[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Prelim minutes of 5/25 WSRM TC meeting
The prelim minutes are attached. Please post any requested changes to the list before Friday of this week. Tom Rutt WSRM TC Chair -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133Title: Draft Agenda to WSRM TC Conference Call – May 06, 2003
Preliminary Minutes WSRM TC Conference
Call – The meeting of the WSRM TC will take place by teleconference (UTC - 5)
1
Draft
Agenda:
Draft Agenda to WSRM TC Conference Call 1 Roll Call 2 Minutes Discussion 2.1 Appointment of Minute Taker 2.2 Approval of previous meeting minutes – 3 Action Item Status Review 4 Discussions of unresolved editorial comments 5 Discussion of Document progression 6 Discussion of FAQ for WS-Reliability 7 Discussion of potential f2f meeting in 2
Roll
Call
Attendance:
Meeting is quorate. 3
Minutes
Discussion
3.1 Appointment of Minute TakerTom Rutt will take minutes. Minutes will serve to record issue resolutions. 3.2 Approval of previous meeting minutesThe minutes of the May 4 teleconf are posted at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/6811/MinutesWSRMTC050404b.htm These include Jeff M in the roll call. The minutes of May 11 Teleconf are posted at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/6782/MinutesWSRMTC051104.htm The minutes of May 18 Teleconf are posted at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/6882/MinutesWSRMTC051804.htm Bob F moved to approve all three minutes, Jeff T seconded. No opposition, all three minutes are approved. 4 Status of Action Items4.1 Action editors-1 (Marc and Doug) Pending
Marc G and Doug B to updated issues list to reflect agreements in CD .992. - open
Doug did a cleanup of the documents.
Closed action
Ø New
Action: Tom took a new action item to complete the status column of pre public
review issues list, with correct URLs.
4.2 Action 050404-1 (Iwasa)Action on Iwasa to add new annex pointing at schema with the disclaimer of precidence.
complete
4.3 Action 050404-4 (Iwasa)
Iwasa has action item to update figures to get rid of application layer.
complete
4.4 Action 051104-10 (Jacques)The current answer to the FAQ question on wsdl operation types is only about reply patterns. Jacques; Action: Jacques will write an answer to the FAQ question on how WS-Reliability relates to WSDL operation types. closed 4.5 Action 051804-1 (Iwasa)Action: Iwasa will complete the agreed resolutions from public comments Resolution Issue list. PC6.2 , PC7.12 , PC10.3 , PC11.5 , PC11.6 , PC11.9 , PC11.11 , PC11.13 , PC11.14 , PC11.20 , PC11.25 , PC12 , PC14 Included .998 closed. 4.6 Action 051804-2 ( Bob F )Action: Give it to the Demo Subcommittee to work on “company Using Spec” letters. Successfully using consistent with OASIS IPR policy. Bob sent a draft to the subcommittee. Closed. Companies should send these letters to the list. Do as soon as we do the final CD vote. Wait till CD1.0 draft exists to send it out. Forward to Sunil. June 1 and June 8 is the target to send these forms out. 4.7 Action 051804-3 ( Tom )Action: Tom will try to locate earlier submission to show Bob. Closed. 5
Discussion
of Issues and editorial Comments
The following issues list includes open items which need further discussion: 5.1 PC 11.15
Email from Tom Rutt on Lines 204-206 currently state: " Reliable Messaging Reply (RM-Reply): An indication referring to a previous message, that is either an Acknowledgment Indication or a Reliable Messaging Fault Indication. " Change the definition to: " An indication referring to a previous reliable message, that is either an Acknowledgement Indication or a Reliable Messaging Fault Indication. For the Callback and Poll reply patterns, RM-Reply indications for multiple reliable messages MAY be included in a single Reliable Messaging Response. " -- Tony Graham moved to accept Tom proposal, Iwasa seconded. No opposition, motion
passes. 5.2 PC11.24
Email from Tom Rutt on Proposal to resolve PC11.24 The word payload is used in the following lines of draft .998 without the word “business” preceding : 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 176, 177, 178, 181, 376, 390, 403, 405, 418, 425 The two words “business payload” are used in the following lines of draft .998: 373, 401, 404, 408, 417, 415, 411 Proposal: Change “business payload” to “payload” wherever occurring in the spec. Add the following definition for Payload: Payload: the contents within the SOAP body of a Reliable Message. -- This definition does not include attachments. Jacques: I do not think we need a definition at this level of detail. The abstract definitions of deliver etc needed a term, other than message. We only need to stick to that. Tom suggested the following definition: Payload: information passed in the submit operation to the sending RMP. Doug: that definition includes configuration and parameter information. The receiver of a reliable message may include in the response some payload information. Tony: define as the non reliable messaging parts of the message. Tony the word payload is not used in SOAP 1.1 or SOAP 1.2. Jacques: Payload appears in the definitions of produce and consumer. Pete: SOAP 1.1 – information intended for the ultimate recipient of the reliable message. Payload: information intended for the consumer of the reliable message. Pete moved to remove prefix Business in front of payload, and the define payload as: Above, Seconded by Jacques. No oppostion motion passes. 5.3 PC13 HTTP POST as Mandatory
