[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Preliminary minutes of the Sep 15th meeting
Here are the preliminary minutes of the last meeting. Any comments before end of day Monday please. PaulTitle: Minutes
|
Minutes of
the Sept 15th meeting Agenda 1) Roll Call
Marc Goodner: Save time for the F2F discussion. Chris
Ferris: Haven’t seen an agenda for F2F Sanjay: It
was sent. If we don’t get to Agenda this call, email list. We need to discuss
the major issues. Propose to go ahead as planned PaulC: I predict
that we won’t get to item #10 if we save it till after the technical
discussion. Sanjay:
Discuss on email and at start of F2F. No other
objections to agenda
A motion
was duly made Paul Cotton, and seconded by Anish, no
objections.
Move documents to be clearly visible on TC homepage
AI002 – Still not done. AI012 – Paul – has sent note to Jamie, no reply. AI025 – Will be done at F2F (Chris F), Will send PaulC something before F2F AI029 Anish – Will be done by F2F Anish: Does Chris Kurt have any update on OASIS CVS Chris K: no. Will ask Jamie. 7) New issues since
last conf-call One new issue – Anish – Anonymous URI http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200509/msg00090.html Accepted. Umit offered to own this issue.
Sanjay sent an email. Following up, some confirmation. i002
Anish is working on this, proposal at
end of week i003
Action item: Anish generate a proposal for i003 i006
Belongs to Tom i008
Belongs to Tom i009
Chris, already submitted formal proposal. i010 Action Item on Doug Davis to create a proposal i024 Open an AI against Ashok
Before discussion. Sanjay urged the TC not to lose sight of the issue definitions. Jacques Durand to as briefly as possible restate the problems. Jacques: Issues beaten to death. Issue 19: better support from the protocol for resolving doubt, ending when something happens due to a fault. There may be gaps in sequences. The RMS may not know if a message has been received or not. May cause problems on the accuracy of the view of the RMS. Protocol has been designed to promote delivery assurance. Issue is clear enough. In the event the sequence ends due to fault. It could be the RMS has no ack. Issue i028 is again, same fuzziness on the accuracy of the RMS view of which messages have been delivered. Designing a protocol which must be good enough to support the DAs and manage these failure cases. Don’t lose sight of the DAs. DougD: Proposal has been there for 4 weeks. It can be voted on. Stefan put a note suggesting there should be a new issue. The TC needs to keep moving. The general view has been out there. No changes to the core content. Motion that if we vote on this proposal. If we change later that’s fine. In the meantime, lets vote. Gil seconded the motion. Stefan. Doug summarized what I was going to say. Feedback to Stefan’s proposal. Not addressing i019. Stefan’s proposal does address i028. I agree that the proposal needs new issues. Stefan to take AI – Stefan to submit
new issue and use cases No problem with voting. Sanjay: are you withdrawing yr proposals Stefan: yes at the moment. Giovanni: Current proposal is better understood. Tried to stay away from knowing the DA outside the RMS/RMD. If all we know in the close proposal is all that made it to the RMD, then there remains the question of what has been delivered to the Destination. E.g. if they are sitting behind a gap, and ordered delivery, then they still wont be delivered to destination. Sequence gives me an accurate state of the RMD, but I want to know about the delivery state at the agent. Chris Ferris: talk about whole DA. The DA is irrelevant. The purpose of this is to know which messages have been received. Impossible to know which have been delivered. InOrder is unchanged. If gap never filled, don’t deliver those messages. Impossible to know if they are delivered. Only an assumption. What the RMS chooses to do with that state is undefined. Stefan: +1 Chris. Doug – in the crisp close proposal not clear, are we actually removing the blur in the spec? What does the RMD do if it gets a terminate s and there are gaps? Chris: Same as before. Jacques: What’s difficult? When Chris says it can’t be addressed in terms of DA – Chris statement relates to DA, even though the DA is defined on the destination side. The value of this is to give more accurate status to the RMS. In non-delivery, an error must be raised at one endpoint. Makes sense the RMS should be aware. The protocols value is the extent it supports DA. Doug Davis: Could Giovanni open an issue to capture the issue about delivery to the destination? Independent of this issue. Giovanni: Happy to open a separate issue. Chris Ferris: Respond to Giovanni. What I meant – even in a perfectly complete sequence you can’t know if they were delivered. After the final ack, RMD may blow up. Can’t know with any certainty that messages were actually delivered. Sanjay: lets not get off scope – focus on 19 and 28. There is a motion on the floor, seconded. Is the motion clear? Please restate the motion. Technically the motion was to vote on the proposal. Anish: I propose to amend the motion to accept Doug’s proposals Doug: no objection and seconded. Anish has an amendment. Any objections to Anish’s amendment. No. The motion is to accept Doug’s proposal – as outlined in message number 76. Are there any objections to the motion or further comments? Is a vote necessary? Jorgen: MS would like a recorded vote to be able to abstain. Results of vote
Records of minutes…. 25 y, 1 no, 16 abstentions Motion passed. PaulC: When are we going to see amended doc? Doug: take an Action Item to have a revised doc by the F2F. PaulC: I was hoping to have it by F2F ChrisF: have to be careful here. Number of proposals that refer to line items in current spec. PaulC: I suggest the editors should allow line # proposals against different versions. Sanjay: I take it that there are a bunch of issues in editor pending status. Before F2F there should be an update to the doc. PaulC: You can take it the way you want. I will take it the way I want to. Sanjay: If there are other issues, new issues can be opened which may update/replace/undo previous changes. Gil: with regards to Paul’s comment. If proposals don’t specify a given spec, it wont scale. Proposal should include line numbers against a given version. Versioning tricky without a CVS. Doug: Proposal links to PDF. Suggest all proposals do this. Umit: We can add temporary version numbers. Point to specific URI specific document. Sanjay: All issues point to current spec PDF docs. Until the TC decides to have a new version. Anish: Agreed in the past stable line numbers in the PDF. Other versions are available. Look at latest, and point to the document from which line numbers are based. 9c) Next Issue: i027 Andreas: The issue is to clarify the spec about the meaning of InOrder – that it does not span sequences. Chris has posted a URI. http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200509/msg00126.html Gil: comments are tangential Jacques: clarification. Not in the scope of spec. It is a legitimate problem. A third party can resolve it but we won’t. It doesn’t mean its not a concern. Chris: yes but the spec won’t say anything Gil: Need to raise another issue. Change the spec around, that the spec is about supporting not implement DA. Chris: I hope the issue 9 proposal addresses this. Sanjay: Review DA later. Gil: Agree Sanjay: is there a motion on the table? Is there any objection to unanimous consent to accept this proposal. Silence. Proposal accepted. 10) Discuss F2F
agenda. Jorgen: Can the editors have a new baseline draft by the F2F. Doug: Yes Anish: Committee Draft? Is an OASIS Committee Draft is equal to a W3C Working Group Draft. Paul C. The question is when can the TC convert an editors draft into a Committee Draft. Not for public review. Sanjay: IPR implications. Paul F: The implications come through voting on a document. By accepting a committee draft it forms a concrete version on which the TC members have a licensing obligation. Chris Kurt: The last statement confused me. Real clear about the obligations. Only one place. We are past the 60days. If someone leaves the TC then they are obligated to license the most recent committee draft that was voted on. Anish: what it seems to me is we need to do our homework before the F2F. Sanjay: Other discussion about the F2F? Umit: no space for new issues. Sanjay: Good suggestion. By Monday a more detailed posting. Anish: What time would you like to end the meeting. Sanjay: Suggestion is Sanjay: please continue discussion on the mailing list. 11). Any other business? None Meeting adjourned. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]