[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: SCA Bindings TC - raw chat log of minutes from 2009-10-08
Simon Holdsworth: Audio conference: Meeting Number: * 913929 * (press * before and after the digits) Phone numbers: Austria = Vienna 026822056419 Belgium = Brussels 022901709 China = Beijing 01052237296 Czech Republic = Prague 239014054 Denmark = Copenhagen 32714982 France = Lyon 0426840196 Marseille 0488915310 Paris 0170994364 France TollFree = 0800944795 Germany = Berlin 030726167296 Dusseldorf 021154073845 Frankfurt 069710445413 Hamburg 040809020620 Munich 089244432767 Stuttgart 0711490813212 Germany TollFree = 08006646304 India = Mumbai 02261501417 Ireland = Dublin 014367612 Italy = Milan 0230413007 Rome 06452108288 Turin 01121792100 Japan = Tokyo 0357675037 Netherlands = Amsterdam 0207965349 Poland Toll-free = 008001213648 Portugal Toll Free = 800782079 Russia = Moscow 84999222481 Russia Toll Free = 81080022074011 South Africa Toll-free = 0800982617 Spain = Barcelona 934923140 Madrid 917889793 Sweden = Stockholm 0850520404 Switzerland = Geneva 0225927186 UAE Toll-free = 8000440387 UK = Birmingham 01212604587 London 02071542988 Manchester 01612500379 UK Toll Free = 08003581667 USA = 19543344789 USA & Canada Toll Free = 18665289390
Simon Holdsworth: 1. Opening Introductions Roll call Scribe assignment Top of the scribe list: Plamen Pavlov SAP AG Simon Nash Individual Piotr Przybylski IBM Tom Rutt Fujitsu Limited Eric Johnson TIBCO Software Inc. Ashok Malhotra Oracle Corporation (LOA) Martin Chapman Oracle Corporation (LOA) David Booz IBM Khanderao Kand Oracle Corporation (LOA) Bryan Aupperle IBM Agenda bashing 2. Approval of the minutes from 1st October http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34536/SCA%20Bindings%20minutes%202009-10-01.doc 3. Actions 20090211-4 [General] Write up HTTP binding use cases 20090709-2 [Editors] Update the schema appendix title to include 1.1 20090820-2 [Simon Holdsworth] Look at the templating mechanism with respect to policy. 20090827-1 [Anish Karmarkar] Complete WS TA document, target 24/09/09 20091001-1 [Simon Holdsworth] Respond to comments on JMS TA document 20091001-2 [Bryan Aupperle] Ping Piotr and get him to respond to comments on proposals for issue BINDINGS-88 and BINDINGS-89 4. New Issues No new issues 5. Public review Completes 7th October. Email regarding one comment: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200910/msg00011.html Other comment received: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings-comment/200910/msg00001.html Reaction to TC's response to Microsoft technical comment: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings-comment/200910/msg00002.html 6. Test Assertions/Test cases Current status: Web Service binding TA document: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34571/sca-wsbinding-1.1-test-assertions-wd02.odt http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34572/sca-wsbinding-1.1-test-assertions-wd02.pdf Status: Draft completed; needs review JMS TA document: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34393/sca-jmsbinding-1.1-test-assertions-wd02.doc http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34394/sca-jmsbinding-1.1-test-assertions-wd02.pdf Comment: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200907/msg00093.html Status: Simon needs to respond to comments, raise issues, latest draft needs review. JCA TA document: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34114/sca-jcabinding-1.1-test-assertions-wd03.doc http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34115/sca-jcabinding-1.1-test-assertions-wd03.pdf Comment: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200909/msg00011.html Status: initial draft submitted; needs to be reviewed 7. Open issue discussion Seven open issues, one deferred: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-88 JCA Missing Normative statements re: connection/@name andactivationSpec/@name Raiser: Bryan Aupperle, owner: Unassigned Priority: Unassigned Status: proposed resolution in issue Latest email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200910/msg00002.html http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-89 BJC20008 and BJC20014 are unclear Raiser: Bryan Aupperle, owner: Unassigned Priority: Unassigned Status: proposed resolution in issue Latest email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200910/msg00003.html http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-93 BJM60006 too vague and conflicts with other statements Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Simon Holdsworth Priority: Unassigned Status: Proposed resolution in JIRA Latest