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: Prelim minutes of WSRM TC teleconf 8/10/04

The prelim minutes are attached.

Tom Rutt

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 –August 10, 2004


The meeting of the WSRM TC  took place by teleconference 

Tuesday, Aug 10, 2004, from 5:30 to 7:30 PM Eastern Standard Time



1         Draft Agenda:

1 Draft Agenda to WSRM TC Conference Call

2 Roll Call

3 Minutes Discussion

3.1 Appointment of Minute Taker

3.2 Approval of previous meeting minutes –

4 Action Item Status Review

5 Discussions of unresolved comments

6 Scheduled Vote for CD (only if all comments are resolved and we are quorate, else we could initiate a Kavi 7 day ballot, or wait till Aug 17)

7 Scheduled Votes for further progression (only if CD is voted yes)

7.1 Vote on whether changes from CD .992 are substantive

7.2 Vote to Submit to OASIS for member vote (subject to no vote on 7.1))

7.3 Vote for second 30 day public review (subject to yes vote on 7.1)

8 Discussion of document progression and future meeting schedule


2         Roll Call


First Name

Last Name




Voting Level





Sun Microsystems






Sun Microsystems
























Nortel Networks






NEC Corporation






NEC Corporation



































TC Chair







Cyclone Commerce






Booz Allen Hamilton



 Meeting  is  quorate.


3         Minutes Discussion

3.1      Appointment of Minute Taker

Tom Rutt will take minutes.


Minutes will serve to record issue resolutions.

3.2      Approval of previous meeting minutes

The minutes of the Aug 3 teleconf are posted at:



xx moved to approve, yy seconded.


?? opposition, minutes ?? approved.


1         Status of Action Items


1.1      Action 052503-1 (Tom Rutt) pending

Tom took an action item to complete the status column of 
pre public review issues list, with correct URLs.


1.2      Action 060104-5 (Jacques) Pending


Action: Jacques, will propose further edits, on the FAQ for composability.


Still open, low priority



2         Discussion of Issues and editorial Comments

The following issues list includes items which have been resolved as of the output of the 7/6/1004 TC meeting:




Additional issues and comments were circulated to the list for discussion. 


These need to be resolved before we can vote on a next CD.


The editing team posted draft 1.083 to the server which resolved the editorial action items from the 8/03 minutes:  http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8621/WS-Reliability-1083-Contrib-Peel.pdf


WS-Reliability-2004-08-07-drb.pdf off 1.082 needing more discussion.

2.1      What changed discussion


Doug: we have three documents:

  • 1.082 – includes resolutions of technical issues, such as cf4 and mp8, and many editorial changes.  A number of these introduce new problems which Mark peel notices.  
  • 1.083 – this includes some editorial fixes from Mark peel
  • Doug produced a third document which includes discussion around section2.  These documents have 1.082 as a root.




·  What changed in 1.082?
From Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM> on
6 Aug 2004 07:24:48 -0000


·  Re: [wsrm] What changed in 1.08?
From Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM> on
6 Aug 2004 07:24:24 -0000


·  Re: [wsrm] What changed in 1.08?
From "iwasa" <kiwasa@jp.fujitsu.com> on
6 Aug 2004 07:21:03 -0000


2.2      Email Discussion Items


·  Contribution suggestions just uploaded
From Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM> on
7 Aug 2004 23:13:16 -0000

Subject: Contribution suggestions just uploaded


    * From: Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>

    * To: wsrm <wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org>

    * Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 16:14:58 -0700


The contribution I just uploaded[1,2,3] represents another improvement on

(but not the culmination of everything required to fix) the issues

discussed in my long-ago "Summary of WS-Reliability 1.01* issues discussed

over past week" email as well as the more recent "Detailed review of

Section 2-2.5, 5.2 and related definitions" and "about review of Section

2-2.5, 5.2".  We have made a lot of progress on improvements in this area

but a bit more remains.


Note that the two footnotes I inserted are not intended for the final

document but simply explain a few deletions.  Those deletions also make the

footnotes much less sensible when not viewing the differences.


Primary areas of concern addressed in this contribution include:

- The BP 1.0 WSDL / SOAP / HTTP restrictions inappropriately were applied

to the allowed abstract operations used at the producer / consumer level.

