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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx-implement message

[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



4) Action items



5) Interop planning

Not discussed. Here is last agreed schedule.


6) Interop scenarios

Phase 1 change from Jacques


Adopted with unanimous consent

Marc will get updated doc tomorrow


Walk through of new scenarios



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?



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?



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]