email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200910/msg00000.html http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-94 scaCallbackDestination destination name unclear Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Simon Holdsworth Priority: Unassigned Status: Proposed resolution in JIRA http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-95 BJM30032 and BJM30035 conflict Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Simon Holdsworth Priority: Unassigned Status: Proposed resolution in JIRA http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-96 BJM60012 and BJM60013 conflict Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Simon Holdsworth Priority: Unassigned Status: Proposed resolution in JIRA http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-97 confusing statement on correlation ID in the context of callbacks with JMS binding Raiser: Public review comment, owner: Simon Holdsworth Priority: Unassigned Status: No proposed resolution http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-60 JMS Default wire format insufficient to cover real world usage Raiser: Mike Edwards, owner: Simon Holdsworth Priority: 3 (deferred) Status: outline proposal in issue 8. AOB ------------------------------------------------------------------- *Revolving list of scribes* Plamen Pavlov SAP AG Simon Nash Individual Piotr Przybylski IBM Tom Rutt Fujitsu Limited Eric Johnson TIBCO Software Inc. Ashok Malhotra Oracle Corporation Martin Chapman Oracle Corporation David Booz IBM Khanderao Kand Oracle Corporation Bryan Aupperle IBM Anish Karmarkar Oracle Corporation
Eric Johnson: Scribe: Eric
Eric Johnson: Topic: Agenda review
Dave Booz is back
Eric Johnson: (No comments on agenda)
Eric Johnson: Topic: Approval of the minutes from the last meeting.
Eric Johnson: No objections to approving the minutes - minutes approved.
Eric Johnson: Topic: Action items
Eric Johnson: 20090827-1 - Anish completed this.
Eric Johnson: Topic: New issues
Eric Johnson: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-99 - public review comment
Eric Johnson: Simon: Approach I thought we should take is to open an issue for the entire set of comments, and then figure out how to dispose of the individual items, and go back to the commenter with those decisions.
Eric Johnson: Bryan moves to open issue 99, Dave B. 2nds.
Eric Johnson: (no discussion, no objections to unanimous consent). Issue opened.
Eric Johnson: Topic: Public review
Eric Johnson: Simon: Microsoft sent a response, what do we do?
Eric Johnson: Dave: This happened in assembly.
Eric Johnson: Simon: In terms of process, it is effectively another public review comment. Eric - will you raise another issue?
Eric Johnson: Action: Eric to raise a new issue about Microsoft's response.
Eric Johnson: Action: Eric to raise issue about Simon H's posting to public comment mailing list.
Eric Johnson: Dave: Have feedback on what Assembly did based on a conversation around public review comments. See Assembly 132. Assembly reopened the issue, and is still in the open state.
Eric Johnson: Simon H: That sounds like a reasonable approach.
Eric Johnson: Bryan: We cannot reopen the issue today - requires a 2/3rds majority.
Eric Johnson: Eric: Should we send an initial response indicating we're looking at reopening -
Eric Johnson: Simon: No: Action - Simon to make sure reopening the Microsoft comment related issue is on the agenda.
Eric Johnson: Subtopic: reviewing comment from Patrick Durusau
Eric Johnson: #1 - Action: Editors to review and determine appropriate response.
Eric Johnson: Simon H: Probably relevant across the bindings
Eric Johnson: #2 - Action: Editors to clarify text
Bryan Aupperle: FYI, the Assembly spec uses 2005, 2009 for the copyright dates. I recall that Mike E. checked this with lawyers before the Assembly spec went to public review.
Eric Johnson: #3 - Action: Editors to revise text to reword or remove as appropriate.
Eric Johnson: #4 - Simon: really a general comment about terms that are defined in the assembly and policy spec. What do we do in Policy
Eric Johnson: Dave: In Policy, we assume that you read the assembly spec before you open up the policy spec, and only refer back for subtle technical points.
Eric Johnson: Eric: Suggest an issue rather than a discussion.
Eric Johnson: Action: Eric to enter an issue for #4.
Eric Johnson: #5:
Eric Johnson: Bryan: We had a comment like this against the C++ spec. Snippets, tables, figures, have been labeled, and can be referenced by caption.
Mike Edwards: I just got dropped
Mike Edwards: from the call - redialling
Eric Johnson: ... partially did a "scrub" on uses of "following", "latter". Editorial, but it does enable references from further away in the doc.
