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 3/15 teleconf

Prelim minutes are attached.

Please provide corrections before monday of next week.

Tom Rutt

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

Title: Minutes of OASIS WS-RX Teleconference

Prelim Minutes of OASIS WS-RX Teleconference

March 18, 2006


Start Time:4:00 PM Eastern Time


Paul Freemantle acted as chair.


Textual Conventions


  Action Item




1         Roll Call

From Kavi:


xx of 49 voting members, meeting quorate


Tom Rutt agreed to take minutes.

2         Agenda Approval

Date: Thursday, 16 March 2006

Time: 01:00pm - 02:30pm PT


Event Description:




IRC/Q Mgmt(thanks to DougD): http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/wsrx



1) Roll Call


2) Review and approval of the agenda


3) Approval of the Mar 9, 2006 meeting minutes



4) AI Review



5) Raleigh F2F Planning

a> Agenda bashing


6) New issues since last conf-call

Watch for Marcs email


7) Issue Discussion:

a> i021 An RM Policy applies two-way



b> i008 Policy assertions granularity



c> i090 Use of offered sequences unclear in current spec



d> i089 suggest the restricted use of anonymous URI



e> i096 Complete the state tables


8) Any other business


Jeff M asked that issue 21 be postponed to the f2f..


Paul C suggested we discuss 21 and then put the best proposal on the f2f agenda for final descision.


Marc G: I agree, the concensus is on a modified version rather than the current proposal.


Agreed to discuss but not make final decision, with on objection from Jeff M.


3         Approval of the 3/9 minutes;



Chris F stated that his corrections were not incorporated.



Will approve at F2F.

4         AI Review




action item 56 left open.

5         Raleigh F2F Planning

a> Agenda bashing


Doug D asked if anyone not in ballot is attending;.


Sanjay asked that this be taken off-line.


Sanjay asked for comment on http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200603/msg00099.html


Umit asked for a tweek on the schedule for critical issues.


Paul F stated that state tables should not be discussed before outstanding issues.


Tom R asked for a discussion on an application notes document, Fujitsu will provide a contribution before meeting. It was agreed to put this on the end of the agenda.


6         New issues since last conf-call

 Watch for Marcs email

No comments received.

7         Issue Discussion:

7.1      a> i021 An RM Policy applies two-way



Chris F had a most recent posting at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200603/msg00068.html



Which was against Sanjay proposal at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200602/msg00222.html


Sanjay asked for clarifications on whether optional means the sender must be an RMD as well as RMS.


Chris F: this applies in both directions, it could be off or on in either direction, given the optional label.


Sanjay: does this impose constraints on client.


Chris F: I think the optional assertion means each endpoint gets to choose.


Marc G: I am not sure this is the latest proposal. Paul had a more recent proposal. What is the difference of his proposal from what is on tab.e


Paul F: I am happy with the proposed interpretation of wsrm optional. Anishs concern is that if optional is place on return, the client would have to support both alternatives.


Chris F: I disagree because the client made no such assertion.


Chris F: If client wishes to expose wsdl, it could choose to not decorate with assertions.


Paul F: I believe my proposal is the same as Chris F with exception of the interpretation of wsrm required optional.


Marc G: I prefer Chris F interpretation of wsrm required optional.


Jacques D: I want to ensure the semantics of optional include the ability to deal with sequences. If the server is unable to open a sequence to me (failure in first instance), if I send message in non reliable will the message be accepted by server.


Chris F: If I am server, and decorate wsdl with endpoint polkcy wsrm assertion = optionale sender can use it or not.


Jacques: the outut messages have wsdl decorated as optional on output, the server decides to send within a sequence and the client is unable to do that.


Chris F: if the server cannot establish a sequence it should fall back to unreliable exchange.


Jacques; given Anish concerns the optional qualifier means that the agreement can go either way. This should not ever require the use of rm to be required. If the client and server decide that a reliable exchange over policy that is optional, and want to indicate that the client should not fallback to non reliable qos.


Sanjay: are not such contracts out of scope.


Jacques: but if optional means either reliable or not reliable, means such an agreement that I cite is not available.


Umit: I would agree with Sanjay. If out of band policy is stricter than what is expressed it will cause extra problems.


Umit: I ask question to Chris F on details.


Chris F: I want a way to state that reliability is required on every message.


Umit: I am okay with the wording of Chris F>


Chris F: in response to Jacques;

when choosing between optional policy statements, there is an implicit merge on the part of the client between the policy exposed by the service and its own, internal policy


Chris F: with optional, if either side wants to use it, or it is not available, it should fallback to non reliable.


