Minutes confcall August 30

[Guy Pardon <guy@atomikos.com>]

Dear all,

Included below is the draft of the minutes for today's confcall.
Please review your own comment(s) and send me any corrections if needed.

Best,
Guy


OASIS Confcall August 30, 2004
Minutes taken by Guy Pardon

1. Agenda Review

Remark by Martin: IPR is not on the agenda, we can talk about that later in this meeting.

2. Roll Call

-Quorum was reached during the second half of the confcall only.

3. Approval Minutes of August, 2

-Any comments on these minutes? No.
-Tony: motion to adopt. Seconded by Bryan. No objections.

4. Review of Issue 141

-Mark: wanted to produce and update to the document that Peter can look at. 
Changes have been made on Mark's local version but there are still concurrent versions around. 
Mark will send the changes to the other editors for minimizing merge issues.

ACTION POINT: merge changes to draft and include 141 clarification.

-Mark: pass by value and by reference has been clarified to state what information/behavior is optional and mandatory in each case.

5. Review 0.5 draft of CTX

-Martin: not many comments were sent in. Most of them are for the editors.

-Remark: consistency with other TCs for service reference work. We should probably adopt what has been done by the WS-RM group.
Would this replace the current examples for message delivery? No: we just take the namespace and structure from WS-RM and we don't really have to change anything. The idea is to use one definition across multiple TCs.
Greg: motion to adopt. Seconded by Jeff. No objections. 
ACTION POINT: adopt WS-RM scheme for service references.

-Martin: the editorial section 2 still doesn't mention the context manager.

-Bryan: some statements imply that you can generate another binding while others imply that you can't. That needs to be fixed in the text. Martin agrees that it is a bit vague. Are the editors happy with that? Yes.

ACTION POINT: clarify bindings.

-Figure 2 is not so great: are there possible ways of rewording it?
Martin: should we say which fault is generated or do we leave that open? This is purely editorial, so should be no major problem.

ACTION POINT: clarify which fault is generated.

-What does it mean to "dereference a service-ref-type"? Answer: depends on the particular binding type used. Martin: maybe we can add this to the referencing part, just to clarify what dereferencing is supposed to mean? Agreement.

ACTION POINT: clarify dereferencing in addressing section.

ACTION POINT: Editors agree that a ref scheme must agree how to pass addresses in messages.

ACTION POINT: Security and CTX
There is an open issue assigned to Martin.
Martin will chase up the response from the security experts.

-Bryan: where is StatusType defined? This was changed to a String qualified by its namespace. The semantics will be defined by the referencing specs.
Essentially, the namespace will be identifying the referencing spec. This should be clarified in the text.

ACTION POINT: clarify the StatusType and its namespace correlation with referencing specs.

-Tony: a conformance section should be added (cf Tony's comments in the mailing list). 
In particular: how can you prove or disprove that someone has implemented the CTX spec? 
There seems to be some disagreement in the group about the usefulness of this.
Martin proposes a compromise: extract requirements in a separate section. The editors are concerned about maintenance if things get replicated in different sections.

ACTION POINT: concentrate exact requirements in a separate section.

6. Moving Context to CD

We aren't ready for this stage yet: security, conformance and issue 141 are still to be resolved. We need a new draft and hopefully we can CD that one.

Question to the editors: what time frame? 
Is Friday OK? Eric proposes to send a mail to the list with confirmation of the date(s).

7. Any other business? 

-IPR: we need to talk about the transition rules in this TC. 
This will be discussed in the next meeting.