Mike Edwards: back now
Eric Johnson: Action: Editors to caption all examples, figures, snippets, etc., scrub text of use of former, latter, above, below, following. Replace with precise references.
anish my flt is delayed, so will be on the call for a bit
Eric Johnson: #6
Eric Johnson: (Additional role check, Mike, Anish, Plamen on the call - now 100% of voting members present)
Eric Johnson: Simon: Would like to go back to the Microsoft response to our public review comment. Would like to reopen issue.
Eric Johnson: Dave: Issue 87
Eric Johnson: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-87
Eric Johnson: Dave moves to reopen 87, Eric 2nds.
Eric Johnson: Action: Eric to append text to existing issue description.
Eric Johnson: No objections to reopening, motion passed, issue reopened.
Eric Johnson: Back to #6:
Eric Johnson: Action: Editors to clean up the text with regards to this item.
Eric Johnson: #7
Eric Johnson: Bryan: He is objecting to having a section with paragraphs before the first sub-section.
Eric Johnson: Dave: This seems unreasonable.
Eric Johnson: TC decision - no action.
Eric Johnson: #8
Eric Johnson: Action: Editors to look at whether the section is relevant still, or needs to be populated.
Eric Johnson: #9:
Eric Johnson: Eric: Sounds like an issue to me.
Eric Johnson: Simon: Suggestion reads as if it is formalizing what is there. Why would we want to lose the examples?
Eric Johnson: Bryan: Mr. Durusau has raised some of the same issues against the C++ spec.
Eric Johnson: Mike: So these are unwritten laws....
Eric Johnson: Bryan: At least in his opinion.
Eric Johnson: Action: Editors to clean up naming conventions section.
Mike Edwards: using "shall" seems over the top
Eric Johnson: #10
Mike Edwards: since who is the target of these conventions??
Eric Johnson: Simon: Looks like cleanup, editorial.
Eric Johnson: Mike: The current wording makes it clear that this is conditional.
Eric Johnson: ... don't agree with his comment that it is timid.
Eric Johnson: Bryan: Current wording is implying optionality that Patrick's wording does not.
Eric Johnson: Mike: Could use optional wording that uses "can".
Eric Johnson: Bryan: Not much better than what we have.
Eric Johnson: ... Bindings @uri attribute, if present, specifies an endpoint.
Eric Johnson: Simon: That sounds more definite.
Eric Johnson: Action: Editors to look for cleanup along the lines of the discussion above.
Eric Johnson: #11
Eric Johnson: Action: Editors to do something to clarify this.
Eric Johnson: #12:
Eric Johnson: Bryan: I observe that we have an incorrect "should" in the text.
Eric Johnson: Simon: Well spotted.
Eric Johnson: Action: Eric to raise an issue for #12
Eric Johnson: #13
Eric Johnson: Simon: If we go by the precedence of the web services binding, we wouldn't say anything. Do we need to say that we don't provide them?
Eric Johnson: Dave: Like the fact that it isn't there, and highlights it.
Eric Johnson: Bryan: Makes it clear that we're not doing anything.
Eric Johnson: Mike: If you read the assembly spec, you would have an expectation that it would show up in the binding spec, so mentioning it is a good thing.
Eric Johnson: Simon: Consensus that the section should stay?
Eric Johnson: Bryan: I think so. Should respond back that the Assembly spec provides for this, so it deserves a mention.
Eric Johnson: Dave: For what it is worth. EJB spec went back through and added a section on things that aren't supported.
Eric Johnson: Simon: Conclusion - no action, response as worded in chatroom
Eric Johnson: #14:
Eric Johnson: Dave: I strongly dislike specs with no examples.
Eric Johnson: Simon: Examples could be improved via one of the previous comments.
Eric Johnson: Dave: We could consider putting these in a non-normative appendix section.
Eric Johnson: Mike: Driven nuts by pure definition text. Examples are good.
Eric Johnson: Simon: We don't intend to do anything about removing them. Will clean up references to them as per previous point.
Eric Johnson: #15:
Eric Johnson: Same as #14
Eric Johnson: #16:
Eric Johnson: Should there be something in each appendix indicating whether it is normative?
Eric Johnson: (oops that was Simon)
Eric Johnson: Mike: We haven't done that for other specs.
Mike Edwards: Appendix G. Committee Members (Non-Normative)
Eric Johnson: (from the BPEL spec)
Eric Johnson: Simon: We've run out of time.
Eric Johnson: Meeting adjourned. Next meeting same time next week.