It does not make sense to apply HTTP and SOAP restrictions to the way in

which a SOAP processor (our RMP component) is invoked.  That represents an

unnecessary restriction reaching across 3 abstraction layers.


- A few remaining clarity issues.  For example, while WSDL might be written

down to describe the RMP use of the underlying protocol, we have not done

so.  In spite of this lack, "WSDL" is occasionally used in ways that are



- A lack of support for the BP 1.0 restrictions presented in Section 6.  We

need to generically describe various message exchanges as following the

patterns introduced in Section 2.3 ("SOAP one-way MEP" and "SOAP

request-response MEP") before the HTTP binding builds on those assumptions.

  A few more assumptions and implications needed to be written down.  This

was particularly troubling in light of the over-generality previously in

2.5.2 and 2.5.3.


- Application of a SOAP One-way MEP restriction in 6.3 to the synchronous

Poll RM-Reply Pattern case.  Fixed by moving the appropriate restrictions

into 6.3.1 and 6.3.2.


The specification still does a poor job describing when the Respond

operation is or is not supported.  Nor does it make clear the "meaning" of

a payload in a message containing only a Response header or that messages

with none of the Request, Response or PollRequest headers have no

significance under the WS-Reliability protocol.  Both classes of change

would likely be more significant than I undertook.  For example, it might

be reasonable to link the first Reliable Message "mentioned" in a Response

element with a payload in the same message but that would extend the rules

in 4.4 beyond the Response RM-Reply Pattern.  This contribution attempts to

illustrate the differences between the Producer / Consumer interface and

the SOAP message exchanges the RMPs implement but may not be "complete" in

this respect either.













Re: [wsrm] Contribution suggestions just uploaded
From "Iwasa" <kiwasa@jp.fujitsu.com> on
10 Aug 2004 15:46:31 -0000

Subject: Re: [wsrm] Contribution suggestions just uploaded


    * From: "Iwasa" <kiwasa@jp.fujitsu.com>

    * To: "Doug Bunting" <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>, "wsrm" <wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org>

    * Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:47:33 +0900




Since we are almost there, I would like to

pursue possibility to meet 8/15 deadline

for voting of the spec itself and its submission

to OASIS. Would it be possible to realize that if:

    - We agree the resolution for all remaining issues

      at the telecon.(if any)

    - Editors publish the final version of the spec

      by the end of Thursday 8/12.

    - Additional telecon on Friday afternoon/evening 8/13.

       (This must have quorum.)

       The possible agenda is:

            - Check the last updates one by one.

            - Voting for the spec to be CD

            - Voting for OASIS submission



Any thoughts?







Re: [wsrm] Contribution suggestions just uploaded
From Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM> on
10 Aug 2004 20:49:03 -0000



As an editor, I am concerned about the lack of comments on the list from non-editors as well as the continued existence and new-found awareness of technical issues.  I am unable to pull together a document reflecting what I believe will be the outcome of these discussions and will let this email, Marks contribution and my contribution serve for now.


Doug: This TC is not responding to requests from the editing team to help resolve text changes.  This is a high level issue, and we need to have more reaction.  Nobody has reacted to my contribution.


I see Iwasa's schedule as somewhat possible but doubtful due to the lack of comment on a number of questions.  Within the editing team, I had some questions about Mark's latest contribution we have not quite ironed out.  I have seen no comments on my earlier contribution (which happens to include a few additional editorial items but is mostly (minor or minor minor?) technical).


Additional questions for the group include the following:

- "If the specific RM Fault encountered was due to a problem with processing by the Receiving RMP, a SOAP server fault SHALL be returned." in 4.5 (lines 1056-1057 in 1.082 "no changes" PDF) does not properly distinguish between the SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 cases.  Jacques has suggested "... a SOAP fault with faultcode "Server" (in SOAP 1.1) or "Receiver" (SOAP 1.2) SHALL ..."  Do we have other remaining cases where the 1.1 / 1.2 distinction should be clarified?  Is this the correct fix for this case (for example, does "faultcode" cover both protocols)?


Doug: I think Jacques suggestion is ok, but we have to check of Fault Code covers both soap 1.1 and 1.2.