Jacques: if the client does not support reliability in response, the server should fallback on unreliable return of message. Is there a case to not fallback to unreliable?


Sanjay: the TC seems to be reaching concensus on Chris F proposal. We should stop discussion today.


Marc G: are there any changes needed based on this discussion to the proposal from Chris F. The agenda should have links to the proper proposals.


  Action: Chris F will send a consolidated proposal by Monday evening, incorporating any comments sent on the list.




7.1      b> i008 Policy assertions granularity


Doug D: can this be closed.


Tom R: the current solution to 21 has message level granularity, so is this allowed.


Marc G: I would say it is .


Paul C: we should put both of these on the agenda on f2f.


Agreed to put issue i008 on F2F agenda.

7.2      c> i090 Use of offered sequences unclear in current spec



Matt proposal: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200603/msg00132.html


Paul F: I posted a link. http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200603/msg00132.html


Paul F: I want to remove text that offer is just an optimization. I would like to deal with this outside of anonymous case. Anonymous with offer should be a separate issue dealing with linking of lifecycles of both sequences.


Matt : we may want to link sequences, but this would be by outcome of I 089.


Paul F: the issues of offer, without anonymous case, should be what 90 is restricted to. Add new issue for anonymous case.


Doug B: I suggest we wait for the resolution of I089efore posting a new issue.


Doug D need a nit change:

MattLovett Change to 
Line 282 Insert
This REQUIRED element, of type wsa:EndpointReferenceType as specified by WS-Addressing [WSAddressing] specifies the endpoint reference to which WS-RM protocol messages related to the offered Sequence are to be sent.


Marc G: with regards to a new issue regarding offer with anon, I agree this is a separable concern. The lifecycle linkage of the two sequences in the offer case could be a separable issue.


Matt: I agree to remove the optimization text, but it does not have to be done under this issue.


Marc G: if we can bundle that into this proposal I can support it.


Matt: I believe accepting a basid proposal here can simplify the resolution of I089.


Chris F: I would like to move this, however we need to have the word changes from Marc G be accepted.


Matt posted:

MattLovett Addition to the proposal: Line 238 strike: Note that
offering a Sequence within the <wsrm:CreateSequence> element is simply a protocol optimization.


Marc G: from lines 236 thru 241.


Chris F moved to close I 90 with amended proposal, Marc G seconded.

    No opposition, issue 90 closed with amended proposal.



7.3      d> i089 suggest the restricted use of anonymous URI



Doug D asked that we defer discussion of I089 to the Face To Face meeting.


Paul F: I agree that based on mailing list discussions, there have been circles. At the f2f we should have the issues presented that the TC needs to resolve.


Paul C: will this be covered under issues list or interop.


Paul F: it should be covered on the issues list.


Paul F I suggest Doug D and I give a presentation on this issue.


Paul C: could this discussion occur when the interop people are still present.


Paul F: we will try to work with that comment during the agenda finalization. Some of this should be discussed while interop SC is present.


Tom R: Is it agreed that the recent discussions from Interop SC on anonymous with synch response is part of the subject of Issue 089.


Paul F: I agree that that is part of the resolution to I089.


Doug D: I do not want to ban anonymous reply to across the board. I need to float my ideas across the board before a decision is made.


Umit: The important thing is to decide on a solution first, then to address whether anonymous meets that solution.


Marc G: a presentation with message flows would help us come to a resolution.


Tom R: some sequence timing diagrams would be usefule


Paul C: it would be good to have someone on point for all outstanding issues for the F2F. It would be good to have a presentation on I021 as well.


Sanjay we have two issues 89 and 21.


Tom R: a set of message sequence diagrams would help.


Paul F: I intend to present such diagrams.


7.4      e> i096 Complete the state tables



Paul C: do we have someone to fix the existing problems. The problems I posted are simple and generic. If we do not have the work done by f2f we would have to recess.


Doug D: I will work to get this done by the face to face. I will accept being owner on this one.


Paul C: there are two items, agreement with cd 3,and answer of the pro-forma concerns that have arisen.


8         Any other business


Chris F: do we have plan of action out of Face to Face.


Sanjay: we have time to discuss this on the agenda.


Paul F: we have allocated an hour on the F2F.


Paul F: at the last meeting we allocated two weeks for a next CD with a ballot on that with public review as soon as the ballot passes.


Paul C: can we have the adjusted proposal in an email for discussion before the f2f.


Paul F: I can do that.


  Action: chairs will send email on adjusted schedule for progression before the f2f.




Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.

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