Simon Holdsworth: Audio conference:
Meeting Number: * 913929 * (press * before and after the digits)
Phone numbers:
Austria = Vienna 026822056419
Belgium = Brussels 022901709
China Toll Free = China North 108007121722, China South 108001201722
Denmark = Copenhagen 32714982
France = Paris 0170994364, Lyon 0426840196, Marseilles 0488915310
Germany = Berlin 030726167296, Frankfurt 069710445413, Hamburg 040809020620, Munich 089244432767, Stuttgart 0711490813212, Dusseldorf 021154073845
India Toll Free = 0008001006703
Ireland = Dublin 014367612
Italy = Milan 0230413007, Rome 06452108288, Turin 01121792100
Japan = Tokyo 0357675037
Netherlands = Amsterdam 0207965349
Portugal = Lisbon 211200415
Russia Toll Free = 81080022074011
Spain = Barcelona: 934923140, Madrid: 917889793
Sweden = Stockholm 0850520404
Switzerland = Geneva 0225927186
UK Toll Free = 08003581667
UK Toll = London 02071542988, Manchester 01612500379, Birmingham 01212604587
USA Toll Free = 18665289390
USA Toll = 19543344789
Simon Holdsworth: 1. Opening
Introductions
Roll call
Scribe assignment
Top 10 on the scribe list:
Nimish Hathalia TIBCO Software Inc.
Plamen Pavlov SAP AG
Laurent Domenech TIBCO Software Inc.
Piotr Przybylski IBM
Anish Karmarkar Oracle Corporation
Tom Rutt Fujitsu Limited
Eric Johnson TIBCO Software Inc.
Ashok Malhotra Oracle Corporation
Khanderao Kand Oracle Corporation
David Booz IBM
Agenda bashing
2. Actions
Check status of any actions opened on previous call
20081203-1 [Anish Karmarkar] Post an updated callback section for issue 2.
20081203-2 [Piotr Przybylsk] Produce an updated revision of the JCA binding spec with identified updates.
20081203-3 [Eric Johnson] Produce an updated proposal for issue 11 as per discussion at the face to face
20081203-4 [Anish Karmarkar] Check whether service namespace must be an http: namespace so that the wsdl can be found at a "....?wsdl" URI
3. New Issues
Please note, as per resolution on 9th October 2008, new issues received on the mailing list after Noon GMT 1st November can only be opened using the same voting rules as re-opening a closed issue (2/3 majority of a full TC vote)
Process any new issues opened on previous call
No additional new issues
4. Open Issue Discussion
Continue discussing issue resolutions.
Note that from a scheduling point of view, each issue is limited to 1 hour of discussion on today's agenda. Any unresolved issues will be carried over to the next day.
Open issues with proposed resolutions:
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-53
JCA Binding needs RFC 2119 language
Raiser: Dave Booz, owner: Editors
Status: Current proposed text in http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30279/sca-binding-jca-1.1-spec-cd01-rev4.doc
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-2
How should SCA callback semantics be carried over Web Services?
Raiser: Simon Nash, owner: Anish Karmarkar
Status: Proposed resolution: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00043.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-11
v"Formal" WSDL generation is unclear, ambiguous, and incomplete
Raiser: Eric Johnson, owner: Eric Johnson, Anish Karmarkar
Status: Latest email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00049.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-31
What is a "plain name" for a connection factories or activation specs, and how is one distinguished from a JNDI name?
