OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-caf message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: ws-caf draft minutes


Title: Message
the draft minutes from today's meeting
 
 
 
Draft Minutes  OASIS WS-CAF conf call meeting,  13 September 2004
 

1. Agenda - the IPR issue had not been included, will be taken at the
   next meeting
  
  
2. Roll Call
 
 Attendees: ( Martin has the definitive record)
 
Mark Little
Malik Saheb
Joseph Chiusano
Tony Fletcher
Peter Furniss
Bob Haugen
Krishna Cheemalamarri
Bryan Murray
John Fuller
Eric Newcomer
Martin Chapman
Jeff Mischkinsky
Greg Pavlik
Pete Wenzel
Doug Bunting
Simeon Greene
 

3.  Approve minutes of 30th August
 Proposed: Mark Little, Scnd: Greg
 No comments or objections
 Approved
 
 
4.  Conformance section for WS-CONTEXT
 
 Greg's text (http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-caf/200409/msg00013.html)
    was intended as compromise between the more and less wishes of various people
 Location would be at the end of the document
 
 Tony: Would like something, so Greg's text is good. But, proposed text doesn't clearly
 bring out what conformance can be claimed for. Some specs there's only one thing - in this
 case there are several - documents, services, specs. There are likely to be different
 requirements on each, and whole of spec won't necessarily apply to each kind of
 thing that implements/uses/references WS-Context.
 
 Tony suggests that these be called out as subsections. (In answer to clarification: as
 sub-headings within a conformance section).  cf Tony's original proposal, and recent email.
 
 ?: isn't all this implied.
 Eric: we'ed look to XML processing specs, rather than include our own.
 
 Formality:
 Proposed: that Greg's text be included in the text, at a location to be determined
 by editors
   proposed: Jeff; seconded: Mark
 
  
    Jeff: what is the "context-service-user"
    Tony: It's defined in the spec. - (location to be sought :-)
   
    Tony: Proposes friendly amendment,
     add sub-heads that identify the things that can conform, as in
     http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-caf/200409/msg00073.html
     
    Martin: the sub-headings in that email don't quite correspond to the Greg's
    paragraph
   
    Tony: yes, we would need to a bit of merging work.
   
    Peter: Phrase as:
     that each paragraph have a sub-head that identifies the kind of artifact that
     is constrained by the conformance requirements of that paragraph.
     
      proposed as amendment: Peter, scnded Tony
     
    Doug: (comment on para 4, deferred till after amendment)
   
    Eric: clarifying - that this amendment would be editorial, not changing the
    actual requirements, but calling out what they applied to.
   
    Jeff: For some paragraphs (e.g. 4) it is fairly clear what they apply to (a context mgr), for others (e.g. para 3)
    it is less clear what the artifact would be.
   
    Greg: it would be the context structure in a message as exchanged, would have to
    a semantically useful, derefenceable reference
   
    Jeff: If I'm selling something, and want to claim it is conformant, so what
    is constrained. Tony has a point, it isn't quite clear what is constrained.
   
    Martin: it's saying the reference scheme must be valid
   
    ..
     Greg: is para 3 redundant and should be deleted ?
   
    ..
   
    Peter: isn't para 3 describing "correct" use, rather than conformant - a conformant
    implementation can be (mis-) used to send rubbish
   
    Martin went through the paragraphs - all but para 3 seem clear.
   
    Eric: question: is this an editorial or substantive question
   
    Jeff: when we agree, it's editorial, when not, substance.
   
    Martin: we need to get clarity, closing the spec up.
   
    Any objections to the amendment
   
    Eric: object, it adds unnecessary complexity
   
    Voice vote:  6 for, 6 against, 2 abstain
     tie - amendment fails by robert's rules
   
    Doug: in the light of the discussion, proposes deleting para 3
    2nded: Eric
   
    Jeff: what was the intent ? the words don't quite capture it - what would we lose
    by deletion
   
    Greg: intent was to disallow meaningless garbage, but perhaps that's not quite
    a conformance claim.  Have to use identifiable addressing schemes (long discussion
    on this in section 2)
   
    This is generally covered in section 2
   
    Martin: any objections:  none,
     amendment passes
    
    Doug: on (original) para 4: what exactly is a protocol in "systems and protocols" -
    should that be "systems and referencing specification".
   
    anyone can do anything with the pass-by-reference must implement the ctx mgr, which is
    too strong
   
    Jeff: but a ref spec isn't an implementation
   
    Tony: in another forum, they distinguished implementations conforming and specifications
    complying
   
    Peter: that was a bit silly really
   
    Doug: questions his own amendment !
      clarifies : delete  "and protocols" from para 4
      Jeff: seconds
   
    Doug: that paragraph now says pass-by-reference use means must implement
    the context mgr, but really it only needs to support either offering the
    service or interacting with it.
   
    Martin: only the thing passing out the context needs to implement the mgr service
   
    Doug: wishes to clarify the distinction between implementations that must
    implement and those that just use
    Proposes text to that effect, Peter seconds
   
    Peter: the text would appear to say any system using pass-by-ref must offer the Ctx mgr
    service, though it clearly doesn't need to
   
    general disagreement that it could be so interpreted
   
   
    Voice vote: 6 for , 8 against, 1 abstain
       amendment fails
      
    The main motion was taken, as amended (once) -
   
       Passed, no objections
      
      
5.   Security considerations for WS-Context
 
     Greg had proposed text
     http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-caf/200409/msg00014.html
     with assistance from some of their security people
    
     Email discussion had gone round but not produced changes
    
     Greg moves that this text be inserted
    
     this would add an element to the context structure
    
     No objections
    
     Proposal adopted
    
6. Moving Context to CD
    
  we have agreed two modifications to the spec.
 
  Martin: proposes that we trust the editors to apply these and produce a document for
  for Committee Draft ballot. 
 
  Editors confirmed they will time to work on this during the week
 
               Action EDITORS
 
  Once the document is ready, Martin will open a 10 day ballot on Kavi to approve
  it as Committee Draft.
               Action MARTIN
 
 
7. Next meetings
 
  Next phone meeting (27 September) will discuss the IPR issue
 
  Coordination Framework will be the main subject at the face-to-face
  in Dublin, 5th and 6th October
 
  Eric will send out logistic information for Dublin
               Action ERIC
               
  Martin will set up a registration page for Dublin on Kavi    
               Action MARTIN
               
              
 
 
 
 
 
Peter
 
------------------------------------------
Peter Furniss
Chief Scientist, Choreology Ltd
web: http://www.choreology.com
email: peter.furniss@choreology.com
phone: +44 870 739 0066
mobile: +44 7951 536168
 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]