[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] Prelim Minutes for 5/16 Teleconf
Jeff Mischkinsky wrote: > > On May 17, 2005, at 3:48 PM, Tom Rutt wrote: I will make this change in the final minutes > >> The prelim minutes are attached. >> >> Please post any corrections to the list by the end 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 5133 >> >> >> Prelim Minutes for WSRM TC Conference Call –May 17, 2005 >> >> >> The meeting of the WSRM TC took place by teleconference >> >> Tuesday, May 17, 2005, from 5:30 to 6:30 PM Eastern Standard Time >> >> >> >> 1 Draft Agenda: >> >> >> >> 1 Draft Agenda to WSRM TC Conference Call >> >> 2 Roll Call >> >> 3 Minutes Discussion >> >> 3.1 Appointment of Minute Taker >> >> 3.2 Approval of previous meeting minutes – >> >> 4 Action Item Status Review >> >> 5 Status of WS-Reliability Specification >> >> 6 Interop SC Future activities >> >> 7 Next Step Documentation >> >> 7.1 Editorial Clarifications and Errata >> >> 7.2 Implementation Guidelines >> >> 7.2 Future Enhancement Requests >> >> 8 Composability with other WS-Specs >> >> 9 ws reliability PAS progression >> >> 10 Liaison with WS-RX TC >> >> 11 Discussion of Future Meetings >> >> 11 New business >> >> >> >> 2 Roll Call >> >> Attendance: >> >> First Name >> >> Last Name >> >> Role >> >> Company >> >> Jacques >> >> Durand >> >> Secretary >> >> Fujitsu Limited* >> >> Kazunori >> >> Iwasa >> >> Secretary >> >> Fujitsu Limited* >> >> Tom >> >> Rutt >> >> TC Chair >> >> Fujitsu Limited* >> >> Robert >> >> Freund >> >> Voting Member >> >> Hitachi >> >> Nobuyuki >> >> Yamamoto >> >> Voting Member >> >> Hitachi >> >> Alan >> >> Weissberger >> >> Voting Member >> >> NEC Corporation* >> >> Paul >> >> Knight >> >> Voting Member >> >> Nortel >> >> Mark >> >> Peel >> >> Secretary >> >> Novell >> >> James >> >> Clark >> >> OASIS Staff Contact >> >> OASIS * >> >> Sumit >> >> Gupta >> >> Member - Probation >> >> Oracle >> >> Anish >> >> Karmarkar >> >> Voting Member >> >> Oracle >> >> jeff >> >> mischkinsky >> >> Voting Member >> >> Oracle >> >> Doug >> >> Bunting >> >> Secretary >> >> Sun * >> >> Hans >> >> Granqvist >> >> Voting Member >> >> VeriSign * >> >> >> >> >> >> Meeting is quorate. >> >> >> >> 3 Minutes Discussion >> >> >> >> Tom Rutt will take minutes. >> >> >> >> 3.1 Approval of previous meeting minutes >> >> The minutes of the 4/28 New Orleans F2F meeting are posted at: >> >> >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/12633/ >> MinutesWSRMf2f0405.htm >> >> >> >> Alan Moved to approve the 4/28 minutes, Bob seconded. >> >> >> >> No opposition minutes 4/28 minutes are approved >> >> >> >> >> >> 4 Status of Action Items >> >> 4.1 Action 121404-2 (Anish) Open >> >> Action: Oracle will provide examples of soap header dumps with both >> ws-reliability and ws-Security headers in use, as in the interop demo. >> >> Anish posted email: >> >> WSS and WS-Reliability header dumps Anish Karmarkar 24 Feb 2005 >> 23:22:27 >> >> Anish may post some additional examples of other combinations. >> Leave open >> >> Sumit stated that the already sent in one example. >> >> 4.2 Action 012505-1 (Tom Rutt) Pending >> >> Action: Tom will investigate how to change the status of printed >> document. The posted standard still states CD. >> >> Continuing action, sent newest version to OASIS Staff with Errata to >> post >> >> 4.3 Action 020805-2 (Tom Rutt) open >> >> Action: Tom will investigate how to post the three OASIS pas >> documents on our server. >> >> Jamie Clark is investigating how to get the documents on the OASIS >> Site. >> >> >> >> 4.4 Action 042805-1 (Jacques Durand) Pending >> >> Action: Jacques will post a new version of the composability >> analysis, to reflect discussions at the F2F meeting. >> >> Leave open. >> >> 5 Status of WS-Reliability Specification >> >> >> >> The public and member web site pages for the TC to have a single >> announcement, which refers by URL to spec and schema at the proper >> location on the OASIS web site. >> >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/06/WS-Reliability-CD1.086.pdf >> >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/06/fnp-1.1.xsd >> >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/06/reference-1.1.xsd >> >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/06/ws-reliability-1.1.xsd >> >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/06/wsrmfp-1.1.xsd >> >> >> >> The spec at the above link itself still shows status a CD. >> >> >> >> Tom posted a version with edited cover page with proper ID and >> status at: >> >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/12516/ >> wsrm-ws_reliability-1.1-spec-os.pdf >> >> >> >> We now await OASIS Staff to post it at the appropriate location. >> >> 6 Interop SC Future activities >> >> Discussion of Future activities for Interop SC. >> >> >> >> Jacques: Only one commitment from NEC for the new security interop >> test round. They would like to have three participants before the >> interop. >> >> >> >> They are not sure how much publicity for two participants. >> >> >> >> Waiting for new participants for at least informal testing. >> >> >> >> Contact Jaques if interested. >> >> 7 Next Step Documentation >> >> Comments have been requested on the following three draft documents. >> >> 7.1 Editorial Clarifications and Errata >> >> Clarifications, editorial nits, interpretations of the actual >> specification, >> >> The following document was voted as CD at the F2F meeting and was >> posted at: >> >> >> >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/12518/ >> wsrm-ws_reliability-v1.1-errata-cd1.0.pdf >> >> >> >> This is awaiting to be posted at the proper location by the OASIS >> Staff. >> >> 7.2 Implementation Guidelines / Application Notes >> >> Things to help implementers, which, would typically be specific to >> application environments. The following document was posted as >> working draft, reflecting the discussion at the Face To Face. >> >> >> >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/12466/ >> Implementation%20Guidelines%20.htm >> >> >> >> Any member can submit comments to open discussion. >> >> 7.3 Future Enhancement Requests >> >> Proposed changes for future versions which would ease implementation >> or enhance protocol capabilities. The following document was >> posted, reflecting the discussion at the Face to Face. >> >> >> >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/12436/ >> wsReliabityFutureFeatures.htm >> >> >> >> Add comments if interested in putting more things on it. >> >> >> >> Doug: high level question – I am not sure how we should address >> liaison with TC which does not exist. >> >> >> >> Lets discuss later. >> >> 8 Composability with other WS-Specs >> >> >> >> WS-Security Composition paper from Fujitsu, Hitachi and NEC: >> >> WS-Reliabilty And WS-Security - First Draft >> >> >> >> The latest version of composability aspects is posted as: >> >> Composability Analysis (V0.5) >> >> >> >> Jacques has an action item to post a version reflecting the f2f >> discussion. >> >> 9 WS-reliability PAS progression >> >> >> >> OASIS Staff has not given us status regarding our request to pursue >> PAS progression of WS-Reliability 1.1. >> >> >> >> 10 Liaison with WS-RX TC >> >> The following test was extracted from the f2f minutes: >> >> Bob: our TC requirements could serve as a basis for an analysis of >> how the following two xmlsoap.org ws-reliable messaging specs (2/5) >> relates to these requirements. >> >> >> >> Web Services Reliable Messaging Protocol (WS-ReliableMessaging). >> February 2005. >> >> >> >> Web Services Reliable Messaging Policy Assertion (WS-RM Policy). >> February 2005 >> >> >> >> Tom: TC members should provide contributions a gap analysis between >> our TC requirements and the above reference specs. >> >> >> >> Contributions are solicited from TC members for discussion at the >> May 17 Teleconf on how the specs referenced above meet (or do not >> meet) our requirements. >> >> >> >> Contributions should focus on uses cases that one can or can not >> accomplish with each specification. >> >> >> >> >> >> The call for participation for WS-RX TC is posted as: >> >> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200505/msg00004.html >> >> >> >> The WS-Reliability Requirements are posted at: >> >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/3389/ >> WS-Reliability_Requirements-2003-09-05a.pdf >> >> >> >> Doug: I am not sure how we can avoid discussions