Sunil: I do not think if Fault code is used in 1.2.   Soap 1.2 has Fault and Code, code has a subelement called value.   Soap 1.1 uses terms server and client, 1.2 uses sender and receiver.


Jacques: the latest draft needs improvement on this.


Issue: Need improvement for wording.  They


Tom:  This is an editorial Issue which needs resolution discussed.



Action: Editing team should propose suggested changes for soap fault codes text, with Sunil leading the effort.



- Jacques believes our current text does not properly cover errors when invoking the Deliver operation.  I believe we have agreement within the editing team to add this case to Table 25 (as a 3rd case for MessageProcessingFailure) but have seen additional suggestions that go far beyond that.


Doug: this is regarding the composibility comment which needs further discussion.


Doug: we can add case to Table 25 as an additional case for MessageProcessingFailure. 


Jacques: I agree with the third new condition for Message processing failure with Doug’s wording.


Doug: There is disagreement on the other two changes. 


These changes are discussed in the section on edits to enhance composibility issue below in these minutes.


- "A property is an assertion or constraint on a specific RM capability and its value(s) associated with WSDL elements." in B.3.3 (lines 1840-1841 in 1.082 "no changes" PDF) remains murky.  Mark's original

question was "What's associated with WSDL elements here: a property, a

constraint, an RM capability, or its values?"  Mark has suggested removing "associated with WSDL elements" but we have not seen firm support for that change.  This has been mentioned a number of times on the TC list without comment.


Doug: Needs discussion.  B.3.3   Mark is working on this sentence, and the editor’s team does not have a firm decision made.  There is a suggestion.


Tom: anyone unhappy with Mark’s suggested fix in the above bullet should post by end of day tomorrow, so editors can include fix into the Thursday Document.


Tom: also post any concerns with Marks latest contribution by end of Wednesday.


2.3      Edits to enhance composability


·  proposed edits for enhancing composability
From Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> on
9 Aug 2004 20:09:57 -0000


·  RE: [wsrm] proposed edits for enhancing composability
From Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> on
9 Aug 2004 23:23:50 -0000


·  Re: [wsrm] proposed edits for enhancing composability
From Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM> on
9 Aug 2004 20:44:12 -0000

Subject: Re: [wsrm] proposed edits for enhancing composability


    * From: Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>

    * To: Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>

    * Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 13:45:49 -0700




A few comments below.


On 09-Aug-04 13:09, Jacques Durand wrote:

> When looking at some composition patterns of WS-R with other specs,

> I observed the following, which I think deserves our attention for this

> release:


> - One case of failure is missing: we have implicitly recognized that the

> Deliver invocation

> may fail (as we require it to be "successful" in our RM contracts) but

> we do not say what happens in that case (after the message has passed

> every other test).


> We know the message will not / should not be acked. But what kind of

> fault is returned?


> Proposal: Edit Table 25 to add in the entry for MessageProcessingFailure:

> "In case of failure of the Deliver operation, a MessageProcessingFailure

> RM fault SHALL be generated."


This table covers faults in every situation I believe.  We need to be

careful about SHALL in this context since the Receiving RMP is *not*

required to publish any fault unless AckRequested was enabled for the

received Reliable Message.  The only current RFC 2119 terminology in these

tables is a single MUST NOT which is fully described in that clause.  I

would recommend toning down this requirement and phrasing it as an addition

to the existing list: "3. The Deliver operation fails."


> - A requirement of composability, is that we need to be accommodating of

> 3rd party faults:

> in Section 4.5 (rules for processing faults): The response message (in

> case of Response reply pattern) may also contain a SOAP Fault generated

> by the next processor in case the next processor faults it.


This seems to go against our overall Messaging Model as introduced in

Section 2.1.  How can a "next processor" exist if the Receiving RMP is the

SOAP ultimate destination?


On the other hand, the RMP implementation may include other components

operating in parallel with the infrastructure described in the

WS-Reliability specification.  We make that provision explicit in a few

places, including the "RMP" definition itself.  Since the RMP also includes

generic SOAP processing capabilities, SOAP Faults are easily returned with

or without RM Faults.  For example, the Sending RMP may include something

in the Reliable Message that causes a SOAP Fault (such as a mustUnderstand

fault) -- preventing any WS-Reliability-specific handling of that message.

