[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 5133Title: 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 agenda1) 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 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
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 businessPaul 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]