Raiser: Eric Johnson, owner: Simon Holdsworth
Status: Updated proposal in http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00027.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-40
Clarify rules around combination of destination, CF and AS elements
Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Simon Holdsworth
Status: Latest email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00028.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-42
Clarify default data binding for JMS
Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Simon Holdsworth
Status: Proposed resolution in email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00007.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-44
Update binding.jms spec for wireFormat/operationSelection elements
Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Simon Holdsworth
Status: Latest email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00073.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-55
WSDL 2.0 support
Raiser: Bryan Aupperle, owner: Editors
Status: Proposal in issue
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-57
Add a section documenting naming convention + be consistent on naming intents (binding.ws)
Raiser: Anish Karmarkar, owner: Editors
Status: Proposal in issue
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-58
Add a section documenting naming convention + be consistent on naming intents (binding.jca)
Raiser: Anish Karmarkar, owner: Editors
Status: Proposal in issue
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-59
Add a section documenting naming convention + be consistent on naming intents (binding.jms)
Raiser: Anish Karmarkar, owner: Editors
Status: Proposal in issue
Open issues with identified resolution owner:
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-21
Support for callback and conversation ID-s in bindings
Raiser: Peter Peshev, owner Peter Peshev
Status: Proposed resolution in issue
Notes: As for BINDINGS-2, this is waiting for clarification around conversations at the assembly level
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-39
JMS callback specification does not cater for callbacks using other bindings
Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner Simon Holdsworth
Status: Complete resolution proposal required
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-43
Update binding.ws spec for wireFormat/operationSelection elements
Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Anish Karmarkar
Status: Specific resolution text required.
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-45
Update binding.jca spec for wireFormat/operationSelection elements
Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Piotr Przybylski
Status: Specific resolution text required.
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-54
Endpoint URI algorithm is unclear
Raiser: Eric Johnson, owner: Eric Johnson
Status: Initial proposal in JIRA.
Open issues with no identified resolution owner:
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-22
Bindings specifications should provide exemplary Implementations for Callbacks and Conversations
Raiser: Mike Edwards
Status: No proposed resolution
Notes: As for BINDINGS-2, this is waiting for clarification around conversations at the assembly level
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-23
@wsdlElement definition needs clarification on "equivalent" and use of WSDL 2.0 constructs
Raiser: Eric Johnson
Status: Specific resolution text required
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-24
Which wire did a message arrive on?
Raiser: Sanjay Patil
Status: Waiting for examples from Sanjay as per 20080717-4
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-25
Is it required that every implementation of binding.ws support the soap intent?
Raiser: Anish Karmarkar
Status: No current proposal. Latest email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200807/msg00006.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-29
Properties on Bindings
Raiser: Piotr Przybylski
Status: No current proposal; defer until Policy 15 (External Attachment) is resolved
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-48
How are mayProvide intents on bindings satisfied
Raiser: Ashok Malhotra
Status: No current proposal; latest email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00041.html
6. AOB
Dave Booz wonders if Simon H is going to make it through another day of this
Mike Edwards: this is a special form of torture designed for chairs who have been very bad
Piotr: Actions, 1203-1, 1203-2, 1203-3, 1203-4 are done
Piotr: No new issues raised during calls
anonymous morphed into anish
Piotr: Move issue 48 up the list
Dave Booz hopes he's been good this year
Piotr: Walk through the changes in JCA Bindings document
Piotr: Piotr - motion to resolve 53 with revision 4
Piotr: No objections, motion is passed
Piotr: Issue 48 discussion, Ashok
Piotr: Clarified in Policy TC by explaining 'may provide' words
Piotr: Ashok - are bindings configured by runtime?
Piotr: Who can do the configuration of bindings? Assembler, deployer
Piotr: Current JMS binding says that it may support specific intents, this statement should be stenghten
anish: i'm not sure why we would want to do that (strengthen the statement around mayProvides of JMS)
anish: it currently says: mayProvide=atLeastOnce atMostOnce ordered conversational
anish: if this is required, a JMS provider that just provides in-memory Q will not be able to provide a sca jms binding
Ashok: The set of provided intents for a binding instance is the union of the set of intents listed in the alwaysProvides attribute and the set of intents listed in the mayProvides attribute of of its binding type. The capabilities represented by the "alwaysProvides" intent set are always present, irrespective of the configuration of the binding instance. Each capability represented by the "mayProvides" intent set is only present when the list of intents applied to the binding instance (either applied directly, or inherited) contains the particular intent (or a qualified version of that intent, if the intent set contains an unqualified form of a qualifiable intent). When an intent is directly provided by the binding type, there is no need to apply a policy set that provides that intent
Piotr: Section 4.10, line 429-437 in Word Doc
Dave Booz: looks like 1361-1369 in the pdf
anish: don't you mean a *subset* of intents listed in mayProvides ?
