RE: [ws-rx] Groups - Mintes WSRX 2/2/2006 (MinutesWSRX-020206.htm) uploaded

["Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom@coastin.com [mailto:tom@coastin.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, Feb 07, 2006 9:56 AM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-rx] Groups - Mintes WSRX 2/2/2006 
> (MinutesWSRX-020206.htm) uploaded
> 
> The document named Mintes WSRX 2/2/2006 
> (MinutesWSRX-020206.htm) has been
> submitted by Mr Tom Rutt to the OASIS Web Services Reliable Exchange
> (WS-RX) TC document repository.
> 
> Document Description:
> Minutes of WSRM TC Teleconf 2/2/2006
> 
> View Document Details:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/document.ph
> p?document_id=16568
> 
> Download Document:  
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.ph
p/16568/MinutesWSRX-020206.htm
> 
> 
> PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your 
> email application
> may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to 
> copy and paste
> the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
> 
> -OASIS Open Administration

Hi Tom, 

Sorry it is rather late as you wanted corrections by yesterday. This
completes my action item as well. 

There are several issues that WS-A wg has been tackling that are related
to WS-RX issues: 

-- Issues related to i061. WS-Addressing group has closed Issues
i067/i068 [1] cr15 [2] by accepting the resolution [3]. The wg also
accepted to publish a note that specifies a "SOAP
request-optional-response binding" document (name to be determined) to
describe the wirelevel requirements to supplement the resolution. The
behaviours described in this note are still been debated in the
WS-Addressing wg. However, there is consensus on the direction namely on
allowing the HTTP response to a request message to optionally include a
SOAP envelope in a one-way message. 

This direction would allow specifications like WS-RX to include
additional headers in the HTTP response. 

Note that there are details that are not nailed down yet as to when the
envelope may be sent (i.e. how it is related to mU processing) and
whether the envelope may include a SOAP body or prohibited to include
one. 

To summarize, the contents of the note are not finalized, but very good
progress has been made to address WS-RX's needs. 

-- Issues related to i089. In particular, CR 18 and 20 [2] are still
open and they are related to our i089. I mention these issues because I
was given the action item to chase down i061 when Doug raised i089 that
is separate. 

There is still not consensus in the wg whether we should disallow
anonymous destination on a request message or make destination optional
per the discussion this week. I believe at least we have reduced the
number of options we have on this issue. 

Please join me in congratulating Bob Freund who is a member of this tc
in his new role as the WS-Addressing wg chair. 


Thanks, 

--umit

PS. Marc, could you make sure that issue i089 is listed as an open issue
in our issues list? It took me a long time to find that it existed
because it is not listed anywhere in the consolidated list with
categories open/pending/... Etc. You can not find it unless you know it
is there. Thanks. 


[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/
[3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Jan/0085