Re: [ws-caf] Draft Minutes Confcall 21/6

["Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

I agree, but I did think that we'd reached a concensus on many/most of these
issues. I'll check back through the archive to make sure.

Mark.

----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect, Transactions,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.

www.arjuna.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>
To: "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>; "Mark Little"
<mark.little@arjuna.com>; <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 1:36 PM
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] Draft Minutes Confcall 21/6


> Eric, Mark,
>
> According to bugzilla, there are 14 ws-ctx issues that are still open. A
couple of these maybe misassigned or have obvious answers.
>
> Among the others are the need to specify, in sufficient clarity to expect
interoperable implementation, the use and purpose of
>    wsctx:mustUnderstand (134)
>    mustPropagate (131)
>    participating services (135)
>    child contexts (136, 138)
>    context type (132 - should it be mandatory)
>
> In other words, there are open questions on every component of the context
except the context-identifier and the context-manager/content-url choice.
And the discussion (mostly before the issues were called out as such) showed
that, although on some there is probably rough consensus, on others there
seemed to be significant differences of perception in what the fields
did/were for (discounting choreology views).
>
> I doubt if it is wise to close the issues list before there is a consensus
the purpose of most of the fields in the key construct of the specification.
>
> I have no objection to be voted down at a meeting, or decisions being
taken at meetings I wasn't able to be at. But technical questions need
technical answers if the spec is to sound.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com]
> Sent: Tue 22/06/2004 10:53
> To: Mark Little; Furniss, Peter; ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [ws-caf] Draft Minutes Confcall 21/6
>
>
>
> Peter,
>
> I think the current draft reflects the resolution of issues discussed and
voted on in telecons and face to face meetings, as mentioned during the call
yesterday.
>
> We are happy to recieve any new issues through July 2 and process them at
the face to face, again as agreed during yesterday's call.
>
> I do not wish, however, to entertain discussions on issues that have been
previously voted on and closed, or to discuss yet again issues that have
already been previously and thoroughly discussed.
>
> While I understand that eveyone isn't able to attend every meeting, and
that sometimes votes do not result in decisions to everyone's liking, it's
also very important that the results of each meeting are allowed to stand
and that we as a TC accept the results of official meetings and move on.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 5:18 AM
> To: Furniss, Peter; ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Draft Minutes Confcall 21/6
>
>
> Peter, apologies because I thought we'd discussed anything relevant to the
> 1.0 version of the specification.
>
> I'm also happy to have a telecon. on the 5th. In fact I thought we'd
agreed
> that yesterday?
>
> Mark.
>
> ----
> Mark Little,
> Chief Architect, Transactions,
> Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
>
> www.arjuna.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>
> To: <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 2:40 AM
> Subject: RE: [ws-caf] Draft Minutes Confcall 21/6
>
>
> > 1. There are a number of fairly significant issues outstanding on
> ws-context, for which there has been little discussion since the issues
were
> singled out (apart from some input from Alastair).  When are these going
to
> be discussed.
> >
> > 2.  Draft 0.3 is substantially different (and much better) but clearly
> (from these minutes), people haven't had time to digest it and its
> implications yet. If we are to produce a standard of quality, it doesn't
> seem to be a good move to set a closing date for issues less than 2 weeks
> from now. I strongly agree that standards need to be timely as well as
> correct (indeed, I have an aphorism that the date on a standard should be
> treated as a technical issue - a late 'perfect' standard is of lower
quality
> than a timely, reasonably good one), but on the other hand we shouldn't
let
> ourselves be enslaved by a timetable - which like all such, was very
> optomistic.
> >
> > 3. The habit of this group has been to have TC meetings even if the day
in
> question is a public holiday for several participants, but not for all.
:-).
> Is there a meeting on 5th July ?
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Guy Pardon [mailto:guy@atomikos.com]
> > Sent: Mon 6/21/2004 5:25 PM
> > To: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Cc:
> > Subject: [ws-caf] Draft Minutes Confcall 21/6
> >
> >
> > Below is the draft for the minutes. As soon as I get the roll call I
will
> insert that information...
> >
> > Guy
> >
> > WS-CAF Phone Conference, June 21, 2004
> >
> > 1. Roll call: no quorum at beginning of meeting (only later).
> >
> > 2. Assign scribe: volunteer Guy Pardon
> >
> > 3. ACTION: Implementation group:
> > -Planning tests this week or next one (interop tests between Oracle and
> Arjuna).
> > -A port number will be published so everyone interested can participate
in
> the tests.
> >
> > 4. General discussion:
> >
> > -Should next confcall proceed as normal? (July 5th is holiday in US).
The
> next F2F is July 12th and should close the CTX part with a demo.
> >
> > (Martin joins, so there is a quorum now)
> >
> > 5. Agenda review:
> >
> > -Minutes approval
> > -Review the specs and
> > -Discuss the logistics for F2F.
> > -Any more outstanding action items? No.
> >
> > 6. Minutes:
> >
> > -Outstanding minutes from previous meetings? Appears not to be the case.
> Can always be deferred if there are any.
> >
> > 8. Review of spec draft
> >
> > -Any comments on last draft 0.3?
> > -Guy: still didn't see any answers to the questions I posted (how is an
> active subcontext set to FAIL_ONLY)?
> > Mark: this and the termination status were removed in F2F in New
Orleans.
> > -Martin: Activity def seems to be more of an introductory topic than
> deserving its own chapter.
> > -Doug: agreed, because Activity is the first concept that needs to be
> introduced. It supports the notion of context.
> >
> > (Simeon joins meeting)
> > (Some discussion: there were people who couldn't get on the call. Were
> they using the right numbers? An email will be sent to the group.)
> >
> > -Tony: didn't get a chance to read the specs yet. We might come back to
> this later on the next call, since then also other people will be able to
> attend.
> > -Some background on the 0.3 draft motivation:
> > -try to resolve some issues from the F2F in New Orleans
> > -combined Activity and CTX service
> > -clarify whether there is one or more contexts per activity and so on
> > -Mark: the major change is ALS removal, pushing everything to the back.
> >
> > -Bryan Murray: Section 5: there is no indication of what the message
looks
> like. How does someone determine the right XML format?
> > The WSDL is also non-prescriptive on this. For instance, the begin
> message:
> > how can one determine this from the spec if the WSDL and Schema aren't
> normative?
> > Answer from Mark: the WSDL and schema are (should be) normative!
> >
> > -This spec should be closed at the F2F. Are there any things to settle
in
> between?
> > There should be a deadline for comments and issues. Is no later than
July
> 2nd OK?
> > (No objections.)
> >
> > 9. Next confcall
> > -Do we need the next confcall on the 5th? It wouldn't harm to summarize
> during that confcall, so let's keep it.
> >
> > 10. Anything about the F2F plans or logistics?
> >
> > -Martin: I will post logistic info.
> > -The first 2 days are in the conference center (12,13) and the 14th is
in
> one of the meeting rooms.
> > -The agenda will be worked out in more detail by the end of the week.
> > -Major goals are closing the spec and doing the interop demo.
> > -Another major item: getting started on the next spec.
> > -ACTION point for everyone: read the next (CF) spec draft so we can
start
> that discussion on the F2F!
> > -Another point is to review the timetable for the rest of this TC work.
> >
> > (Simeon: is it Alex who is going to publish an end-point? No, Malik.)
> >
> > Any other things to discuss?
> >
> > No. Meeting adjourned. Next call is on the 5th.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>