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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

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


Subject: Prelim Minutes of 1/12/2006 Teleconf


Prelim minutes are attached.

Please send any corrections to the whole list before monday morning.

Tom Rutt

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133


Title: Preliminary Minutes WSRX TC Teleconf

Prelim Minutes  OASIS TC Teleconf

Thursday January 12, 2006

 

4:00 to 5:30 EST

 

Textual Conventions

 

Ø  Action Item

Motion

§    Resolution

 

1         Roll Call

From Kavi.

 

Meeting was quorate.

2         Review and approval of the agenda

1) Roll Call

2) Review and approval of the agenda

3) Approval of the Jan 5 meeting minutes

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/16132/minutes5jan2006.doc

4) AI Review

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/members/action_items.php

5) March F2F location and dates

6) CD2 - WD review

7) New issues since last meeting

Watch for Marc’s email

8) Issue Discussion:

> i008 Policy assertions granularity

http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i008

> i021 An RM Policy applies two-way

http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i021

> i078 Lost TerminateSequence

http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i078

> i075 Case of multiple RM Policies and DAs within an RMD scope

http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i075

> i083 Tom Rutt Fault Messages for Terminated Sequence

http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i083

> i084 Matthew Lovett RMS state table and SequenceClosedFault

http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i084

> i058 State Transition Table

http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i058

9) Any other business

 

New order: 78, 83, 84, 75, ..

3         Approval of the Jan 5 meeting minutes

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/16132/minutes5jan2006.doc

 

Marc G moved, Tom Rutt seconded to approve Jan 5 minutes.

 

§    No opposition, Jan 5 minutes approved.

4         AI Review

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/members/action_items.php

 

#0056: Ensure that the final WSA specifications include text for handling of anonymous IRI values for non-WSA EPRs

Owner: Robert Freund

Status: Open

Assigned: 2005-12-13

Due: ---

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

#0057: Editors will report on the mailing list those procedures they use before posting a WD

Owner: Gilbert Pilz

Status: Closed

Assigned: 2006-01-02

Due: ---

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

#0063: Bob F will raise an issue regarding the rows of RMD and RMS state table for events receiving unknownSequenceFault or SequenceTerminatedFault while it thinks the sequence is active

Owner: Robert Freund

Status: Closed

Assigned: 2006-01-02

Due: ---

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

#0064: Marc G will work with Bob F and Anish to draft a concrete proposal for terminateSequence Response message

Owner: Marc Goodner

Status: Open

Assigned: 2006-01-02

Due: ---

 

Gil: Action item 53 was closed prematurely.

 

Ø  Action: Chairs to add RDL to next week Agenda.

 

Doug B: WSRM identifier is consistently an element, except for the close sequence element.  

 

Anish: Matt raised that issue this week.

 

Doug B: RFC 2119 issues exist (e.g., this element MUST NOT be sent) if someone could fix all such problems in text that would be a good thing.   The words MUST and MUST NOT should not be used for cardinality constraints in xml schemas.   

 

Ø  Action: Doug B will raise a new issue on RFC 2119 Terminology Not to be used for cardinality constrints.

5         March F2F location and dates

Sanjay summarized the ballot.

 

The TC is favoring Hursley on March 7 and 8.

 

Glen D: some people had problems with the Kavi ballot, and sent email.

 

Paul C: my analysis shows that none of these two dates is acceptable, by the number who voted against both dates.   We should consider a new date and location.  33 to 32 does not mean Hursley really won.. I do not think a plurality of 1 should determine the result.

 

Paul F: I agree there is a block vote here, and it is not good to favor a solution which would make others not attend.  If we want to change the date we must do it soon.  If we cannot come up with a solution, we should go with Hursley, the winner of the vote.

 

Action:

 

Bob F:what is the issue.

 

Paul F It seems that: the “NO” vote was not always meaning “I cannot attend”.

 

Dave O: We should proceed with the vote.  I do not think that getting to concensus is how this committee is chartered.  Searching for alternate will take some time, and we proceed with the vote.

 

Anish: During Last weeks call I asked if we were going to decide this week.  I need to make travel plans early.  I would prefer the decision is made this week.

 

Marc G: the travel issue caused Not OK for some members.  We should also consider that non voting members might not show up anyway.

 

Paul F: most of the voters are regular call or meeting attendances.  Only a few non voters, based in Europe, sated that would attend if in Hursley.

 

Paul C: Voting on a meeting with such a close, and polarized vote, will make us look foolish we do not make quarum.

