Notes from the OASIS
WSRF TC teleconference
4th April 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=4817
Approval of minutes from the last conf call (21st
March)
See http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/12088
(IanR) Are there any comments on the
minutes?
None
(IanR) Are there any objections to
approving the minutes?
None
Call for AOB
(IanR) There
is an Oasis Symposium in New Orleans during which a lightning roundup of TC
progress will be held. Is anyone going who would represent WSRF?
None.
(IanR) I will
prepare foils and load to the Web site. The default is that OASIS staff will do
it. Please send email if you can volunteer.
(MartinC) I
could do it.
Action: (IanR)
Prepare WSRF TC summary foils for New Orleans
Action Review
(Bryan) Create a new issue to describe the aggregation
suggestion here: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/email/archives/200503/msg00024.html
Done
(Bryan) Move issue wsrf65 to ‘resolved’ TomM/DaveS to help
craft sections in the AppNotes. In Progress
(TomM) Write up the proposal for issue wsrf44 for review via
the list. There is a proposal on the list – see below.
(Bryan) Move issue 44 to ‘resolved’. Done
(IanR) Send email to editors requesting pdf versions of
specs without change history for use as new working drafts Done
(Bryan) Move issues wsrf97 and wsrf98 to ‘resolved’. Done
New Issues (Bryan)
There are two new issues – wsrf104 which deals with
membershipContent rule, and another (wsrf105) which proposes simplifying
ServiceGroup.
(IanR) There are a number of issues within the
simplification proposal. Can we separate these out before we open the issue?
Action: (Bryan) Move wsrf104 to open.
Request to Editors and possible "reviewer" assignments
From Bryan: "I think it would help if editors would let
me know when documents are checked in that incorporate the resolution of an
issue including the issue number. It might also be a good idea to assign some non-editor
the task of verifying that edits have been successfully executed."
(Bryan) I’ve recently been through the latest drafts
verifying that changes were present, but I didn’t verify the actual text. It’s
hard to do.
(IanR) I will
forward the list of issues that were addressed in the last set of specs.
(Bryan) I
need a note from the spec editor to say when an issue is resolved and checked.
(IanR) Should
we do this verification as an issue is addressed, or when we promote to working
drafts (eg quarterly)
(Bryan) Best
not to wait, I think.
(TomM) The
change history in the document should include the list of issues addressed.
(IanR) Are
there any volunteers to take on the role of verifying text changes?
(DaveS)
Eventually the whole TC should read the specs, but the details on an ongoing
basis could be done by individuals.
(IanR) This
is the process from now on: the spec editors should send a note to the TC list
to say which issues have been included in which draft. The chairs will then carry
an action item to confirm that the verification has taken place.
Action:
(IanR) Identify which issues are included in the latest drafts. The reviewers
to be appointed at the next call.
Issue review - Chair
WSRF91: Resource Access Pattern reaction to the removal of ReferenceProperties
(DaveS) Do we update our specs now, or wait?
(IanR) Yes, and now there is a new schema.
(MartinC) This is a last call, not final.
(IanR) Nevertheless, there is a W3C namespace.
(Umit) The plan is for this to be stable for a month.
(MartinC) But the url may not resolve in three or four
months’ time. We could request them to keep his version active.
(Umit) We could use this version and provide formal
feedback.
(DaveS) That is a separate issue. We won’t have a final
version for quite a time.
(IanR) Should we stick with 2004/08 or move to this new
version.
(MartinC) If we are going to keep a CD around for a while
(and not go for a standard) that is fine. What are our plans?
(DaveS) I think we update the specs to the last call, the
expected changes after that would be small (namespaces etc).
(MartinC) We should update to the last call version, and
review the stability at that point.
(IanR) Proposed: to resolve the issue by moving to the Last
call, and resolve issue WSRF92 (Uppdate examples that reference WS-Addressing)
this way, too.
(BryanM) Seconded.
(DaveS) Any objections?
None
(DaveS) Abstentions?
None
Action: (Bryan). Move to Resolved.
(Umit) Do we want to provide formal feedback on
WS-Addressing.
(IanR) Many of the member companies have an interest in
WS-Addressing independently. If we want to discuss this as a TC, we could open
an issue to do it.
(Umit) It’s useful because it has to be formally recorded
and responded to.
(IanR) We don’t have comments to make at the moment. These
should be posted to the email list.
(DaveS) We can respond to say there are no comments, if
that’s how it turns out.
Action: (All TC Members) review WS-Addressing and
post comments to the list by the next conf call.