· Re: [wsrm]
Clarification of HTTP POST Binding for WS_Reliability Here is my refined proposal to satisfy the HTTP mapping issue: Tom Rutt wrote: > Add the following paragraph to the intro to section 6 > " > This section specifies a normative binding of WS-Reliability soap > header elements, using the SOAP binding to HTTP, as specified in > Section 6 of SOAP 1.1. The WS-Reliability header elements, when > mapped to an HTTP request, must be carried in an HTTP POST operation. > " > Change to: This section specifies a normative binding of WS-Reliability header elements, as SOAP headers carried using HTTP, as specified in Section 6 of SOAP 1.1. In particular, WS-Reliability header elements, when mapped to an HTTP request, must be carried in an HTTP POST operation. > Add the following sentence to the conformance clause: > " > The binding of WS-Reliability protocol specified in Section 6 of this > specification, using SOAP HTTP binding defined in section 6 of SOAP > 1.1, must be used when this specification is bound to SOAP over HTTP. > " > Change the new conformance statement to the following: An implementation which uses SOAP over HTTP transport to carry WS-Reliability header elements, MUST conform to the normative mapping defined in Section 6 of this specification, for all RM-reply patterns supported by the implementation. -- Mail from Tony: What about SOAP 1.2, e.g., Section 7, SOAP HTTP Binding, of SOAP 1.2 Part 2: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapinhttp Regards, Tony Graham Tony, we need to refer to both of these soap versions, since there are normative references to both. Anish: we probably want to say something more than that. We need to state that if the initial request is soap 1.1 the response must be soap 1.2. The exact words might require some wordsmithing. Defer to next week, small team of Anish and Tom will come up with a proposal for next week. 5.4 Editorial CommentsOn draft .998 5.4.1 ReplyTo Property · Editorial
change to reply to property Lines 1741 - 1742 of draft .998 The property for reply to needs to be updated to the new type: Currently states: " A.V.D. ReplyTo URI This property is identified by the QName "wsrmf:ReplyTo" and corresponds to the semantics specified by the WS-Reliability reply-to. The type of this property is wsrm:ReplyTo. " delete the word "URI" from the title of the subsection. Change the type from "wsrm:ReplyTo" to "ref:ServiceRefType" need to add the namespace prefix "ref" to the document’s namespace table. -- Seems to make sense. No disagreement with editorial cleanup. agreed 5.4.2 Namespace for Schema, and location · [Fwd: [Fwd:
How do we post schemas at the namespace location forOASIS specs.]] Sunil wrote: This is what WS-Security is also doing. To achieve this, we need to CHANGE the namespaces of all the 3 schemas to start with the following: http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/05/<filename> Could you add this as an issue for tomorrow's con. call? -Sunil Need to change namespaces of our schemata to be the same as URL for final location on OASIS server. Also, may need to revisit the use of version 1.1 in our namespace as a “direictory”. Oasis has given us a document directory http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm WS security followed the convention of year and month. :Action: Sunil will come up with a proposal for the namespace for all four of our schemas. 5.4.3 Editorial Comments from Sunil on draft .998· Re: [wsrm]
Groups - WS-Reliability-2004-05-24.pdf uploaded Iwasa, Some comments on the latest version: Table 2(line 138) should also include the namespace for ServiceReferenceType schema.. Prefix: ref Namespace: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsrm/schema/1.1/reference Agreed editorial, Iwasa should implement in next version Line 176/Definition of ‘Deliver’. I’m uncomfortable with the usage of the word ‘transfer’ in the definition of the ‘payload’. I prefer the words ‘makes available’. Proposed new definition: Transfers implies the consumer is ready. The word makes available. Pete: responsibility for the payload is transferred. Deliver: An abstract operation supported by the RMP. When
