[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes July 12, 2004 Telecon
Folks,
Here are my minutes. Sorry for not providing fancy html formating, I'm
a plain text guy.
William or Peter, can you post these with the calendar item, only
chairs can modify the entry.
Take care: Dave Snelling
================
Minutes: OASIS/WSN-TC
Date: Monday, 12 July 2004
Time: 01:00pm - 02:00pm Eastern Time
Roll call
- 26/37 - 70% Quorum met
Summary Of Outstanding Actions:
- Action: David S: Post pointer to WSRF issues list to the list
as
process recommendation. - Done
- Action: Chairs: Draft document process proposal (Was Item 6
from
previous meeting).
- Action: Igor to check the text in the issues WSN-1.21.
- Action: Editors (WS-T, WS-BaN, WS-BrN) to add this text
covering the
document status to the documents.
- Action: William to post a ballot on WS-BrN.
- Action: Editor WS-BaN to change version number to version 3.
- Action: Editors (WS-T and WS-BrN) to rename references to
WS-BaN as
version 3.
- Action: Peter: Become editor of changes document to accompany
document
release.
- Action: Editors WS-T, WS-BaN, WS-BrN: Send Peter paragraph
outlining
changes is V3 release.
- Action: All: Check your vote on the attendance at the F2F
- Action: Chairs to check Quorum issue for F2F meeting.
- Action: Chairs to clarify telephone attendance at F2F and
post as part
of the agenda.
- Action: Glen to send IRC channel information to the list for
notification of readiness to dial in to F2F.
- Action: Peter to send David H a revised version of the
indirect
notification pattern text for inclusion in the issues
document.
Minutes of the call on Monday 21 June
- Approved.
Action items review: See minutes for details
- Item 3 WS-BrokeredNotification goals/requirements
- Done, without comments to the list.
- Item 4 WS-RF dependencies [1]
- David: Draft is available [1]
- Peter: Provided references.
- Done.
- Item 5 Share 12th July with WS-RF TC
- Done
- Item 6 Work-in-progress, vs working draft
- Open and postponed.
- David S: Look at the solution to the this problem in WSRF.
- Action: David S: Post pointer to WSRF issues list to the list
as
process recommendation. - Done
- Action: Chairs: Draft document process proposal (Was Item 6
from
previous meeting).
- Item 7 List of typos in WS-Topics
- Done
- Item 8 Proposed NotificationProducer clarification
- Done
- Steve G: This is wrt mail of 14 June.
- Steve's revision of the above in included in the issue
WSN-1.21
- Action: Igor to check the text in the issues WSN-1.21.
- Item 9 Writeup simultaneity issue
- Done.
Document review:
- WS-Topics ballot result
- Ballot closed with large majority. Go ahead and publish.
- WS-BrokeredNotification draft
- Was held up pending a requirements section.
- It is ready for posting.
- Text needs to be added to the document stating the status of
the
documents.
- This text should be added without updating the version number.
- Action: Editors (WS-T, WS-BaN, WS-BrN) to add this text
covering the
document status to the documents.
- Action: William to post a ballot on WS-BrN.
- WS-BaseNotification version
- The request from WSRF to call it version 3, rather than 4.
- Proposal to do this was agreed.
- Action: Editor WS-BaN to change version number to version 3.
- Action: Editors (WS-T and WS-BrN) to rename references to
WS-BaN as
version 3.
- Change summary ? [2]
- Glen agrees.
- The question is when. After each major revision?
- William suggested that it was a good idea but should be part
of the
revised document process.
- Such a document would help people know how important the
changes were.
- Generally thought a good idea, but who should do it and in
what form.
- Steve G: Proposed three chapters in one document.
- William: Call for document editor and each editorial team to
provide
chapter drafts.
- All editors agreed to provide this.
- Call for volunteers, Peter said yes.
- Action: Peter: Become editor of changes document to accompany
document
release.
- Action: Editors WS-T, WS-BaN, WS-BrN: Send Peter paragraph
outlining
changes is V3 release.
Preparation for Face-to-Face meeting
- Call for suggestions to chairs.
- Action: All: Check your vote on the attendance at the F2F
- Steve G: Asked that we check the Quorum issue prior to the
list.
- Action: Chairs to check Quorum issue for F2F meeting.
- Phone attendance:
- Call attendees will be counted as attended.
- The call will open toward the end of the day.
- Action: Chairs to clarify telephone attendance at F2F and
post as part
of the agenda.
- Action: Glen to send IRC channel information to the list for
notification of readiness to dial in to F2F.
Potential New Issues:
- Generalise WSBN to cover indirect notification patterns [3]
- The proposed recommendation suggests a clarification to the
introduction.
- Peter: Is it within charter to deliver Notifications through
other
mechanisms other than WSs?
- The registration is always WS based, only the delivery has
the option
to use other mechanisms.
- Steve G: If we always assume that the delivery is always via
WS, but
other mechanisms are via other bindings.
- David H: If we allow any delivery mechanism, we loose the
interoperability.
- David H: Using an EPR to point to the delivery target is OK,
but other
bindings or delivery mechanisms need to be supported.
- It was noted that WSA was in itself an open issue.
- Agreed that we should allow protocols other than SOAP/HTTP.
- But what binding (if any) do we specify normatively.
- There was some off topic discussion about the need to define
bindings,
etc.
- William: The email says that what we really need if indirect
delivery,
which is only a minor problem with the introduction text.
- Steve G: This might need to be managed carefully with respect
to the
"ReplyTo" field in the WSA spec.
- David H: This may actually lead to MAY vs MUST issues in the
document.
- Peter: The indirect issue is important.
- Proposal: Open the issue. Agreed.
- Action: Peter to send David H a revised version of the
indirect
notification pattern text for inclusion in the issues
document.
[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsn/200406/msg00091.html
[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsn/200406/msg00095.html
[3] http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsn/200406/msg00065.html
Meeting closed
Un-addressed agenda items:
- Pause/Resume message types [4]
- Relationships section [5]
- any others?
Issues review (time permitting):
- issue 2.9 Conform to WS BaseFaults
- issue 2.19 Soften the wording for Subscribe operation
- issue 2.11: Consumer can not identify the subscription causing
notifications
[4] http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsn/200407/msg00011.html
[5] http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsn/200407/msg00003.html
This e-mail has been scanned by Trend InterScan Software. This e-mail (and its attachment(s) if any) is intended for the named addressee(s) only. It may contain information which is privileged and confidential within the meaning of the applicable law. Unauthorised use, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient please delete this email and contact the sender via email return. Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Ltd (FLE) does not accept responsibility for changes made to this email after it was sent. The views expressed in this email may not necessarily be the views held by FLE. Unless expressly stated otherwise, this email does not form part of a legally binding contract or agreement between the recipient and Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Ltd (FLE).
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]