Raw Chat minutes of SCA-Bindings Teleconference
May 07, 2009
1. Opening
Introductions
Roll call
<simon H to add>
Scribe assignment
Tom Rutt acted as scribe
Agenda bashing
2. Approval of the minutes from 5th May
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32410/SCA%20Bindings%20minutes%202009-05-05.doc
3. Actions
20090211-4 [General] Write up HTTP binding use cases
20090311-2 [Editors] Update specs for new assembly namespace
20090312-1 [Editors] Update schemas in specs as per http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200903/msg00057.html
20090430-1 [David Booz] Submit updated proposal for issue BINDINGS-72
20090505-1 [Simon Nash] Submit updated proposal for issue BINDINGS-23
20090505-2 [Eric Johnson] Submit updated proposal for issue BINDINGS-54
20090505-3 [Anish Karmarkar] Submit updated proposal for issue BINDINGS-2 which addresses optional conformance
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. Open Issue Summary/Schedule
Discuss ownership/deferral of issues.
Current schedule:
Must have issues resolved by April 16th
Public review draft available for TC comments April 23rd
Public review draft vote April 30th
Test assertions complete one month beyond PRD, test cases one month after that.
Issues with proposed resolutions: 5
Issues with identified owner, no resolution: 0
Issues with no identified owner: 0
Survey outlook for issues with no proposed resolution (marked with * in this list)
Eric Johnson: 54 (pri 1)
Simon Nash: 23 (pri 1)
Anish Karmarkar: 2 (pri 2)
David Booz: 72* (pri 2)
Simon Holdsworth: 48 (pri 3)
6. Conformance statement numbering
Discuss/agree on the updates to the specs for issues 62, 63.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32159/sca-binding-jms-1.1-spec-cd02-issue62-rev2.doc
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31989/sca-binding-jca-1.1-spec-cd02-issue63.doc
7. Open Issue Discussion
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-23
@wsdlElement definition needs clarification on "equivalent" and use of WSDL 2.0 constructs
Raiser: Eric Johnson, owner: Simon Nash
Priority: 1
Status: Latest proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200905/msg00008.html
Latest email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200905/msg00015.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-54
Endpoint URI algorithm is unclear
Raiser: Eric Johnson, owner: Eric Johnson
Priority: 1
Status: Latest proposal #6 http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200905/msg00014.html
Latest email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200905/msg00027.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-2
How should SCA callback semantics be carried over Web Services?
Raiser: Simon Nash, owner: Anish Karmarkar
Priority: 2
Status: Latest proposal http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200905/msg00019.html
Latest email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200905/msg00026.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-48
How are mayProvide intents on bindings satisfied
Raiser: Ashok Malhotra, owner: Simon Holdsworth
Priority: 3
Status: Proposed resolution: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200903/msg00005.html
Latest email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200903/msg00059.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-72
The qualifiers of the SOAP intent (1_1 and 1_2) should be defined to be mutually exclusive
Raiser: David Booz, owner: David Booz
Priority: TBC
Status: Awaiting updated proposed resolution
7. AOB
2. Approval of the minutes from 5th May
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32410/SCA%20Bindings%20minutes%202009-05-05.doc
No objection to approval of 5 may minutes
3. Review of Action items
1 - 3 no progress
20090211-4 [General] Write up HTTP binding use cases
20090311-2 [Editors] Update specs for new assembly namespace
20090312-1 [Editors] Update schemas in specs as per http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200903/msg00057.html
4 - still pending
20090430-1 [David Booz] Submit updated proposal for issue BINDINGS-72
last 3 are complete
20090505-1 [Simon Nash] Submit updated proposal for issue BINDINGS-23
20090505-2 [Eric Johnson] Submit updated proposal for issue BINDINGS-54
20090505-3 [Anish Karmarkar] Submit updated proposal for issue BINDINGS-2 which addresses optional conformance
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. Open Issue Summary/Schedule
Current schedule:
Must have issues resolved by April 16th
Public review draft available for TC comments April 23rd
Public review draft vote April 30th
Test assertions complete one month beyond PRD, test cases one month after that.
