[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Prelim minutes of 10/04 teleconf
Prelim minutes attached. -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133Title: Minutes of OASIS WS-RX Teleconference 10/04/2007
Prelim Minutes of OASIS WS-RX Teleconference Oct 4, 2007
Start Time:4:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Pqul acted as chair.
Textual Conventions
Ø Action Item Motion § Resolution 1 Roll CallFrom Kavi: meeting is quorate (23 of 32 voting members present. Tom Rutt agreed to take minutes. 2 Agenda ApprovalAgenda Dial-in details: Thanks to
Microsoft (866) 500-6738 (203) 480-8000 PC: 2365501 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 Sep 6, 2007
meeting minutes 4) AI Review
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/members/action_items.php 5) New issue: Doug's nits 6) Review of Anish's
issues 7) WS-Policy 1.5 Primer/Guidelines
Review 8) Conf-call schedule / sponsorship 9) Any other business Tom: have 5 be new issues, Marc G issue, and have 6 be the numbered issues 150 160, 161, 3 Approval of the September Minutes;http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/25550/MinutesWSRX-090607-b.htm Gil moved to approve Sep minutes, Paul seconded.
§ No objections, minutes of Sep 6, 2007 approved. 4 AI Reviewhttp://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/members/action_items.php None 5 New issues:New Issue: Update WS-SecurityPolicy,
WS-SecureConversation, andWS-Trust
references Marc Goodner 03 Oct 2007 16:54:52 Title: Update WS-SecurityPolicy, WS-SecureConversation,
and WS-Trust references Target: all Description: The current references to these
specifications should be updated to point to the OASIS standard versions, which
also reference WS-Policy 1.5, that will eventually be
produced by the OASIS WS-SX TC. The WS-SX TC charter
(http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ws-sx/charter.php) states the following
“Following this, ratification of updated specifications as revised OASIS
standards to address any errata to fix errors and to replace policy references
to the WS-Policy W3C Recommendation as soon as that Recommendation is available
will mark the end of the TCs lifecycle.” Marc: this will be issue 162. No opposition to accept 162 as new issue. Tom: I think we should keep this open until there is an actual V.next Spec to point at. Anish: if they point at us, how can be advance two specs at same time with us pointing at them. Martin C: the OASIS board are discussing ways around this problem. However, this is a reference issue, the cd and oasis spec are the same normative material. Paul: does sx spec point to us. Marc G: no they SX do not point at TX oar RX. We do not have such a problem. Action: Marc G to report to us on the expected progression
of V.next for the SX tx. 6 Review of Numbered issuesMarc Goodner 02 Oct 2007 14:09:32 Revision: 51 http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues-051.xml 6.1 Issue 159Issue 159: Update references to WS-Policy and
WS-PolicyAttachment to point to W3C RECs Marc Goodner 02 Oct 2007 13:25:32 Title: Update references to
WS-Policy and WS-PolicyAttachment to point to W3C RECs Description: WSRM, WSRMP and MC specs point to
WS-Policy/Attachment version 1.2 & W3C CR specs and not
the W3C Recommendations (version 1.5). Justification: Per the charter clarification
ballot [1] which passed, the TC agreed to update the
deliverable section in the charter to: "... Ratification
of the above specifications as OASIS standards. Following this, ratification of
updated specifications as revised OASIS standards
to address any errata to fix errors and to replace policy references
to the WS-Policy W3C Recommendation as soon as that Recommendation is available will
mark the end of the TC's lifecycle." Target: core, policy, mc Proposal: Per the ballot text: 1) replace
the specs pointed to by [WS-Policy] with the one at http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-ws-policy-20070904/
in WSRM, WSRMP and MC specification: "[WS-Policy] W3C
Recommendation "Web Services Policy 1.5 - Framework", 4 Sept, 2007." 2) replace
the specs pointed to by [WS-PolicyAttachment] with
the one at http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-ws-policy-attach-20070904/ "[WS-PolicyAttachment]
W3C Recommendation "Web Services Policy 1.5 - Attachment", 4 Sept,
2007." 3) In WSRM and MC spec: In Table 1 add a new row: | wsp | http://www.w3.org/ns/ws-policy | WS-Policy 1.5
| Remove the following text in
section 1.4: "The assertions defined within
this specification have been designed to work
independently of a specific version of WS-Policy. At the time of the
publication of this specification the versions of WS-Policy known to correctly
compose with this specification are WS-Policy 1.2 and 1.5. Within this specification the use
of the namespace prefix wsp refers generically
to the WS-Policy namespace, not a specific version." -Anish -- [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/ballot.php?id=1302 Marc G: there was one namespace value that is missing in the above list, but the editors can catch that. Anish: example appendix? Marc G: in RM policy doc there is another example for contributed version of ws-policy. But the intent of the issue is clear, and that would be fixed by the editors. Martin: is this for V.next? General agreement that this is for v.next Marc G moved to accept proposed resolution for 158 for V.next, Doug D seconded. No opposition, 159 closed with proposed resolution. 6.2 Issue 160Re: [ws-rx] New
Issue: Update ws-addressing metadata namespace Anish Karmarkar n today's
call the question was asked whether this change changes any semantics
or breaks backward compatibility. [As Doug pointed out in the chat,
my previous email (quoted below) said that this
change needs to be applied to WSRMP and MC. That is not correct.