invoked, the operation transfers the payload data of one reliable Message from the receiving RMP
to the Payload Consumer (e.g., a request to the application layer to take
responsibility for the Reliable Message). Sunil: Jacques : we should make the example more straight forward. Example (eg, the payload is placed into a queue by the receiving RMP). Or Sunil moved, Doug seconded to Change definition of deliver to: An abstract operation supported by the RMP. When invoked, the operation makes the payload of one reliable Message available to the Consumer (for example, in one specific implementation choice, the payload is placed into a queue by the receiving RMP to be consumed by an application component). No opposition, motion passes. Line 274 should be reworded to also cover the async. case. I believe I’ve mentioned this couple of times before. Proposal, change to the following “The RM-Reply can either be sent in underlying response of the request or sent as a different request.” Agree as editiorial change. Table 3/Line 309: Is ReplyTo to an agreement item? The schema on page 59 (line 1743) seem to include this, where as the table doesn’t reflect it. I believe it shouldn’t be there, and table content is correct. If so, we need to update the schema. Easiets fix is to delete A.V.D Reply to property and remove reply to from the schema in A.VI Sunil moved to delete “reply to” property section A.V.D and to delete that property from schema. , Iwasa seconded. No opposition motion passes. Example 1 (pg. 17/line 510) still uses the old version of ReplyPattern type. Same thing with Example 3/Pg 23/Line 683. Should use the new ReplyPattern with Value sub-element. Same thing with Example 10. Agreed editorial fix. Appendix A: Please include links to the 2 new schemas (fnp.xsd for the F,P, & C constructs and wsrmf.xsd for WSRM properties). Agreed to Put in a table with four rows, on row per schema. Column 1 is namespace, and column 2 is a URL to the WSRM web page. Remove the schema A.VI. from the document. If it has to be included, it needs to be correct with the correct namespaces. Agreed to remove section A.VI from the document, already has been placed into a file. Examples A.VII.A, A.VII.C, and A.VII.D use “wsrmf:DuplicateElimination” which should be replaced with “wsrmf:NoDuplicateDelivery”. Agreed editorial fix. -Sunil Action: iwasa to apply editorial changes. 5.4.4 Pete Wenzel comments on draft .997· Re: [wsrm]
Groups - WS-Reliability-2004-05-18.pdf uploaded There are a few problems with the section numbering in this draft: Section numbers are missing from level-3 and level-4 headers in Sections 3 and 5.1.3. Some sections are numbered (1) instead of X.Y.1; prefer the latter, so they can be referred to completely and will appear in TOC sensibly. Appendix A numbering format should be A.2.2 instead of A.II.B, for example. Table of Contents needs to be refreshed. --Pete Pete took action to see what changes are still required. 5.5 Rel 25 on Requirements DocREL-25 Req feature Design Active Tom Rutt Jeff Mischkinsky Title: Compatibility Description: How
do we consider other specifications? WS-attachments, ws-security,
which other specifications should we strive to be compatible with? Proposal: iwasa: Include a requirement as follows: The spec should be
usable with other open standard technologies, if appropriate. Resolution:
Accept new wording as updated above. [[Is this an "in particular" for
existing general "works well with others" requirement?]] Implementation note: The originally proposed words remain in the Requirements document, is this in line with the resolution? Is the requirements document what we wanted. Leave it open to
discuss next week. 6 Discussion of Document Progression.Action: Iwasa sould have a new document, .999 available by Wed . Tentative Schedule: June 1 – all changes agreed at TC Teleconf. June 2 – Frozen document available for informal 6 day review. June 7 – editorial changes required to be posted to list. June 8 – TC votes to approve CD at Teleconf, and also votes to submit to OASIS member vote. June 15 – submission sent to OASIS Staff Question from chair: Is everyone happy with not having another public review? No opposition was reported. Pete expressed a concern that it might be a concern raised by outsiders. Tom: Only two things have changed in the schema: 1) we changed the name of an attribute and took away values; and 2) we changed an attribute to an element to make it extensible. There were extensive editorial clarifications made to the text. 7 Frequently Asked Questions· Updated
WSRM FAQ Frequently Asked Questions about WS-Reliability Specification
Q:What is the need for the WS-Reliability specification?
