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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-msg message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: May 12 Minutes

Minutes from the May 12 meeting are attached.

Pete Wenzel <pete@seebeyond.com>
Senior Architect, SeeBeyond
Standards & Product Strategy
+1-626-471-6311 (US-Pacific)
1. Roll
      Pete will chair in Ian's absence


2. Review revised plan - Ian has posted after discussion last week

Jacques has a conflict with the 29 Jun F2F date, and the weeks around it.
Would be in favor of moving it 2 weeks prior (the week of Jun 14-18).
Jacques or Matt could host (Bay Area or Ottawa).
Everyone can make Jun 16-17 (Wed-Thu), potentially in Ottawa.

ACTION: Matt to confirm facility availability for these dates.

Matt: We may need to adjust our deliverables to accommodate the
  accellerated Draft 1 schedule.  Individuals will need to prioritize
  it higher in order to complete before the June F2F.

F2F agenda should include:
  Review of Working drafts
  Identify areas that need rework
  Scoping Draft 2 contents

3. Review Matts payload services proposal
      a) Format of propsal - all work items sholube be started this way?
      b) Content - is it the right "stuff" at the right level

Doug: It's unclear whether the services are provided to the user by an
  MSH, or requested of one MSH by another MSH.  Seems to be a mix of
  the two.
  How does each service affect the protocol?  
  Transformation seems one-sided; generally occurs prior to presentation,
  not transmission.

Jacques: If we offer a payload-level Ack, we need to understand payload
  content. (As for RosettaNet)

Pete: For service specification within the message, it would be more
  appropriate to enumerate in the Manifest rather than MIME headers,
  keeping in mind that MTOM/XOP may be used in the future.

Jeff: Yes, this would be like a list of processing instructions.

Matt: Agree; this makes ordering, etc. easier.

Doug: Sun submitted an XML process pipelining model to W3C that relates
  to sequencing of operations.  May be useful for this purpose.
  Will forward a pointer to the group.

Matt: Can/should this be done in CPA also?

Pete: Probably falls under the Packaging element.

Dale: Send this request to the CPP/A TC.

Dale: May have issue with listing payload services in the Manifest,
  which currently uses URI to reference a CID, and assumes SOAP with
  Attachments.  We've heard the complaint about being monolithic before;
  might rather keep it separate from the Manifest for modularity.

Doug: It would only extend the Manifest, not change it substantially.

Matt: Manifest is more for identification, rather than instructions.

Dale: Is there a relationship between payload services and web services?

Matt: Not really; view payload services as filters, rather than full-blown

Jacques: We could look at the XML Signature model, in which the Signature
  block contains a series of transforms.  Our services are similar
  in nature.

ACTION: Matt to rework the Invocation section to make it XML-based,
  and also send proposal to CPP/A TC.

4. Identify owner to work with Jeff to perform the SOAP 1.2 & Manifest converstion

Matt will work with Jeff, since his piece overlaps.
Jeff will produce an initial cut.
Pete will review and add details.

5. Update action list if required

Approve minutes from last meeting?  Need more time to review them.  Approve
  next week.
Doug has issue list ready to post, but instead will delay in order to
  make further progress on it.
Matt will post outline of 3.0 document for review.

6. A.O.B.

Jacques: We still have to talk about WS-Context.

Jeff: We also had the issue of relying on WS-R; what about the case in
  which reliability is not needed?  We can still use WS-R headers,
  but perform non-reliable messaging.

Include on agenda for next week's call:
  Jacques' May 11 email re synchronicity

7. Next week call - Jacques to host?

Jeff suggests extending call duration to 90 minutes from now on.
Everyone seems OK with this.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]