allow more features of schema structure than the current RP spec.

Action (Bryan) Move to open.

 

WSRF??: Specify WSDL:Binding

See email: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/email/archives/200501/msg00022.html

(DaveS) Bindings are out of scope for the spec.

(IanR) It’s protocol specific binding information that’s out of scope. This issues constrains just enough to enable interop.

(DaveS) So we should move this to open.

Action (Bryan): Move to open.

 

Interop Testing - TimB

 

Interop scenario document is on the Web site, comments are needed if there are errors or omissions.

 

We need participants to provide implementation Endpoints in the Internet and contact information so that clients can check availability of services and resolve problems.

 

Contact and availability info should be published via the mailing list.

 

(IanR) Which participants will be producing implementations for interop tests?  We need to give them names, identify the code bases and have contact names.

(TimB) IBM’s  implementation (Name “IBM”) based on Websphere should be available at the end of February.  It will be produced by Rick Rineholt in Raleigh.

(GlenW) The “Virginia” implementation will be based on WSRF.net. Glen is the contact.

(SamM) Globus implementations will be “GlobusC”, and “GlobusPython” and will be based on Apache Axis

(DaveS) The “Unicore” implementation will be Axis-based, Dave Snelling is the contact.

(TimB) Sal Campana should be the contact for HP.  (not on call)

(DaveS) There should also be participants from UK e-science in perl, and possibly one from CA via IgorS. (Not on call)

Action: (Interop Testers) confirm implementations & contacts via mail list.

(IanR) When will the implementations be ready?

(GlenW) There is a problem for MS tooling because the WS Addressing implementation is still 2004/04, not 2004/08 as required by the specs. We can be ready by End Feb if this issue can be resolved.

(DaveS) 50% we can do it be end of Feb

(Sam ) Don’t know.

We need to ratify the agreement to base tests on the 2004/11 versions of the specs.

(DaveS) Those are the ones that use <xsd:include>

(GlenW) Yes, that’s Ok, but the WSDLs downloaded from the service will look different from the specs.

(IanR) No matter. It’s the message interop that we’re testing.

(TimB) So, it’s 2004/11

No Objections.

(IanR) What needs to be done with the MS namespace?

(GlenW) They just brought out a new version, in the old namespace. Not sure if anything really changed, or just the namespace.

(IanR) I think the difference is only in ReferenceParameters, which are not needed by WSRF.

(GlenW) That will be ok if only the namespace name is changed.

(TimB) Also, we should not expose endpoints to complications introduced by concurrent client access

(DaveS) WSRF is inherently about servers which enable concurrency.

(IanR) But none of the scenarios explicitly describe concurrency effects.

(TimB) Comments on the scenarios document are the way to describe any testing that needs to be done.

 

Open Issues

WSRF72: Add operation: PutResourcePropertiesDocument

(IanR) Igor is not on the call: carry to next call.

WSRF64: Post Server Validation Infoset (PSVI) - Pending input from Martin.

Carry fwd pending clarification from MartinC.

WSRF66: Discovery of schema for a dynamic resource property

(IanR) This is from the July face-to-face. It was created as a side effect of the proposed resolution to Issue 9 which  was deferred to the next release of  WSRF, so we should also defer this  issue.

(MartinC) I agree.

(DaveS) Yes, the properties can’t be determined until version 2, so the schema can’t be determined either.

Action: (Bryan) Move to ‘deferred’.

WSRF68: ResourcePropertyValueChangeNotification is not clear about the contents of Oldvalue and NewValue

 

(Bryan) The proposal is described the issues document, namely renaming of elements to be clearer.

(DaveS) Should the elements say OldProperty or OldProperties  (etc).

(SamM) I think it should be ‘OldProperty’ - to represent the property definition which may have multiple elements in the instance doc.

(IanR) Any objections to the proposal described in the issues list document?

No objections.

Action: (Bryan) Move to Resolved

WSRF79: portType composition and properties document composition

(IanR) This concerns the process of aggregating two portTypes and their property documents are combined. Igor’s proposal (Igor is not on the call) is that WSDL is the only constraint, so WSRF should say nothing.  What would we lose if this were removed?

 

No conclusion: carry forward to next meeting.

 

Meeting closed 13:00 est.  Next call is 24^th Jan.

 

 

Summary of actions

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

(Bryan) Move issues WSRF 86, 87, 88 to open,  

(Interop Testers) Confirm implementations, outlook for availability & contact names via mail list.

(Bryan) Move issue 66 to ‘deferred’, issue 68 to ‘resolved’.

(Charis) Carry forward discussion of issues WSRF72, 64, 79.