Dave Booz: line 217-220 in WD10:
Dave Booz: If the configured instance of a binding is in conflict with the intents and policy sets
218 selected for that instance, the SCA runtime MUST raise an error. For example, a web
219 service binding which requires the SOAP intent but which points to a WSDL binding that
220 does not specify SOAP.
anish: the wording in that new para is slightly awkward
Piotr: Wording above clarifies the conflict handling
Piotr: Why would we require ("MUST") support for some intents, for example reliability
anish btw, i still think that bindingTypes in contributions is a mistake 
Dave Booz: <binding.jms requires="exactlyOnce"/>
Dave Booz: <binding.jms policySet="sns:enterprisePolicy"/>
Dave Booz: <binding.jms jndiURL="some/jndi/uri" />
anonymous morphed into anish
Dave Booz: <reference requires="exactlyOnce">
Dave Booz: <binding.jms...../>
Piotr: there is a new wording in the policy specification dealing with this issue
Piotr: Section 3.1 in Policy Spec
Piotr: Example in JMS bindings - exactly once and not persistent specified together is an error
Piotr: Updated text posted by Anish (v6)
Piotr: Changes agreed upon yesterday
Piotr: why "MAY include additional [Subsubcode]" and not MUST
Piotr: Invoker - calling components or SCA runtime
Piotr: Reword the sentence (Simon H)
Simon Holdsworth: If there is a need to have the callback correlated to an individual request message, the wsa:MessageID SOAP header block can be used for this purpose
Piotr: Replace second paragraph with the above text
Eric Johnson: My suggestion - end of paragraph 1, change the "MAY include additional [Subsubcode]" to "can include additional [Subsubcode]"
Piotr: Motion to replace para 2 with Simon H wording and replace MAY with can
Piotr: Anish - motion, Simon N. seconds
Piotr: Motion to amended the motion to say that v6 is the TC direction (Anish, Simon N seconds)
Simon Holdsworth: Amended motion is to accept v6 with the 2 changes identified (replace section 2, change last MAY in section 1 to a can) as the direction for the resolution of issue 2
Piotr: No discussion, no objections, motion passed
Piotr: To close the issue, we need to augment text with preamble and decide where the text should be applied
Piotr: Anish: provide more consumable version of the protocol to be possibly reused in other contexts
Piotr: Simon N - not convinced, in many cases only WSDL should be sufficient, there is a number cases that would have to be considered
Piotr: Anish - composability, including security, discussion of these issues now is important
Piotr: we need the spec to work with WS* specs (trust, transactions,...)
Piotr: Anish - thought we agreed to making it optionally normative, not an example
Piotr: Simon N: no recollection of agreement
Piotr: Meaning of example with normative statements is not clear
Piotr: Anish - we should treat it as WS* spec
Piotr: Eric - work on SOAP JMS, a lot of effort to bring together vendors with multiple implementations so the effort may be rather large
Simon Nash: Anish - was my 3rd point that you wanted to respond to about the need for WSDL?
Mike Edwards: I vote for a limited scope for this material - targeted at SCA
Mike Edwards: we are not trying to solve everyone else's problems
Dave Booz: +1 to what Eric is saying
Simon Nash: +1 from me too
Piotr: Martin - cleaner to separate and provide conformance statements
Mike Edwards: The fundamental disagreement is about the amount of work involved to do it separately
Mike Edwards: I don't think it will be a small amount of work
Martin C : the main content will be the same, we have to do it anyway, i see it mostly editorial to put in the cover material
Mike Edwards: I dont think that will be the case
Simon Holdsworth: If what we have is optionally normative, then we could presumably do both in parallel and fold in the separate thing in a future release
Piotr: Anish reply to Eric - we are trying to make it too general, this is really for SCA
Martin C : or keep it separate
Simon Holdsworth: I meant refer to the separate thing rather than fold it in
Piotr: Anish - optionally normative in the binding spec, but independent piece of work, same as section, only changes perception and makes it more visible, windings could still be able to use different spec if there is one
Piotr: Simon N - as separate spec, would it be self contained or would it contain "by reference" pointers to other SCA specs ?