Answer:
As Web Services (WS) start to be deployed across enterprise boundaries and for collaborative e-business and e-transaction scenarios, message reliability becomes a critical issue. This is because communications over the Internet (and Intranets) is inherently unreliable, as usage of the “transport protocols” (e.g., HTTP, SMTP, and other message delivery protocols) admit conditions which do not offer guaranteed or ordered delivery. Yet WS messages need be delivered to the ultimate receiver, even in the presence of component, system, or network failures. If a message can’t be reliably delivered, then the user must be so informed.
Q: What are the reliability features supported by the WS-Reliability specification?
Answer:
A] Guaranteed delivery Delivery at least once - the sent message must be delivered at the receiver, or else a notification of potential delivery failure is given to the sender.
B] Duplicate elimination - Delivery at most once -with duplicates detected and eliminated by the RMP receiver,
C] Guaranteed message ordering – messages are delivered in the order sent
Q: When will the WS Reliability spec be completed and what is it based on?
Answer:
Agreement was reached in Nov 2003 on a committee draft spec (v0.52), which was implemented in a demo at the Philadelphia XML Conference, in Deceber 2003. The TC has recently voted on a committee draft spec (v.0.992) which completed its 30 day public review, Note that the spec is based on Requirements issues that have been compiled for the committee’s internal use (over 100 requirements have been identified).
- An OASIS standard could be approved in the 2nd Quarter of 2004
Q: How is WS-Reliability designed to compose with other web service protocols?
Answer:
Web service specifications which can compose with WS-Reliability are likely to fall under the following (fuzzy) categories :
(a)- "Under WS-R": Add-ons to SOAP transport like routing, addressing, that WS-R may need to accommodate or profile. Status: nothing in the open space yet
(b)- "Supporting WS-R" specifications (policies, WSDL annotation), that support some function assumed by WS-R but not central to its deployment: Status: not finalized or not open.
(c)- "Over WS-R", Higher level specifications (BPEL, Choreography, CAF, ASAP...) would use/profile reliability, not the reverse.
(d)- "Complementary to WS-R" specifications (Security, transactions, Context...) that support other business requirements likely to be used in conjunction with reliability, and share message footprint.
SOAP header composability and processing model make this possible.. An important consideration in design of the WS-Reliability protocol was to have it be orthogonal to any other web services protocols which define the use of soap header elements. WS-Reliability defines elements to be sent in Soap headers . Our header elements only contain parameters essential for the operation of the WS-reliability protocol. For example, WS-reliability defines a reply to element for the sending Reliable Message Processor to convey a call back address for the Reliable messaging reply. This address is independent of any other reply mechanisms used for other protocols (e.g., WSDL response is not influenced by the WS-Reliability reply To parameter). Apparent redundancy (message ID, reply to address for callback) should not be an issue
Appropriate profiling and guidelines may apply.