 

Chris F: we need to seriously consider other dates.  IBM can likely  host at either venue on other dates.  I agree with Paul C that a plurality of 1 should form a basis for conclusion for this meeting.

 

Paul F: straw poll

 

·         yes) I'm happy with Hursley on Mar 7th-8th for the next F2F
  • no)   re-examine dates Continue to discuss

 

13 yes,  20 No, many abstain

 

Paul C: how about April 6 and 7 in Austin Texas.  Two days before that is the SX meeting.

 

Paul F: I have a problem with that date.

 

Umit: how will we progress these alternate dates.  We need to know as quickly as possible.

 

Paul F: that is why I want the people who opposed Hursley to come up with alternatives.

 

Paul C: Is there any problem with March 20 week.  

 

Chris F: IBM could do it at the end of the week, Thurs and Fri.

 

Paul F: March 22, 23 as the potential date, can we get a host as volunteer by next week.

 

Doug D: but we need three days for the meeting.

 

Paul C: I will start discussion on the list.

 

6         CD2 - WD review

Paul F: there have been comments on the list. Are there any other concerns.

 

Marc G: can we hear from the editors what they have done.

 

Doug D: Two notes were sent out with nits, which have been addressed in a new editor’s draft.  Marc G problems have been addressed as well.

 

Gil: I updated the schema with OASIS boiler plate, from WS-Security.  I checked that stuff in.  As far as naming of schema and wsdl files, that is an open issue.

 

Paul C: are you referring to the Namespace, or the form of the URI.

 

Gil: just the artifact names of the wsdl and schemas.  The Namespaces policy we worked out, as only being relevant at committee specification.

 

Paul C: I disagree with that, the TC members should make the decision on Namespace policy being applied.

 

Gil the OASIS guidelines require it by CS.

 

Anish: The TC has never accepted the policy for documents send by the editors.

 

Ø  Action: Chairs to put the editors document policy on agenda for next meeting.

 

Paul C: the drafts the editors gave us made us think the schemas has been completely changes.

 

Chris F: I do not understand why we would change namespaces at this time.  How many implementations are there.

 

Anish: we do not even know if there was a backward incompatable change.

 

Paul F: asked how many companies have implemented the namespaces in CD 1. 

 

No positive response.

 

Paul F: In that light this seems like a pointless discussion.

 

Paul C: I move that Editors put forward a candidate CD taking changes requested by TC (other than the Namespace concern) on WD.  Seconded by Doug D.

 

Gil: what about the namespace change.

 

Paul C: that was not my intent.

 

§    No objection.  Editors should have Candidate CD text available for downlad by Jan 16th.

 

Ø  Action: Chairs will post a CD ballot after Editors post candidate CD text.

 

7         New issues since last meeting

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200601/msg00065.html

-------------

 

7.1                              Proposed-01

 

Title - CloseSequence element is inconsistent

 

Description - All other references to Sequence identifiers is by an element, using a reference to the global wsrm:Identifier element. The CreateSequence element uses an attribute, and defines it inline.

 

Justification - While not a critical problem, the schema should be consistent.

 

Origin: Matthew Lovett <MLOVETT@uk.ibm.com>

 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200601/msg00045.html

 

Target - core / schema

 

Type: design

 

Proposal:

 

 

 

Replace the attribute with a reference to the wsrm:Identifier element within the CreateSequence element:

 

Update the CloseSequence on line 372 (in wd 08), and the following description. The new example should be:

 

<wsrm:CloseSequence ...>

 

  <wsrm:Identifier ...> xs:anyURI </wsrm:Identifier>

 

  ...

 

</wsrm:CloseSequence>

 

 

 

and the description need to be changed to include the new element and the extensibility points.

 

-------------

Doug D: I move we accept this new Issue and close with its proposal.  Seconded by Doug B.

 

Paul C: I need time to read it.

 

Paul F: this is a typo.

 

Marc G: this is a breaking change, which would cause problems in interop testing.

 

Paul C: what is the rationale for this change.

 

Doug B: consistency.  This is the only example of an identifier attribute.

 

Paul C: I assume this becomes a required element.

 

Doug B: that is what the proposal states.

 

Paul C: there is not replacement text for the description lines. In Jan 5 draft, lines 379 and 381 describe the required attribute.  Those three lines need to be changed appropriately to describe the new element.

 

Doug B: how about adding friendly amendment to have editors paste appropriate text from description of other elements, seconded by Doug D

 

Paul C: such as using the text in line 455 to 460 as a basis

 

Doug D: I accept this as friendly.