Issues with proposed resolutions: 5
Issues with identified owner, no resolution: 0
Issues with no identified owner: 0
Survey outlook for issues with no proposed resolution (marked with * in this list)
Eric Johnson: 54 (pri 1)
Simon Nash: 23 (pri 1)
Anish Karmarkar: 2 (pri 2)
David Booz: 72* (pri 2)
Simon Holdsworth: 48 (pri 3)
6. Conformance statement numbering
Discuss/agree on the updates to the specs for issues 62, 63.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32159/sca-binding-jms-1.1-spec-cd02-issue62-rev2.doc
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31989/sca-binding-jca-1.1-spec-cd02-issue63.doc
Simon H: lets look at the posted docs to agree to progress them.
Mike Edwards Moved we accept jms cd02 issue 62 rev2 doc as basis
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32159/sca-binding-jms-1.1-spec-cd02-issue62-rev2.doc
as cd02 rev 1
seconded by Bryan
No objections, approved unanimously. Referenced Doc accepted as CD02 Rev 1
7. Open Issue Discussion
Topic: Bindings 23:
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-23
@wsdlElement definition needs clarification on "equivalent" and use of WSDL 2.0 constructs
Raiser: Eric Johnson, owner: Simon Nash
Priority: 1
Status: Latest proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200905/msg00008.html
Latest email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200905/msg00015.html
Simon N reviewed the latest proposal.
Discussion of Item 1) of proposal:
Agreed to change change "or raise an error if the.." to
"or raise an error if it does not support the
configurations of all the available ports"
discussion on multiplicity:
anish: how about "The set of available ports represents a single SCA reference binding with respect to SCA reference multiplicity."
anish: OR "The set of available ports represents a single SCA reference binding with respect to the multiplicity of the SCA reference."
anish: OR "The set of available ports MUST represent a single SCA reference binding with respect to the multiplicity of the SCA reference."
anish: "The set of available ports MUST represent a single SCA reference binding with respect to the multiplicity of that SCA reference."
Concerns were expressed the use of MUST here.
anish: "The set of available ports represent a single SCA reference binding with respect to the multiplicity of that SCA reference."
Simon N agreed to the latest Anish proposed change above
Simon H: also need to clarify that “SCA runtime MUST use exactly one”
Agreed to Simon H proposed change.
Discussion of item 2) in proposal
Mike: change "and the port MUST be able to satisfy" to "and the port MUST satisfy"
Agreed to Mike proposed change above.
Anish: The target is the composite file
Anish: Wsdl is pointed by the composite file
Anish: composite file could point at the wrong wsdl
Simon H: can we say "specified WSDL port" Second time can say "WSDL port"
Agreed to use "Specified WSDL port"
In second para change: "MUST be able to satisfy" to "MUST satisfy"
Item 3) of proposal:
No changes requested
Item 4)
Simon N: no need to discuss, same as what is found in assembly spec
Mike E: the resolve issue in assembly provides the appropriate text, and later we can remove this 2.1 and point at assembly instead
Simon N: I have what I need to produce a final voteable version of this proposal
Topic: bindings 54
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-54
Endpoint URI algorithm is unclear
Raiser: Eric Johnson, owner: Eric Johnson
Priority: 1
Status: Latest proposal #6 http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200905/msg00014.html
Latest email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200905/msg00027.html
Eric presented his propoal 6:
Eric: Any URI for binding element is suggestion for runtime Do mandates solve problems or cause problems
Simon N: at the least we need to be clear if you have sca doc which URI we should use
Simon N: the algorithm we have states that the URI takes precident
Anish: why not make it an error to specify both a @uri and and an epr?
Simon N: this might make a positive improvement
Eric: you can point to a port, an epr, or an @uri
Eric: do we say how runtime should use that @uri?
Eric: this is not testable
Anish: are we helping portability or helping implementers? what are we trying to achieve here
Eric: I do not see a use case to specify what should be done with this uri
Simon N: some runtimes whould use the uri or one that is very similar. For those run times, rules for combinations of sca docs contributing to uri's, the algorithm would say "these docs produce the following uri" which it can use or ignore
Simon N: there is a difference in rules for uri for service and uri for binding
Eric: rather than a mandatory algorithm, we can put in an algorithm which could be used
Simon N: I suppose we can keep this as a non normative algorithm, however I need to see the words before I decide.
Eric: I can now take another run at this based on this discusson.
Meeting adjourned at the end of the hour.
The meeting adjourned at the end of the hour.