OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrm message

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

Subject: Full agenda for 4/06 Teleconference

The full agenda, with email links is attached.


Conference call Dial-in number : Toll number (only): 1-512-225-3050 Participant code: 89772

Tom Rutt
WSRM Chair

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

Title: Draft Agenda to WSRM TC Conference Call – May 06, 2003

Preliminary Minutes of WSRM TC Conference Call – Apr 06, 2004


The meeting of the WSRM TC took place by teleconference 
Tuesday, April 6 2004, from 5:30 to 6:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
(UTC - 5)

0         Draft Agenda:

Draft Agenda to WSRM TC Conference Call

1 Roll Call

2 Minutes Discussion

2.1 Appointment of Minute Taker

2.2 Approval of previous meeting minutes –

3 Discussions of Issues and editorial comments

4 Discussion of FAQ for WS-Reliability


Agenda approved

1         Roll Call




 Meeting ?? quorate.


2         Minutes Discussion

2.1      Appointment of Minute Taker

Tom Rutt will take minutes.


Minutes will serve to record issue resolutions.

2.2      Approval of previous meeting minutes




xx moved to approve 3/30 minutes.  YY seconded.


?? Opposition, Minutes ?? approved


3         Discussion of Issues and editorial Comments


3.1      Group Start Clarification


·  Group start issue
From Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> on 3 Apr 2004 01:50:12 -0000



3.2      Comments from Jun and its discussion thread


·  Re: [wsrm] Comments on CD 0.992
From Sunil Kunisetty <Sunil.Kunisetty@oracle.com> on 5 Apr 2004 21:11:43 -0000

·  Re: [wsrm] Comments on CD 0.992
From Sunil Kunisetty <sunil.kunisetty@oracle.com> on 3 Apr 2004 22:41:05 -0000

·  Re: [wsrm] Comments on CD 0.992
From Jun Tatemura <tatemura@sv.nec-labs.com> on 3 Apr 2004 01:47:39 -0000

·  RE: [wsrm] Comments on CD 0.992
From Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> on 3 Apr 2004 00:14:40 -0000

·  Comments on CD 0.992
From Jun Tatemura <tatemura@sv.nec-labs.com> on 2 Apr 2004 22:12:14 -0000


3.1      Comments from Alan


·  Re: [wsrm] Comments on CD 0.992
From "Alan Weissberger" <ajwdct@technologist.com> on 5 Apr 2004 21:33:30 -0000




4         Frequently Asked Questions:


Action Items From Last Week’s Minutes: In Italics to differentiate from today’s entries.


·  Initial list of WSRM FAQs
From Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> on 24 Mar 2004 00:18:43 -0000



What are the reliability features supported by the WS-Reliability specification?


A] Guaranteed delivery to the user or Application entity (the message MUST be persisted (i.e. stored in non volatile memory) in the sender Reliable Messaging Processor (RMP), until delivery to the ultimate receiver has been acknowledged.


B] Duplicate elimination - Delivery at most once -with duplicates detected and eliminated by the RMP receiver,


C] Guaranteed message ordering - when delivered by the RMP receiver to the user, the messages are properly sequenced.  The problem arises when messages are received out of sequence or acknowledgements are lost.  The solution is for the RMP transmitter to retransmit unacknowledged messages (after a time-out), and for the RMP receiver to re-order received out of sequence messages so that they are properly delivered to the user (e.g. Application entity)


Jacques took action item to propose new text for this question above..


Action item progress:


What is the difference between the WSRM TC’s WS-Reliability specification and the ws-reliable Messaging specification.

WS-Reliability is being developed within the OASIS open process, and our working draft, related documents and TC archives are all accessible to the public. We invite public review and comment on this work.
WS-Reliable Messaging is a proprietary specification being developed  privately at this time by a group of vendors. As the status of the current version of WS-Reliable Messaging is not publicly known, we advise those with specific questions on WS-Reliable Messaging to contact its developers.
Jacques stated the word “difference” is too vague.  
Tom: it is unclear why the name of the TC and the spec are different.
Jacques: WS- reliability seems to suggest we go beyond the messaging part.
Bob: I recommend we be silent about the other spec.
Change question to why does the spec have a different name than the TC.
Marc G agreed to propose a new question with new answer to clarify the matter.


Action item progress:





1.  We did get a question at the Dec 03 XML COnference on relationship of WS Reliability to ebXML.  I do not think they are related or that our spec will work in an ebXML environment.


2.  I am not familiar with ebMS 2.0 and have never heard anyone ask about it


3.  It would be a very bad idea to include a comparison of our spec to WSRM spec.  That would open a can of worms and a lot of rock throwing.  This is something that the industry/ market will have to decide on its own.  Obviously all the vendors in a given camp will be biased in favor of their spec.





Jacques: The answer to this question could be formulated in a proper way.  It is a legitimate question to ask and we should have an answer to it. 


Jacques took action to clearly state what the case is.  He agreed to draft a question with an answer.


Action Progress:


Tom: Need a general question on how can ws reliability be used with other ws reliability protocols.  Answer : we design it as orthogonal, to work with any other ws- reliability protocol.  An example on why we have a reply to element of our own would help.


Tom Rutt agreed to send a suggested question and proposal out.


Action Progress:



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