Full Agenda of WSRM TC Conference Call –
Apr
13, 2004
The meeting of the WSRM TC took place by teleconference
Tuesday, April 13, 2004, from 5:30 to 6:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
(UTC - 5)
Conference call Dial-in number : Toll number (only): 1-512-225-3050 Participant code: 89772
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 Status of Action
Items
4 Discussions of Issues and editorial comments
5 Discussion of FAQ for
WS-Reliability
Agenda approved
1
Roll
Call
Attendance:
Meeting ?? quorate.
0
Minutes
Discussion
0.1 Appointment
of Minute Taker
Tom Rutt will take
minutes.
Minutes will serve to record issue resolutions.
0.2 Approval
of previous meeting minutes
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/6252/MinutesWSRMTC033004.htm
xx moved to approve
3/30 minutes. YY seconded.
?? Opposition, Minutes ??
approved
1
Status of Action Items
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/6329/PostCD992ActionItems-040904.htm
Action 032304-2 - Pending. 3
Sunil and Jacques will provide a proposal on retry
parameters to the group before the end of the public review period.
Action 033004-2 - Pending. 5
In Two subsections for 6.3. Sunil took action to reword “no content” text.
Action 033004-3 - Pending. 6
Jacques took action item to propose new FAQ text for the
ws-reliability features.
Action 033004-4 - Pending. 6
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 033004-5 - Pending. 7
Jacques
took action to clearly state what the relation with ebMS
is. He agreed to draft a question with an answer.
Action 033004-6 - Pending. 7
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 040604-1 - Pending. 7
Sunil
and Jacques will propose the detailed changes required to remove status=start
from spec.
Action 040604-2 - Pending. 9
If
the request header has no message id element, how do you send a fault if there
is no group ID. Group ID is mandatory in
the reply.
Sunil
and Jun took action item to come up with detailed replacement text for this
concern. They will describe the various
edge cases.
Item added after posting:
Action editors-1 - Pending
Marc G and Doug B to
updated issues list to reflect agreements in CD .992.
2
Discussion
of Issues and editorial Comments
2.1
Clarification of Section 6.3
· Action 033004-2
From Sunil Kunisetty
<sunil.kunisetty@oracle.com> on 12
Apr 2004 22:05:22 -0000
2.2
Group Start Clarification
· Re: [wsrm] detailed updates entailed by removing
@status
From Sunil Kunisetty
<sunil.kunisetty@oracle.com> on 13
Apr 2004 03:59:47 -0000
· detailed updates entailed by removing @status
From Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> on 13 Apr 2004 01:09:36 -0000
2.3
Missing Message IDs on request
· Action item 040604-2 - Proposals
From Jun Tatemura
<tatemura@sv.nec-labs.com> on 12
Apr 2004 18:21:03 -0000
2.4
Aborting Ordered Delivery
Left open from discussion Last week’s meeting of Alan W
Email:
· Re:
[wsrm] Comments on CD 0.992
From "Alan Weissberger"
<ajwdct@technologist.com> on 5
Apr 2004 21:33:30 -0000
The
current text implies a receiver can decide to abort an ordered delivery.
Need
to clarify the semantics of aborting ordered delivery.
If
allowed, it has been suggested that a specific fault code be defined for this
case.
3
Frequently Asked Questions:
.
The
following is left over from Last Week’s agenda.
· 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.
alan
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: