[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes for Sept 14th RX Impl call
|
1) Roll call Matt L Doug D Jacques D Paul F Marc G Ondrej H 2) Assignment on minute taker Marc volunteered 3) Agenda Accepted 4) Action items None 5) Interop planning Not discussed. Here is last agreed schedule. 6) Interop scenarios Phase 1 change from Jacques http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx-implement/200609/msg00009.html
Adopted with unanimous consent Marc will get updated doc tomorrow Walk through of new scenarios http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx-implement/200609/msg00011.html
Discussion of 3.1 Request-Reply, Non-Addressable Client Discussion of rmi:useHTTPResponse In step 3 rmi:useHTTPResponse
should be false at least once rather than all the time Applies to 3.2 as well Should send ack for response seq with final marker on
response in step 7 Paul notes that this was discussed as a viable option in
the TC Allow the offered inbound seq to expire rather than
terminate If you want to validate this works, if you optionally
sent the inbound seq ack with final, when the client makes a new connection it
should get an unknown seq fault Will move this discussion to the mailing list It would be helpful to tag the sequences in the scenarios
as outbound/inbound (applies to this scenario and 3.2) Who will implement this scenario? IBM, Microsoft, WSO2 Discussion of 3.2 Request-Reply, Non-Addressable Client,
No Offer Similar to 3.1, uses RM anon URI instead of seq id Able to poll for CSR New bullet on step 5, first message back from server will
be a CS because there is no Offer Should there be a variant with Offer as well? That is a valid scenario, in the interest of time another
variant does not seem to be a good idea. As the client knows the response needs to be sent
reliably why would the client not send an Offer? If client has not looked at policy and the response is
optionally reliable it may be up to the server. Who will implement this scenario? IBM Discussion of 4.1 One-way, Non-Addressable Client, WS-SC Why is the policy assertion for the STR called out? It’s a should, the header should suffice if policy
isn’t used. Who will implement this scenario? IBM, Microsoft, WSO2 Discussion of 4.2 Request-Reply, Non-Addressable Client,
WS-SC Who will implement this scenario? IBM, Microsoft, WSO2 Discussion of 4.3 Request-Reply, Non-Addressable Client,
No Offer, WS-SC wsa anonymous should be RM anon URI Who will implement this scenario? IBM 7) AOB Who is going to implement the phase one scenarios on the
new CD? IBM, Microsoft, WSO2 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]