Q: What is the relationship between WS-R and ebXML V2.0?
Answer:
Overall, they both have same messaging reliability contracts as objectives: guaranteed delivery, no duplicate delivery, ordered delivery, and combinations of these.
However, WS-R has improved on scalability and performance by generalizing the use of sequence numbers, and can accommodate different security and access conditions on each party, as this is more frequently the case with a Web service and its clients, compared to more symmetrical access conditions in messaging. The reliability contract is more "application-oriented" in WS-R, where acknowledgment is on final delivery, in contrast to "on receipt" by the message handler in ebMS.
Q: Why does the spec have a different name than the TC?
Answer:
The difference in naming of the TC (WS Reliable Messaging) and the specification (WS Reliability) is a result of how materials were originally submitted to OASIS to initiate this activity. The TC chose not to rename the specification to avoid confusion with a similarly named, though unrelated, specification (WS-ReliableMessaging) that has not been submitted to a standard body. This permits one to unambiguously refer to the exact specification being discussed.
The question: Q: How does the WS-Reliability protocol relate to WSDL operation types? Answer: The current answer is only about reply patterns. Ø Jacques; Action: Jacques will write an answer to this question. Question on whether we need another question about reply pattern specifically. There are three reliable messaging reply patterns which may be used with WS-Reliability: · Response RM-Reply Pattern: the outbound Reliable Message is sent in a request of the underlying protocol and the RM-Reply is sent in a SOAP header element in the response message of the underlying protocol that corresponds to the request. · Callback RM-Reply Pattern: the RM-Reply of a previous message is contained in a SOAP header element an underlying protocol request of a second request/response exchange (or a second one-way message). · Polling RM-Reply Pattern: a second underlying protocol request is issued to the receiver of a previous message, in order to obtain a RM-Reply. The RM-Reply can be either contained in the underlying protocol response to this request or in a separate underlying request from the receiver to the sender. This polling pattern is generally expected to be used in situations where it is inappropriate for the sender of reliable messages to receive underlying protocol requests (behind the firewall cases) or to avoid resending bulk messages often.
Jacques this needs to be cast in a more user friendly manner. Relate these to user requirements. Action: Sunil and Jacques will work on a more user friendly way to form a question and answer about reply patterns. Mail from Jacques: Tom keeps reminding me over a lingering action item for the FAQ, about WSDL operations support. Here is my proposal: Q: How does the WS-Reliability protocol relate to WSDL operation types? WS-Reliability has been designed to support One-Way and Request-Response operations. The two following requirements are observed by WS-Reliability: 1- An implementation of WS-Reliability is not supposed to be aware of the type of WSDL operation associated with the messages it is processing. 2- The RM protocol specified is compatible with current WS-I profiles. One-Way operations: All RM features specified apply to these operations, with the following restriction: In order to comply with current WS-I profiles, the "Response" reply pattern must not be used with these operations. Request-Response operations: These are often supported in a synchronous way by SOAP implementations, and in general this gives to the application a level of control that reduces the benefits of RM features. Some reliability features clearly are not much relevant (like Ordered Delivery, given that the application layer itself has control on the sequencing). The application can also be certain that a delivery occurred, when it receives the response. Agreed to Delete the parenthetical statement above. Soften the wording, to “may be less relevant to many implementations (e.g., if HTTP piplining is used, ordred delivery is less relevant). Although the RM features defined may still be used, the Guaranteed Delivery protocol defined here does not apply to the "response" leg of Request-Response operations because its transport-synchronous nature (as required by WS-I profiles) requires special handling left out of 1.0. Because an implementation is not required to distinguish messages based on their associated WSDL operation type, enforcing the above restrictions (with the exception of the "response" leg) depends on the user layer, e.g. messages have to be sent under the reliability agreement that is appropriate to their WSDL operation type. Action: Tom Agreed to put the agreed text from Jacques in the next draft. TC members should Review between now and next meeting, so we can target a faq to post after next week’s meeting. 8
Discussion of Potential Face to Face meeting in
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]