Piotr: Anish - pointers to Assembly
Mike Edwards: Mike Edwards moves to make the direction for the resolution of Issue 2 that the material be included as a part of the SCA Binding.WS specification document.
Dave Booz: as optionally normative?
Mike Edwards: Mike Edwards moves to make the direction for the resolution of Issue 2 that the material be included as a part of the SCA Binding.WS specification document, as optionally normative.
Piotr: Anish - motion to amend:
anish: amendment: we create a separate sca ws-callback specification that will include a soap based protocol for implementing callbacks
Piotr: Motion to replace motion with the text provided by Anish
Piotr: Objection to anon. consent - Simon N
Piotr: Vote for replacing motion with new motion
anish: i don't understand what ppl are afraid of: the big bad ws-* police are going to wack us?
Piotr: result - 7 No, 1 Abstained, 2 Yes, motion defeated
Piotr: Martin - motion to table
Piotr: result: 7 No, 1 Abstained, 2 Yes, motion defeated
Mike Edwards: one thing to point out is that later - it is always possible to extract the material from the SCA specs and a creatre a separate spec
anish: who will do that and when?
Martin C : then you have two specs for same thing
Piotr: Vote for acceptance
Mike Edwards: that is for whoever to decide
anish: doing these things later changes things like NS/ URIs makes it very difficult
Piotr: 8 Yes, 2 No, motion passed
anish: without backward compat
Martin C : anyway move on, the TC has spoke
Piotr: Eric reviews latest e-mail
Piotr: 4.2.1 comment - alternate wording:
Eric Johnson: For use with the binding.ws, the portType from the interface, or derived from the interface that does not fit one of these two patterns MUST be treated as an error by an SCA runtime. The rest of this section assumes the short-hand reference of a "rpc-literal" or "document-literal" pattern, depending on which of the two bullet points above it matches.
anish: i think it should be 'for use with the "default" form of binding.ws ..."
Piotr: Simon N - what kind of use ?
anish: i.e. only for the case when wsdlElement is not included
Eric Johnson: Last paragraph of 4.2.1:
For a service that uses binding.ws, the portType from the interface, or derived from the interface that does not fit one of these two patterns MUST be treated as an error by an SCA runtime. The rest of this section assumes the short-hand reference of a "rpc-literal" or "document-literal" pattern, depending on which of the two bullet points above it matches.
Piotr: Reword to use "raise an error"
Eric Johnson: For a service that uses binding.ws, the portType from the interface, or derived from the interface which does not fit one of these two patterns, the SCA runtime MUST raise an error. The rest of this section assumes the short-hand reference of a "rpc-literal" or "document-literal" pattern, depending on which of the two bullet points above it matches.
anish: "," before which 
Simon Holdsworth: For a service that uses binding.ws, if the portType from the service's interface, or derived from the service's interface does not fit one of these two patterns the SCA runtime MUST raise an error
Simon Nash: in that case remove the previous comma
Simon Nash: comma after patterns
Simon Holdsworth: For a service element, the portType from the service's interface or derived from the service's interface MUST fit one of these two patters.
Piotr: Cannot say whether SCDL is conformant by itself, it needs context of the runtime
Piotr: Anish: non-conformance does not depend on when it is detected
Simon Nash: s/patters/patterns/
Piotr: Two more issues raised, 4.2.2 -> #2 rewrite
Martin C : time gentlemen please
Piotr: Continue email discussion for BINDINGS-11
Martin C has hot ears from 4 days worth