[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: April 27 2005 Minutes
April 27 2005 Roll call to be inserted, quorate. Welcome and Introductions Agenda Review General Issues MustUnderstand (241, 244, 246) 241: resolved in last meeting April 11. Editorial action to roll in 241. 244: motion by Greg Pavlik to replace text with details of context specific fault codes indicating invalid context. Jeff Mischkinsky seconds. 246: Greg Pavlik makes motion to adopt revised, circulated proposal for support of SOAP MUs. (This requires referencing specifications to provide a derived context type.) Jeff Mischkinsky seconds. "There is currently a problem with respect to Must Understand semantics (MUS) in WS-CAF: the context type is a neutral type that can be used to represent an activity of a single protocol domain. For example, a Context may include a URI indicating the activity is an atomic transaction type. At the same time, the specifications want to preserve MUS associated with SOAP processing rules. These rules are associated specifically with the outermost XML element type in the SOAP headers, not data elements within the enclosing header element. This proposal seeks to resolve this problem with the following recommendations: 1) To preserve compatibility with the SOAP processing model, protocols should subtype the base context type with a derived type specific to the protocol domain. For example, an atomic transaction protocol would define an atomic transaction context type that would be useable in the context of the SOAP processing rules. 2) The type element in the base context type becomes redundant to the information encoded in the enclosing context element based on this proposal. However, many protocols have "subprotocols": for example, many TP monitors support two phase commit and synchronization capabilities. To eliminate the redundancy and to support subprotocols, zero or more subtype elements may be included in the context structure. The values of the subtype URIs and their semantics are defined by referencing specifications. Subprotocols are of interest in establishing relationships between services. This is properly the domain of WS-Coordination Framework. The RegistrationContext should provide infrastructure/syntax to support lists of subprotocol zero or more URIs in RegistrationContexts. It should also allow services to pass lists of zero or more subprotocols to a service when registering for membership in an activity group; group members so registered will receive subsequent signals specific to the subprotocol set for which it has registered interest. A registration message without subprotocols included is assumed to represent the complete set of subprotocols." Addressing (issue 225): we have already said to leave open and revisit at CR stage. General discussion ensued. Reached clear consensus and agreement that we will use WS-Addressing as soon as the WG produces a CR. Fault Model (issue 249): Vigorous discussion ensued. Consensus that BaseFaults would be better than current proposal, but the group wants to align with the SOAP and WS-Addressing models if possible. Greg Pavlik makes motion: remove all Fault operations and messages. Each fault is rewritten according to this template: 1) Name of fault. This should be a Qname. 2) Text explanation of fault 3) Reason field: string 4) Detail field: schema backed XML 3) Mapping to SOAP faults. For SOAP 1.1, QName maps to fault code, reason maps to fault string; detail is elided. for SOAP 1.2 QName maps to subcode. reason maps to reason detail maps to detail. Simeon Greene seconds. Editors should update spec to make this model clear. Context issues Issue 234: Greg Pavlik makes motion to close no action. Jeff Mischkinsky seconds. Issue 235: Greg Pavlik makes motion to change text to indicate figure 2 shows an example. Simeon Greene seconds. Issue 236: Greg Pavlik makes motion to add any##other attribute to ContextType. Simeon Greene seconds the motion. Issue 238: Greg Pavlik motion, close not action. Mark Little seconds. Issue 251: AI to Mark Little. Coordination Framework Issues Issue 165. Mark Little motions to close no action. Greg Pavlik seconds. Rationale: several opportunities for diagram to be provided. Issue 187: purely editorial AI for Tony Fletcher. Issue 181: Mark Little, closed not action (already done). Seconded by Greg Pavlik Issue 192: Motion by Mark Little to close as fixed. Seconded by Greg Pavlik Issue 201: Greg Pavlik motion to close as fixed. Second by Mark Little. Issue 208: Conformance statement. Editorial AI to Mark Little. Issue 211: Closed as fixed by previous bugs that fixed fault model. Issue 215: open, not a CF issue per se. Issue 216: same as 187. Closed as duplicate. Issue 217: add message sequencing specification. Mark Little, motion to close no action (replaced by tables). Greg Pavlik seconds. Issue 233: Mark took editorial action item. Agenda for tomorrow: review comments for CF draft; kick start transaction work; planning.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]