OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrm message

[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]