[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Prelim minutes of 7/11 teleconf
Prelim minutes are attached. Please provide corrections to entire list before monday morning. 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: Full Agenda for WSRM TC Conference Call –June 14, 2005
Prelim Minutes WSRM TC Conference Call –
July 11, 2006 1
Draft Agenda:
|
First Name |
Last Name |
Role |
Company |
Jacques |
Durand |
Secretary |
Fujitsu Limited* |
Tom |
Rutt |
Chair |
Fujitsu Limited* |
Robert |
Freund |
Voting Member |
Hitachi, Ltd.* |
Nobuyuki |
Yamamoto |
Voting Member |
Hitachi, Ltd.* |
Paul |
Knight |
Voting Member |
Nortel Networks Limited* |
Anish |
Karmarkar |
Voting Member |
Oracle Corporation* |
Pete |
Wenzel |
VotingMember |
Sun Microsystems* |
Meeting is quorate
Tom
Rutt volunteered to take minutes.
The minutes of the June teleconference meeting are posted at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/19030/Minutes-wsrmTC-061306.htm
Bob
F moved to
approve the June minutes, Paul K seconded.
No opposition June minutes are approved
2006-02-21-3 - Closed
Action: Jacques will clarify what he thinks we should do on reliability of req-resp.
Posted as: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/email/archives/200606/msg00004.html
The working list of potential enhancements to WS-Reliability was posted after the last f2f as:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/12436/wsReliabityFutureFeatures.htm
TC needs to decide among the following possibilities
Jacques posted the following contribution before the May meeting: Reliability of Request-Responses
Jacques finished his action item to specify the exact changes needed to ws-reliability 1.1.: posted contribution as:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/email/archives/200606/msg00004.html
A
simple proposal for reliability of the response over back-channel:
-----------------------
(on final Nov 15 2004 version (pdf))
Line
273-274 (definition of Respond) replace with:
“An
abstract operation that transfers a payload as a response to a previously
received
request message, back from the Consumer of this request to
the Receiving RMP of the request.
In
case a two-way underlying protocol is used, the response message submitted
using this
operation is transmitted over the back-channel of the
related request message.”
Line
276-278 (definition
of Notify) replace the following:
“…or
transfers a payload received as a response from Sending RMP to Producer.”
With:
“…
or transfers a payload received as a response (submitted via Respond) to a
previous request, from the Sending RMP of this request to
the Producer of this request.”
After
Line 532 (below 3.2.1 title) add subtitle:
“3.2.1.1.
General case”
After
Line 561: add:
“3.2.1.2.
Case of a Response Message”
“This
concerns the messages submitted via the operation Respond, when a two-way
underlying protocol is used.”
“Quality
of Service Requirements:”
“When
the GuaranteedDelivery Agreement Item is enabled for
a response message submitted
via the Respond operation, the following conditions must
also be satisfied:
- GuaranteedDelivery
and DuplicateElimination are also enabled for the
request message.
Either
one of the following outcomes must occur:
(1) the
response-receiving RMP successfully delivers the response message to its
associated
Consumer
or
(2)
the response-receiving RMP notifies its associated
Consumer of an exchange failure,
meaning either the request or the response message failed to
be delivered. In this case,
an additional delivery failure to the response-producer
party by the response-sending RMP may occur.”
“Protocol
Requirements:”
“After
receiving a request message, and if a response message has been previously sent
over the back-channel for this request, then the same
response message MUST be sent again
by the RMP on the back-channel of any request duplicate that
is received by this RMP.
This
assumes that the initial response is cached (until expiration or until it is
acknowledged,
whichever comes first.)
The
request message submitted with Submit operation, must use the wsrm:Response RM-Reply Pattern.
When
under GuaranteedDelivery, the response message
resulting from Respond invocation,
may or may not contain a wsrm:Request
element. If the Response message includes a
wsrm:Request element with an AckRequested element, then it must use Callback RM-Reply
Pattern.”
Line
568-569: replace:
“An extension of this agreement to messages resulting from invocations to the Respond operation is
out of scope for this specification.”
With:
“this agreement can easily be extended to response messages
sent over a back-channel: the
submission is done via Respond (instead of Submit) and the
delivery uses Notify (instead of Deliver).”
Jacques presented his proposal to the TC. In definition of guaranteed delivery:
Tom noted that such a revision would require no schema or namespace changes.
Tom asked Jacques how we could progress such a change, (say in a new minor version which includes the errata and the new behavior).
Jacques: this is a minor revision to the protocol, since no changes are required to the messages. I would not like to make a big case of it. If this upgrade gets to CD status, that would be sufficient.
Tom: that would not even require public review, if we did not want a CS.
There were no objections to the idea.
ACTION: Tom to produce editors draft. 1.1.1, incorporating errata and Jacques proposal.
Next meeting Sept 5, 5:30 – 6:30 EDT.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]