It needs to be applied to WSRM and MC specs] In both the WSRM and MC specs, wsam NS is used for the wsam:Action attribute.
This attribute is used only in examples. Additionally, the semantics
of the wsam:Action attribute (which allows one to specify
the value of
the wsa:Action MAP for a message) has not changed
between the REC and the previous WD that used
the http://www.w3.org/2007/02/addressing/metadata spec. -Anish -- 06 Sep 2007 16:43:07 RE: [ws-rx] Issue
160: Update ws-addressing metadata namespace Marc Goodner 02 Oct 2007 13:26:45 Title: Update the namespace for ws-addressing metadata spec to use the W3C REC NS Description: WS-Addressing metadata spec is now
a W3C REC; MC and WSRMP specs point to an
older NS Target: policy, mc Proposal: In both WSRMP and MC spec: Change the wsam
NS binding from http://www.w3.org/2007/02/addressing/metadata
to http://www.w3.org/2007/05/addressing/metadata in Table 1
as well as all the examples. -Anish Marc G: I am inclined to agree with Anish on This. This seems like an errata. Doug D: is this an errata of V.next thing. Anish: I see it as an errata. Paul: lets mark this as an errata, we can roll errata into V.next when time comes. No objections to close 160 with proposed resolution. 6.3
Issue 161
Doug Davis 06 Sep 2007 16:49:18 Marc Goodner 02 Oct 2007 13:27:54 RM spec: - line 957
- "AcksTo" has a mixture of fonts
used. Actually, we should scan the
entire doc since I think we missed some cases where element names should be in
"Courier New" - In the state table we reference a
[rollover] state but that state doesn't exist any more - I think its supposed to be "[Same]" - RMS table - s/3.7/3.4/ for
Expires event. thanks -Doug Marc G: these fixes sound good to me. In the actual errata document you have to show the changes from and to. The font changes could be difficult No objections to close 161 with proposed resolution. 7 WS-Policy 1.5 Primer/Guidelines ReviewW3C WS-Policy 1.5 Primer and Guidelines Last
Call review by OASISWS-RX TC Paul Cotton 29 Sep 2007 13:48:28 Martin: we do not have time to get an official response to the WS-Policy group. Tom: I am happy with the last call documents, and would not personally have any comments. Agreed that members should can always their own comments to the WS-Policy review. Bob F: if members have comments they can sent to our mailing list in the next week or two. If there are any that are contentious, we can deal with it at the next meeting. Martin: they should send to the policy WG directly. 8 Conf-call schedule / sponsorshipNext meeting, Microsoft will sponsor Nov 1 is next meeting. 9 Any other businessDiscussion of our progression. Martin: are each of these changes substantive or not. Holding on SX to do Job. Paul: what about the Policy update. Tom: V.next is only backwards compatible with the current version if the implementation took the Policy 1.5 option. If they did the 1.2 it would not conform to v.next. Marc G: it is the removal of policy 1.2 which makes it not subject for an errata. Martin: I see, but we still have a problem of waiting for SX . It would be nice if we did not have to block. Paul: I suggest we prepare a pure errata, then get the TC to review that errata. If we cannot wait, we publish the errata. Otherwise we just publish V.next. Tom: the errata has value for existing implementations. It is low cost, we should publish it in any case. Anish: where do we refer to SX. Marc G: I am not sure if the refs are non normative. But there is discussion in the security section. I think we need references to the v.next versions of sc and trust. Trust only referenced policy 1.2. Paul: I hear we should do an errata, then do a v.next which incorporates the new references. Martin: I think we should do the formal errata approval at the same time as V.next approval. Action: editors shall prepare the first errata document (160, 161, and to point at the latest Rec for policy 1.5.. Paul: At next meeting we review the errata, and look at the SX timeline to decide on V.next. Marc G: what is the next number. Paul: how about 1.2 Agreed to take to email. Meeting ended at 5:00 PM edt. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]