of documents which >> have not been submitted to this tc, with respect to a TC which does >> not yet exist. >> >> >> >> Tom: One simple thing we can do is let them be aware of our >> requirements. >> >> >> >> Doug: This TC at this point cannot really discuss the things that >> are their input contributions. >> >> >> >> Jeff: There are limitations on IP with which we submit > > I'm not sure I can recall my exact words, but i'm sure the above does > not capture what i said (what does the above stmnt mean?). It was > something along the lines that IPR limitations are relevant for final > specifications that a TC adopts. The TC, if it so chooses, can > certainly "discuss" publicly available documents and formulate > opinions/comments on them. > > cheers, > jeff > >> >> >> >> Doug: I am only concerned about us making comment on their inputs. >> Members could submit any recommendations. >> >> >> >> Tom: I want to suggest this TC to send our requirements to them, to >> facilitate migration from our spec to theirs. >> >> >> >> Jamie: Is their a TC strategy regarding migration strategy. >> >> >> >> Jamie: any TC may make suggestions to any other TC. If there are >> APR restriction tell them. Requirements may not have this problem. >> The TC can instruct its chair to do so, or a member could do so, if >> they are a member of the new TC. >> >> >> >> Alan: I was told that the requirements doc alone would not be >> enough. It should be more than a simple transfer of requirements. >> >> >> >> Tom: It might be better to have detailed comments on their spec be >> put into their TC. >> >> >> >> Jamie: If you want to have them use things it must go through their >> own tc. >> >> >> >> Bob: there is at least one member who would like to know how our >> requirements stack up with what they are doing. We also know that >> our requirements will not be dealt with in their committee. Our TC >> could do a gap analysis, but members of the other TC could make the >> recommendations. >> >> >> >> Tom: should our TC conduct a gap analysis against their spec. >> >> >> >> Jeff: there is a lot of confusion about IPR. One is copyright, the >> other is implementation licenses. >> >> >> >> Bob: several steps. First, is it important to do gap analysis. One >> we have that decision, if it is yes (trying to inform members of our >> TC about difference with their input), does that gap analysis have >> enough to influence the new TC committee work. >> >> >> >> Bob: this TC could send it over the fence, but experience admits >> that it hardly ever works. >> >> TC members themselves need to bring these gaps into the new tc. >> >> >> >> Tom: should we put this on our agenda for next meeting >> >> >> >> Bob: first decide if members care. >> >> >> >> TOM is there any objections to our committee doing a gap analysis. >> None. >> >> >> >> Tom: I will put gap analysis in agenda for next meeting. Submit any >> contributions for that meeting. We should get commitment from >> members for the contents of the gap analysis. >> >> >> >> Anish: I am interested in working on this. >> >> >> >> Bob: it would be better to have a task force to drive this. >> >> >> >> Jacques: I am interested in being on a task force. >> >> >> >> Alan: I am interested. >> >> >> >> Action: Anish, Jacques, Alan, and Iwasa will work on a document for >> consideration at our next meeting. >> >> >> >> 11 Discussion of Future Meetings >> >> >> >> Tom has posted biweekly meetings, starting May 17, from 5:30 – 6:30 PM. >> >> >> >> Bob: let f2f slide and look for future opportunities. >> >> >> >> >> >> Jeff: The better gap analysis might be the differences in the specs >> themselves. >> >> >> >> Jamie: presence of PAS Items in our doc registry Generic in >> calendar docs. In WSRM. >> >> >> >> Action item closed. >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs >> in OASIS >> at: >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > -- > Jeff Mischkinsky jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com > Director, Web Services Standards +1(650)506-1975 > Consulting Member Technical Staff 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 4OP9 > Oracle > Redwood Shores, CA 94065 > > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]