[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Prelim minutes of 7/27 Teleconferences
The prelim minutes are attached. Please post any corrections before Friday. Tom Rutt WSRM TC Chair -- Tom Rutt Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.comTitle: Draft Agenda to WSRM TC Conference Call – May 06, 2003
|
Prelim Minutes WSRM TC Conference Call – The meeting of the WSRM TC took place by teleconference
1
Draft
Agenda:
1 Draft Agenda 2 Roll Call 3 Minutes Discussion 4 Action Item Review 5 Discussion of Comment Resolutions 6 Discussion of Document Progression Plans 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 July 06 teleconf are posted at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8220/MinutesWSRMTC072004.htm Jeff Turpin moved to approve, Jishnu seconded. No opposition, Minutes were approved. 4 Status of Action Items4.1 Action 052503-1 (Tom Rutt) pendingTom took an action item to complete the status column of pre public review issues list, with correct URLs.
4.2 Action 060104-5 (Jacques) PendingAction: Jacques, will propose further edits, on the FAQ for composability. Still open, low priority 4.3 Action 072004-1 (Editors) PendingAction Item: Editing
team to put the Ref schema text changes proposed by Anish
into the next editor’s draft, along with changes to Accommodate Chris F comment
on ReplyTo specification. 4.4 Action 072004-2 (Editors) ClosedAction: Jacques an Doug
will propose a resolution to Chris F comments 1, 2, 10,19,
and 24 for discussion by the TC. closed 4.5 Action 072004-3 (Editors) PendingAction: Editing team to
propose fix for Doug B comment 9 4.6 Action 072004-4 (Tom R) closedAction: Tom Rutt to update cover page as CD 1.05 and place Zip file on server in Drafts folder. Closed 4.7 Action 072004-5 (Editors) PendingAction: editing team to apply agreed edits from 5
Discussion
of Issues and editorial Comments
The following issues list includes items which
have been resolved as of the output of the The
following additional issues and comments were circulated to the list for
discussion. These
need to be resolved before we can vote on a next CD. Jacqeues: The editing task force is currently undergoing a thorough editing changes to make the document read smother. Proper use of RFC keywords, eg. MUST, was also being reviewed. They divided the work, 1,2,3 for Jacques, Doug 4, Mark peel 5, and 6. The feedback was supposed to be merged today, all have submitted their parts, what remains to be done is the merging. 5.1 Iwasa Items for Discussion
· Remaining
items Iwasa email was sent out. Status of 1.06 document, including proposals for issues. There was 57 issues, and this document describes the status. We resolved 26 issues, as described in the document. There are 11 issues which are agreed, but were not implemented in 1.06, and the Editing team is working on them. There are 7 issues which were assigned to someone. Doug and Jacques have assignments for issues from Chris 1,2, 10, 19, 24. There are 12 proposals for discussion: DB9, 10, MP1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 CF4 5.1.1 DB9-- - Adding a namespace for soap1.2 in the table2 as follows: soap12: http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope - Replacing a namespace for SOAP in example 1 to soap12. In other words, replacing line 628 and 629 with xmlns:soap12=”http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope” soap12:mustUnderstand=”1”> -- Agree as editorial, have the editors apply it. Action: editors apply fix for DB0. 5.1.2 DB10-- I believe we should clarify as follows: - examples are non-normative, - notes are non-normative, and - all text except above two is normative - if it does not explicitly mention whether the text is normative or non-normative. In other words, I propose to add the following sentences in the last portion of section 1.3: “All text in this specification is normative, except the following three: - examples, - notes, and - any texts explicitly mentioned as non-normative.” -- Tom: is it clear what text is non-normative. Iwasa, unless the text states it is non-normative, it is normative., But we do not have the word non-normative yet in the document. Tom: I do not recall any non-normative text. Tom: I think we should remove the third bullet. No opposition. Ø Action: editing team to apply iwasa instruction to the text, removing third bullet. 5.1.3 MP2Proposal: Removing “based on Consumer demand” in 259. Jacqeus: this was Accommodated by editing changes for CF comments. 5.1.4 MP3Proposal : Removing “The messaging scope of these agreement items may vary, as messages may be associated with a group.” in 402-403. Jacques: this is accommodated by the editing team. 5.1.5 MP4Proposal: Replace the sentence in 835-837: “A Sending RMP MUST include a PollRequest element when the ReplyPattern agreement item has value “Poll”. However PollRequest messages can also be used to obtain delivery status for messages that were originally sent with “Response” or “Callback” ReplyPattern elements.” with “A Sending RMP MUST include a PollRequest element in a PollRequest Message. A PollRequest Message is used to receive RM-Reply for a message sent with “Poll” as a value of Request/ReplyPattern/Value element and the original message includes the Request/AckRequested element. However PollRequest Messages can also be used to obtain delivery status for messages that were originally sent with “Response” or “Callback” as a value of Request/ReplyPattern/Value element, and when the original message includes the Request/AckRequested element.” Ø Action: Doug needs to accommodate this proposal for MP4 in his editing. Jacques the document may accommodate these, but with slightly different wording.. 5.1.6 MP9Also, I found a discrepancy between the spec and the schema: PollRequest/RefToMessageIds/SequenceNumRange in the 1.05 spec is PollRequest/RefToMessageIds/SequenceNumberRange in the 1.1 schema. While the schema rules, we may wish to alter the schema in this case, as its name is inconsistent with the request element to which it refers, i.e., Request/MessageId/SequenceNum. Proposal: Replace the name of element in 1.1 schema: “PollRequest/RefToMessageIds/SequenceNumberRange” with “PollRequest/RefToMessageIds/SequenceNumRange” Iwasa moved to change the schema name as above, Jeff M seconded. Motion Passed unopposed. Ø Action: Sunil to apply the agreed schema changes to a new draft schema. Sunil to post all the new schema in the drafts section. The rest of Iwasa’s proposals were given to the editing team for accommodation. MP 10 Jacques proposed a new wording for the editing team to apply. All of these were left for the editing team to apply. 5.1.7 CF 1,2, etcThe action items from CF action items have not been sent to the group as a whole. Jacques to send out email stating what changes were made to accommodate CF comment on the definitions. 5.2 Jacques email on as time permits· if time
permits Title: if time
permits Because many have been interested in the relationship between reliability and transactions (e.g. at Reliability symposium), I propose to add to the "Out of scope" paragraph in Section 1.2 (in addition to "routing features"): "Transactions. Transactional messaging ensures the integrity of exchange patterns that involve possibly several business messages. Failure conditions may involve application-level decisions based on message payload interpretation. This specification is only concerned with reliability of individual messages, up to their delivery, and ignores any interpretation of these messages." I would however understand if the TC decides not to discuss such a low priority addition at this time, and would leave it to the chair to see if our agenda can afford this. Jacques Jacques, I propose that this text should become a new bullet in Out of Scope section. Jacques moved to add the new transaction out of scope bullet, Sunil Seconded. No opposition motion passes. Ø Action: editing team given action to appl/. 6 Discussion of Document Progression and future meeting schedule.Jacques: by Wednesday evening the editing team can have a new draft posted, including the resolutions from today’s meeting. The updates will be from 1.06. The editors should provide a status document or an email to describe how the action items were resolved. Jaques: I will send an email with all action items which were changed. Still have goal for member submission by Aug 15. Any comments on new draft please send to list by Monday evening Aug 2. I will schedule a CD vote for the next meeting. If not quorate we could send a Kavi Ballot. August 3 is next scheduled meeting. August 10, next scheduled meeting after that. Jeff moved to adjourn, Doug seconded. No opposition to adjourn the meeting. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]