 

 

§    No objections: Amended motion:  The TC accept this new Issue and close with its proposal, and along with new text for lines 379 thru 381, using lines 455 to 460 as a basis.

 

§    No objections, amended motion for proposed 01 passed.

 

Ø  Action: Editors add new issue for proposed 01, mark as having agreed resolution

7.2                              Proposed-02

 

Title - Alternative approach for MaxMessage

 

Description - We solved the issue of some platforms not having a native

 

unsigned long by adding a MaxMessageNumber to Policy. Another simpler

 

approach would be to use max(signed long) as the limit, and ensure that

 

all implementations can support this.

 

Origin: Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>

 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200601/msg00046.html

 

Justification - This is not a critical issue, but this is a simpler

 

approach, with fewer moving parts.

 

Target - core / design

 

Type: design

 

Proposal:

 

 

 

Policy:

 

Remove lines 97-100 plus editorial fixup of following para.

 

Remove line 114

 

Remove line 130-134

 

 

 

Core:

 

Update line 465 to state new limit.

 

Add a schema restriction on line 870

 

 

 

-------------

 

Doug B: Is this reopening an issue which was closed.

 

Paul F: this is readdressing a closed issue with a different proposed solution.

 

Chris F: I agree with Paul F.

 

No objections to raising Proposed 02 as a new issue.

 

7.3                              Proposed-03

 

Title - Acknowledgement Interval in CreateSequenceResponse

 

Description - Propose moving AI from Policy to the CreateSequenceResponse

 

Justification - AcknowledgementInterval is not constraint or feature of an endpoint, it is a protocol parameter of a given sequence.

 

Moving it out of policy has a number of benefits. It reduces the reliance on Policy and WSDL for simple devices, allowing them to ascertain this value without supporting either of those standards.

 

It makes it clear what the ack interval is for any sequence. Further it seems unrealistic that a service would be chosen on the basis of AckInterval.

 

Origin: Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>

 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200601/msg00048.html

 

Target - core / design

 

Type: design

 

Proposal:

 

 

 

Modifications to the WSRM spec  - Based on WD8

 

 

 

After line 302 insert:

 

 

 

<wsrm:AcknowledgementInterval Milliseconds="xs:unsignedLong" ... /> ?

 

 

 

After line 326 Insert:

 

 

 

/wsrm:CreateSequenceResponse/wsrm:AcknowledgementInterval

 

 

 

This element, if present, specifies the duration after which the RM

 

Destination will transmit an acknowledgement. If omitted, there is no

 

implied value.

 

 

 

/wsrm:CreateSequenceResponse/wsrm:AcknowledgementInterval/@Milliseconds

 

 

 

The acknowledgement interval, specified in milliseconds.

 

 

 

Changes to Policy document based on WD3.

 

 

 

Remove lines 101-108

 

Remove line 113

 

Remove lines 125-129

 

Remove line 164 (AI example)

 

 

 

At line 179 Remove text: "Line (13) indicates the RM Destination may buffer

 

acknowledgements for up to two-tenths of a second."

 

 

No objection to accepting Proposed 03 as a new issue.

 

8         Issue Discussion:

 

8.1                              > i078 Lost TerminateSequence

http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i078

 

Anish: there is an open action item on this one.  Bob, Marc G, and I are still working on it.

 

 

8.2                              > i083 Tom Rutt Fault Messages for Terminated Sequence

http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i083

 

Paul F read the proposed solution.  Either Unknown sequence fault or terminated sequence MAY be returned.

 

Marc G: where would this go. Lines 412 from WD08 is where this texts will go.

 

Tom R: I suggest we Close by adding new text after Lines 412 in WD08

 

Chris F, I would prefer we use the same fault all the time.  That is to always return unknown sequence.

 

Tom R: I do not have a strong opinion on this.  However, I thought that if the RMD knows it is terminated that would be useful.

 

Bob F: I agree with Chris to eliminate options, and also we need to also add text in section 5 on faults.

 

Tom Rutt: I think we should discuss this further in the Email list.  At least a clarification should be placed in the document, that unknown sequence is used for both cases.

 

Ran out of Time;

 

Paul F: we need to discuss things further on the email list to make better use of time.

9         Any other business

 

Paul F: we need to have better facilities for calls.  This week had too much echo.

 

Paul C: Microsoft will host the call for next week.

 

Doug B: Sun will take the cal after Microsoft.

 

Chris F: could the chairs discuss having OASIS host calls with the OASIS staff.

 

Ø  Action: Paul F will discuss OASIS hosted TC teleconferences with the OASIS staff, making clear the unacceptable quality of  some “free call” bridge services..

 



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