  Since SOAP Faults are fatal and prevent other processing of a received

message, I believe the combined SOAP Fault / RM Fault cases are limited to

the list already described in Section 4.5.


If you believe it necessary to warn implementors again that the SOAP

processing model remains in effect, I guess some words about "bare SOAP

Faults might arrive back at the Sending RMP in situations not described in

this specification" could be added to Section 4.5.  I probably would not



> If we accept the proposal that "Deliver operation failure" is one more

> case of MessageProcessingFailure, we must also consider the following:


> depending on implementations, the Deliver operation itself may involve

> some external SOAP processing in order to complete successfully.


> A specific SOAP Fault may be generated when Deliver fails on Receiving

> side (cannot complete). Then we need to relax the requirement that a

> "SOAP Server fault SHALL be returned". It could be another fault

> generated by the next processor (e.g. MustUnderstand).


> Proposal: Edit in 4.5 "rules for processing faults" as follows:

> Replace:


>       "If the specific RM Fault encountered was due to a problem with

>       processing by the Receiving RMP, a SOAP server fault SHALL be

>       returned."


>       with:

>       "If the specific RM Fault encountered was due to a problem with

>       processing by the Receiving RMP, before the Deliver operation


>       was invoked onthis message, a SOAP server fault SHALL be returned."


I would prefer we rely on our normative references to the two SOAP

specifications for this type of constraint.  It should not be necessary to

repeat rules from those specifications.


Ø            Jacques



Jacques: the point I am making is that our spec requires a specific fault code with specific code value.  This code value, given the edits to be done by editing team, should be restricted to the case where message processing fault are encountered before the deliver operation is invoked.  If the failure occurs during execution of deliver, I would not make prescription on what soap fault code is returned, because Deliver may involve external processing.


Doug: This change exposes the innards of a particular RMP implementation to the world unnecessarily.  Any case where an rm fault is generated an published is under the RMPs control, as far as the sending RMP should know.  The more I understand your intent, the more I see it as making one implementation choice overly visible.


Jacques: My example is not the main stream case, my main incentive for suggesting we do not prescribe the soap fault once deliver is invoked is I see no value for imposing the fault code for every rm fault.


Jacques: we have not considered the case of Failed invocation of Deliver, which should not be acknowledged.  If we impose particular soap fault with this.


Sunil: Soap 1.1 has four fault codes, soap 1.2 has five.


Sunil: The only time we prescribe sending client or sender fault code is to indicate that the header has problems.  We send receiver, or server fault for all conditions because of processing at the Receiving RMP.  The Must Understand fault is a specific case.


Jacques: I am convinced there are some cases the server or receiver fault code should not be sent with delivery not completed.


Doug: If the receiver sends any other than server/receiver fault code, it will confuse the sender.


Doug: the case Jacques is talking about is if the receiving rmp is implemented to send a soap message to a downstream soap processer.  That other place sends the receiving RMP why it failed.  Jacques want to proxy the downstream soap fault in the rmp response.  I still think that for this case the server/receiver fault code is the only appropriate one.


Jacques: I do not want to push this that much, since this is a corner case.  If others believer that this is the only appropriate fault, I can live with it as is, with the table change.



2.4      Section 2


·  Re: [wsrm] about review of Section 2-2.5, 5.2
From "iwasa" <kiwasa@jp.fujitsu.com> on
5 Aug 2004 08:35:49 -0000


·  about review of Section 2-2.5, 5.2
From Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> on
4 Aug 2004 07:22:27 -0000



Doug: I posted a contribution WS-Reliability-2004-08-07-drb.pdf off 1.082, to resolve these concerns, but have received no response from the group.


Jacques: I have not been able to review the detailed changes, and I think I can give my comments by Wednesday.


Doug: I would like the TC to let us know whether my contribution improves or worsens the spec.  If there are parts which need fixing it should not be Jacques.


Doug: it is not perfect set of changes, but do those which we can reasonably undertake in this version of the specification.  I believe we should make these changes now.


Doug: the patterns of messages used by RMPs are different than the patterns of messages used by the consumer and producer, and I added sentences to section 2 to explain those differences.  It is a different way to explain that as a difference rather than a restriction.



