sca-bindings message

Subject: Raw minutes from conf. call of 2008-12-18

From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
To: OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:58:31 -0800

anonymous morphed into khanderao

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.
Tom Rutt Fujitsu Limited
Eric Johnson TIBCO Software Inc.
Ashok Malhotra Oracle Corporation
Khanderao Kand Oracle Corporation
David Booz IBM
Bryan Aupperle IBM
Martin Chapman Oracle Corporation

Agenda bashing

2. Approval of the minutes from 11th December

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30389/SCA%20Bindings%20minutes%202008-12-11.doc

3. Actions

20080717-4 [Sanjay Patil] Provide examples for issue 24
20080717-6 [Vladimir Savchenko] Send out a proposal for how WSDL
bindings and portTypes relate to each other. Target: 14th August
20080904-1 [Editors] update SOAP intent as per email
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200808/msg00072.html
20081016-1 [Editors] Update JCA bindings spec to clarify there are no
may provides or always provides intents
20081211-1 [Eric Johnson] Research whether JAX-WS portType generation
restricts the NS used in rpc-literal

4. 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)

No new issues

5. Face to Face meeting

Discuss timing/location for next F2F meeting.

6. Open Issue Discussion

Open issues with proposed resolutions:

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:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00054.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-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-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

7. AOB

-------------------------------------------------------------------

*Revolving list of scribes*

Eric Johnson: Scribe: eric

Eric Johnson: Topic: approval of the minutes...

Eric Johnson: No objections to approving the minutes from last meeting.
Minutes approved.

Eric Johnson: Topic: action items

Eric Johnson: Action 20081211-1 complete.

Eric Johnson: No new issues.

Eric Johnson: Topic: face to face meeting.

anonymous morphed into Martin C

Eric Johnson: When we postponed original meeting, we were thinking of
F2F early in Jan.

Eric Johnson: Policy TC planning to have a F2F last week in January.

Eric Johnson: If we're going to do it, it would be in February - 1st or
2nd week.

Eric Johnson: Ashok: Are we thinking East Coast US?

Eric Johnson: Simon H.: Yes.

Eric Johnson: Martin C: Away 2nd week of Feb.

Eric Johnson: Ashok: If we started on a Tuesday, how would that work out?

Eric Johnson: Martin: would dial in.

Eric Johnson: Simon H.: 2nd or 3rd week of February, then.

Eric Johnson: ... will send an email to the mailing list.

Eric Johnson: Topic: open issues.

Eric Johnson: Subtopic: Bindings-11.

Simon Holdsworth:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00070.html

Eric Johnson: Simon N.: Small change : "conforming implementation"
occurs again.

Eric Johnson: ... suggestion - in 4.2.2 change -"a conforming
implementation" to "an SCA runtime must..."

Eric Johnson: (scribe error) "a conforming implementation MUST" to "an
SCA runtime MUST..."

Eric Johnson: Eric: move to resolve issue 11 with the text as proposed
in Eric's email, with the text edits that Simon N. has proposed.

Eric Johnson: Simon N.: 2nds

Eric Johnson: No objections to unanimous consent. Motion carried.

Eric Johnson: Subtopic: Issue 40

Eric Johnson: (Simon going through the email from
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00028.html)

Eric Johnson: Ashok: Do we have a concern that for the first item under
#1 that destination element might not appear.

Eric Johnson: Simon H.: As proposed, an improvement over the current spec.

Eric Johnson: Eric: Do we need to be concerned about unique particle
attribute schema validation?

Eric Johnson: Ashok & Mike E.: Looks good.

Eric Johnson: Mike E.: Move to resolve issue 40 using the text in the
message pointed to in the agenda. Dave B. 2nds.

Eric Johnson: Motion passes with no objections.

Eric Johnson: Subtopic: Issue 42

Eric Johnson: Proposed resolution in email:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00007.html

Eric Johnson: Mike E.: A partial WSDL - what are we taking as given - no
portType shown...

Eric Johnson: Simon H: Addressing the concern that the reference to
"document wrapped" style would imply a SOAP payload.

Eric Johnson: Simon N: Is there anything normative here? Use of the
phrase "would have" - what is the strength of the statement being done.

Eric Johnson: Simon H: Normative statement refers to the default
databinding. This is just an example.

Eric Johnson: Dave B: What if we change "would have" to "has"?

Eric Johnson: Simon H: OK.

Eric Johnson: ... would you be happier if I said at the top for the
"following message definition", rather than the "following interface
definition"?

Eric Johnson: Eric: Probably should have the portType

Eric Johnson: Mike E.: Yes, share that concern.

Eric Johnson: Simon H: Will clarify those things.

Eric Johnson: Action: Simon H: to revise proposal for issue 42.

Eric Johnson: (Lots of opportunities to forget things in the next two
weeks - Dave B. hopes so!)

Eric Johnson: Subtopic: issue 44.

Eric Johnson: Proposed resolution:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00073.html

Eric Johnson: Simon H: This proposal does not add any new databindings
and wireformats.

Eric Johnson: ... perhaps a good idea to have those.

Eric Johnson: ... there is a question as to whether we should split the
default binding into several, since the default binding has several
different cases.

Eric Johnson: Eric: Section 5.1 - "An SCA runtime should provide the
means..." - seems odd, because the wireformat and operationselector
elements already provide the means.
really want to provide the options.

Eric Johnson: Mike E: What is the meaning of "SHOULD" here?

Eric Johnson: Simon H: Perhaps this is already covered by assembly?

Eric Johnson: Dave B: I think we should just strike the sentence.

Eric Johnson: Mike E: There's no "should" about this. This is something
that a runtime *can* do.

Eric Johnson: Simon H: Spirit of this - defaults are not sufficient -
all SCA runtimes should provide more than the default.

Eric Johnson: Mike E: Do we want to consider defining normatively
additional operationSelectors and wireformats?

Eric Johnson: Simon H: there is no other issue for defining additional ones?

Eric Johnson: Mike E: Do you think we need them? On the one hand, the
basic ones are insufficient, but on the other hand, saying perhaps we
don't define them. Somewhat in tension.

Eric Johnson: Simon H: We could define a few that cover some of the 80% case

Eric Johnson: Mike E: Concerned that we're absolutely going to need
them, but that every implementation is going to define their own.

Eric Johnson: ... just striking the sentence leaves something hanging.

Eric Johnson: Action: Simon H. to file an issue for the need to define
additional operationSelectors and wireformats.

Eric Johnson: Mike E: if we open the action, then striking the sentence
is fine.

Eric Johnson: Simon H: Section 5.2 has the same last paragraph, same
comments from above apply.

Eric Johnson: Simon H: Should I present this as changes to the spec itself?

Eric Johnson: Mike E: Email format is fine.

Eric Johnson: Dave B: Section 5.2 has the same sentence of concern.

Eric Johnson: Simon H: Right - these two sentences are restatements of
what's already there - what we mean here is to strike the last paragraph
from each of these two sections.

Eric Johnson: Mike E: Raise a motion to resolve issue 44 as proposed in
the email, with the change to strike the last paragraphs of section 5.1
& 5.2

Eric Johnson: Dave B: 2nds

Eric Johnson: No objections to unanimous consent. Motion passes, issue
resolve.

Eric Johnson: s/resolve/resolved/