[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: prelim minnutes of 2/2 teleconf
Prelim minutes are attached. Please make corrections before Monday morning. Tom Rutt Secretary -- ---------------------------------------------------- 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 26, 2006 4:00 to 5:30 EST Textual Conventions Ø Action Item Motion § Resolution 1 Roll CallFrom 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 26, 2006
meeting minutes http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/16481/MinutesWSRX-012606.htm 4) AI Review http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/members/action_items.php 5) Administrative a> Open ballots 6) New issues since last conf-call Watch for Marc’s email http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200601/msg00133.html 7) Issue Discussion: a> i075 Case of multiple RM
Policies and DAs within an RMD scope http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i075 b> i078 Lost TerminateSequence http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i078 c> i084 RMS state table and SequenceClosedFault http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i084 d> i021 An RM Policy applies
two-way http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i021 e> i008 Policy assertions
granularity http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i008 f> i061 Anonymous AcksTo http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i061 g> i090 Use of offered sequences
unclear in current spec http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i090 8) Any other business Paul F: asked that an agenda item be added in the specs to base interop on. Agreed to add as item 5b.. 3 Approval of the Jan 26 meeting minuteshttp://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/16481/MinutesWSRX-012606.htm
Tom R moved, MarcG seconded to approve Jan 26 minutes. § No opposition, Jan 26 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: --- Still open ________________________________________ #0070: Paul F will discuss OASIS hosted TC teleconferences with the OASIS staff, making clear the unacceptable quality of some “free call” bridge services Owner: Paul Fremantle Status: Open Assigned: 2006-01-18 Due: --- Still open ________________________________________ #0072: Umit will report back to our TC any results of discussion related to i061 at WS-A F2F Owner: Umit Yalcinalp Status: Open Assigned: 2006-01-26 Due: --- Closed:Umit gave overview, and will send email to summarize. WS-Addressing is making progress. There is consensus to allow soap message to be send with http response even with one way Close issue ________________________________________ #0074: Anish and Gill will submit proposal to close issue 75, with a clarification on extensibility Owner: Anish Karmarkar Status: Open Assigned: 2006-01-31 Due: --- Closed ________________________________________ #0075: Anish will lead an effort to draft a complete proposal to close I078 Owner: Anish Karmarkar Status: Open Assigned: 2006-01-31 Due: --- Closed ________________________________________ #0076: Bob F will provide proposal to close issue 084 with clarification text Owner: Robert Freund Status: Open Assigned: 2006-01-31 Due: --- Still open ________________________________________ #0077: Doug D will provide a complete proposal for resolving
issue 21, which does not use wsdl annotation for the
reply reliability Owner: Doug Davis Status: Open Assigned: 2006-01-31 Due: --- closed, completed ________________________________________ #0078: Gil will provide a complete proposal for resolving
issue 21 with uses rm inbound and rm
outbound policy assertions. Owner: Gilbert Pilz
Status: Open Assigned: 2006-01-31 Due: --- close completed ________________________________________ 5 Admin5.1 a> Open ballotsOne open ballot on attendance. Members should respond 5.2 b) interop discussionPaul F: we are trying to get interop scenario finalized by Feb 17. 3 or 4 members expressed interest in putting implementation forward to interop. This interop is to test the spec validity. Since we changed closeSequence schema, we should not go into interop on previous CD. We want new WD that incorporates all issues resolved to this point, to use for interop. Sanjay: do you want a draft with all issues agreed to dated. Doug D: we could have a draft before the Feb 17 timeframe. 6 New issues since last conf-callTwo new issues 6.1 Proposed 01 Doug Bunting new issue:http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200601/msg00219.html Doug B moved, Paul K seconded to accept new issue and to resolve issue with Proposal. § Proposed 01 resolved, with email proposal, to be marked as pending. 6.1 Proposed 02 - Doug Davis new issuehttp://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200602/msg00013.html Proposed 02 agreed to be new issue for TC. 7 Issue Discussion:7.1 a> i075 Case of multiple RM Policies and DAs within an RMD scopehttp://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i075 Anish email at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200602/msg00016.html Anish summarized the email discussion. Jacques: there is another assumption that the sequence could be subject to different policies. Anish: I do not intend for a single sequence to have multiple policies. It can span multiple wsdl ports. A policy assertion in the wsrmp point has extensibility points, which could be sensitive to multiple port specifications. Sanjay: this new text just explains a problem and leaves the problem out of scope. Gil: This text is necessary for certain contexts. Doug B: I am concerned that this warning is too narrow, it does not cover similar problems: 1) potential that rms will include policy attachment in EPR (I021) 2) focused on extensibility within policy assertion, problem is wider Doug B: it seems we have extensibility within our policy assertion, but is there other extensibility points with the rest of ws-policy framework scope. Anish: we define an extensibility points, other extensibility points have their own dragons. We warn users of dragons for extensibility points that we define. Gil: since the only policy point is whether rm is in use, we have a binary switch. We have no conflicts. However, extenders may introduce policy extensions which could cause conflicts. Chris F: why not get rid of extensibility point, and leave binary on/off switch. Dave O: Extensibility is important for loose coupling. We have to fight for extensibility on every element we define. Extenders can shoot themselves in the foot, but we cannot stop that. Chris F: they can add new policy assertions instead of extending the binary policy point. Doug D: this is a large amount of proposed text which says nothing normatively. It discourages simple assertions to be added on an endpoint basis. Jacques: I believe that extensibility points need to be discussed on their own. Before we finalize resolution on I 75 should await the general discussion on extensibility points. I need more time to consider the alternatives. Sanjay: I see two points 1) nuke extensibility vs 2) add health warning re multiple endpoints for sequence. The second points is what this issue is about. I do see the first point as a new issue. Peter: Is Chris proposal a different issue. I though it could be a solution this issue. Sanjay: but that is a larger issue requiring further debate, beyond this issue scope. Doug: we have another proposal from the last call. (to say nothing) Sanjay: we decided to defer this solution at the last meeting, and have a warning in this version. Gil moved to accept email proposal to resolve Issue 75, seconded by Anish. Chris F: IBM does not like a treatise which says nothing. Sanjay: express that in your vote. Matt: how about a vote of the proposal vs close with no action. Jeff M: lets just vote. Sanjay Took Vote: 16 yes 7 No Abstain § Motion passes. Issue 75 resolved to be marked as pending. Doug B: Chris F typed in a small correction. Chris F: correction of ambiguous antecedent. § Agreed to add editorial ammendment from chris f: s/these extensibility points/this capability/ 7.2 b> i078 Lost TerminateSequencehttp://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i078 email proposal from Anish: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200602/msg00021.html Anish gave an overview: the proposal has detailed changes to several parts of the specification, including diagrams and supporting text. This proposal is just a detailed expression of what we agreed at the last meeting. Sanjay: editorial issues could be expressed later. Chris F moved to accept proposal from Anish, Gil Seconded. No Objection, motion passed, Issue 78 resolved to be marked pending. 7.3 c> i084 RMS state table and SequenceClosedFaulthttp://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i084 Bob F: Leave open, for completion before next call. Chris F: but Matt L had a proposal to close without action. Sanjay: we have an open AI for Bob F to provide clarification text. 7.4 d> i021 An RM Policy applies two-wayhttp://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i021 two proposals, from Doug and Gil Gil proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200602/msg00000.html Gil:: The proposal has separate policy assertions for rm inbound and rm outbound. This is simple and flexible. Ashok: if there are multiple messages on endpoint, how can you distinguish between these. Gil: you cannot target multiple message outbound. The granularity of this proposal is not at the message level. Ashok why cannot we attach the policy at the per message level. Gil this proposal is orthogonal. If all messages are same on endpoint, user could have a per message override using this mechanism. The typical case is all the same on an endpoint. Jacques: Gil proposal of a policy could be attached or overridden at various granularities. Message level attachment could override the higher level attachment. I like the proposal in general, but have problems with specific wording. Gil: I agree with Jacques editorial concern. Doug proposal http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200602/msg00014.html Doug: I decided to simplify the proposal to just allow adding policy assertion to be included in EPR. Using this EPR attachment could be used, for example, in a “replyTo” epr. The current text in the spec applies to rm being on or off for an endpoint, as receiver of reliable message. Dave O: Gil has tried to strike a balance, to allow expression of directionality. Paul F: At one time we applied the policy to the entire endpoint, in one direction. We could not have several subjects for a policy assertion. Peter: Do we have right to define what policy assertion means. Paul F: I am confused why we cannot say policy applied to endpoint means both directions are reliable, but if we put on message it is for that direction. Paul F: can we have two subjects for single assertion. I will send an email Giovanni: nothing disallows a policy to appear in multiple subjects. Doug B: the matter of inbound vs outbound being constrained is separate from relaxing the current wording which prevents attaching assertions at message level. Also does a policy in create sequence apply to every single message on that sequence. We need to get back to the subject of this issue on the table. Giovanni: which issue are we discussing. Sanjay: issue 21, does the policy apply two way. Previous assumptions were the endpoint assertion applied in both directions. We have two proposals. Sanjay: It does not look like we will have concensus. Lets continue discussion on email list. Doug D: I thought there was another proposal about the message override. Will this be written up. Paul F: It makes sense to write this up. Ø Action: Paul F to propose message override to endpoint policy assertions for Issue 21. Ran out of time to discuss further issues. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]