Jacques: I just now got a hold of the contribution.  My only comment of getting rid of table in 5.2 is that it clarifies what reply patterns can be used which which WSDL operation types  This relationship is not because of WSDL, but is because of the underlying soap MEP which is assumed.  Somewhere it must be made clear that the usage of the reply pattern is affected by the wsdl Operation type.


Tom: the only restriction in the table is regarding the wsdl oneway message not being appropriate for response reply pattern.


Doug: and that statement is tied to BP 1.0 and its binding to Soap-HTTP/post wsdl binding.  You cannot use oneway because we require acknowledgements


Jacques: I agree this restriction is only for when the BP 1.0 restriction for HTTP soap binding.


Doug: I did not make major changes to the http binding section; I just referred to constraints in section 2.  I made the general rules in section 2 a little bit tighter.


Doug there are only a few items left in the editing of the document, I can take the editing changes from Mark, and apply the agreed suggestions from my contribution to the edited text from Mark.


Tom: I suggest that we have the entire TC post any concerns about Doug’s contribution before the end of Wednesday, so the editors can have a new document by Thursday.




3         Scheduled Vote for CD (only if all comments are resolved and we are quorate)


Will defer to after the next draft is posted.

4         Scheduled Votes for further progression (only if CD is voted yes)

CD not voted.


5         Discussion of document progression and future meeting schedule

5.1      Progression discussion


Action: editors to post next draft on Thursday, Aug 12.


Best possibility is a CD vote on Aug 17th.   If not 2/3 quorate this could be a Kavi ballot.


This would be followed by a Vote on whether changes are substantive from CD .992.


Tom: As chair I must state that the schema changes would make an implementation of .992 not validate with the new schema.  Some might consider such a change substantive.


Jacques: because the changes are small, while the schema validation is different, the substantial algorithms are the same.  The changes are superficial on the impact of the implementation.  This could be considered not substantive.


Tom: lets consider two possible tracks: 

  1. A: changes from CD .992 are voted as not substantive – we can submit to oasis member vote on Sept 15.  They send out on October 1 the  30 day member vote,  we get comments by October 31.  This points to a Face to face to resolve member comments in November
  2. B: changes from CD .992 are voted as substantive – can initate a new public review could initiate on Sept 18th. Closing Sep 17.   Earliest Oasis member vote submission on October 15, with Oasis member vote going out Nov 1 ending Nov 31.  This would lead to a Face to Face in early October (to resolve any public review comments) or December (to resolve member comments).


Possibilities include the week of the Oct 4 in Brussels, some later time in the Bay area or wherever there is a suitable conference for interop.


Tom: we Need to wait till next week to know if we are on track A or B and schedule the face to face as appropriate.  Also need further discussion on the interop demo.


5.2      Possibility for early KAVI ballot

Doug: rather than starting a Kavi vote after failing to get supermajority at beginning of teleconf next Tuesday, why not start that Kavi vote as soon as a document appears which


Doug we can vote on same issue in person, the ballot can be closed.


Tom: Do I have freedom to issue a Kavi ballot Saturday Evening or Sunday morning, if there are no comment on the Thursday draft.  No opposition.   If we are super-quorate on Tuesday we can start a new ballot right then.  This might be required if there are late changes requested on Monday.


It is crucial that people respond to any comments on existing contributions by Wed PM, and on the Thursday Draft by Saturday afternoon.


Bob: I am concerned that we keep working for the 15th deadline.  Summer is a tough time.  We need to get things going as fast as possible.


5.3      Discussion of Interop Demo

Alan: the implementations will have to change due to the schema changes, and thus we should work toward another interop demo.


Bob: I am sending mail to determine an appropriate venue and time for the next interop demo.  The Belgium meeting in October is one possibility.


Alan: is the objective to gain publicity.


Bob: another way is to have a clinic with anybody to bring implementations to.


Bob: I will send a mail out to the entire TC on the particulars for the next interop demo.


Doug: you could run this over a longer period of time with available endpoints.


5.4      Future work items

·  Suggested work items once we complete CD vote
From "Alan Weissberger" <ajwdct@technologist.com> on 4 Aug 2004 01:47:49 -0000


Defer this discussion to next week, after we know which track we are on.



Bob moved to adjourn.  Alan seconded.


No opposition, meeting adjourned.

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