WSRF99: Examples in the specs use the SOAP 1.2 namespace
(TimB) This
is an inconsistency in our specs that we have a dependency on WS-I Basic
Profile, but the examples use the wrong namespace.
(?) We should
make sure that the examples don’t use SOAP 1.2 features.
(DaveS) I
don’t think they do.
(TomM)
Proposed to change the namespace to SOAP 1.1.
(Bryan)
Seconded
(DaveS) Any
objections.
None.
WSRF100: Confusion about requirement of using WS-BaseFaults for all
faults from WS-Resources
(IanR) There are two issues: the binding to the soap spec
and the requirement to use Base Faults vs only a Recommendation.
(TimB) The WS –Resource spec says WS Resources ‘must’ use
base faults (but only lower case). This is a hurdle for Web services to jump
over, but the OGSI spec required the equivalent of BaseFaults.
(DaveS) I think a ‘SHOULD’ is sufficient for the grid
community; they are aware of the need to encourage uptake.
(Umit) Yes, that’s what we need.
(DaveS) The proposal (Umit) is to change the current lower
case ‘must’ to upper case ‘SHOULD‘
(SamM) Seconded.
(DaveS) Objections/Abstentions?
None
Action: (Bryan) Move to resolved.
(SamM) I could take a look at this and see what can be done
in terms of a SOAP binding
(IanR) We need to consider SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2
Action: (Bryan) Open new issue on providing advice.
(IanR) The charter declares this out of scope.
(SamM) We could provide a non-normative example or put it in
AppNotes
(IanR) I would prefer something in basefaults.
Action: (Sam) Investigate documenting
recommendations/examples for the binding,
WSRF101: Use of non-normative references
(DaveS) There is a long list of these, which need to be
cleared up to avoid the problem experienced by WSDM. We have a list of these
things.
(TomR) We need to review them. Some specs have proprietary namespaces
and seems to be advisory and not necessary. Proposals are here: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/email/archives/200502/msg00067.html
(DaveS) WSDM got a record number of ‘NO’ votes for the same
problem. We should remove these barriers, by replacing the references with non-normative
text summarizing the concepts.
(TomM) Does this also apply to WS-Resource
(TomR) Yes – there were no references there.
(IanR) What about WS-MD?
(TomM) How do we decide whether something is normative or
non-normative?
(TomR) The specs themselves declare which references are
non-normative, but I also checked whether the spec was referenced from our
normative specs via namespace.
(IanR) Are there any ‘normative’ references that aren’t used
by namespace reference?
What about WS-ReliableMessaging/Reliability. That isn’t
necessary and should be replaced by a summary of the concept.
(DaveS) The only exception would be WS-MessageDelivery. Are
there objections to removing this?
(Umit) I think the advocates are not on the call
Action: (BryanM) Create an issue to discuss the
removal of WS-MD from WS-Resource.
(TomR) Proposed to replace the non-normative references with
abstract descriptions of the concepts.
(DaveS) This is different from the email – but that can be
used as a guide.
(TimB) Seconded.
(DaveS) Objections/Abstentions?
(TomM) The security section looks tricky.
(IanR) We have to leave this to the editors. If a section
becomes vacuous without the references, the answer may be to remove the
section.
(DaveS) Are there any objections or abstentions now?
None.
Action: (BryanM) Move to resolved.
AOB
(Umit) Can we have a ballot for the face-to-face so that we know
how many people will attend.
Action: (IanR)
Straggler Roll Call and Close
Closed 13:30 est
Summary of actions
(IanR)
Prepare WSRF TC summary foils for New Orleans
(Bryan) Move wsrf104 to open
(IanR)
Identify which issues are included in the latest drafts. The reviewers to be
appointed at the next call.
(Bryan). Move issues wsrf91 and wsrf92 to Resolved. Both to
adopt the ‘last call’ level of WS-Addressing.
(All TC Members) Review WS-Addressing and post comments to
the list by the next conf call.
(Bryan) Move issue wsrf99 to ‘resolved’.
(Bryan) Open new issue on providing advice for the binding
of Basefaults to SOAP Faults
(Sam) Investigate documenting recommendations/examples for
the binding of Basefaults to SOAP faults.
(Bryan) Move issue wsrf100 to ‘resolved’.
(BryanM) Create an issue to discuss the removal of WS-MD
from WS-Resource.
(BryanM) Move issue wsrf101 to ‘resolved’.
(IanR) Create a ballot for attendance at the May
face-to-face meeting.