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: Re: [wsrm] Second Draft Submission Letter for WS-Reliability


I just updated the pubic comments issue resolutions to include Doug's 
change of replyPattern on response, along
with the reordering of the rm-replies.

Thus I want to change the answer to question 5 to:

5. An account of each of the comments/issues raised during the public
review period, along with its resolution.
 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/9023/PublicCommentsIsssues-090204.html  
 


Tom Rutt wrote:

> Here is a second draft, which updates the references to the experience 
> letters, and changes the summary
> as suggested by Alan W. (I eliminated the first sentence of the last 
> para of Alan's suggestion because it repeats what is in the next 
> question.
>
> If There are no comments on this second draft, I will send it to Karl 
> Best Tomorrow morning.
>
> Tom Rutt
> WSRM TC Chair
> ------------------
> Draft Submission Letter for WS-Reliability 1.1
>
>
> 1. A formal specification that is a valid member of its type, together
> with appropriate documentation for the specification, both of which
> must be written using approved OASIS templates.
>
> Zip file at: 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8936/WS-Reliability-CD1.086.zip 
> containing the following five files:
> WS-Reliability-CD1.086.pdf WS-Reliability version 1.1, CD 1.086
> ws-reliability-1.1.xsd Ws-Reliability schema
> reference-1.1.xsd Reference type schema
> fnp-1.1.xsd Features and Properties schema
> wsrmfp-1.1.xsd wsrm features and properties schema
>
>
> 2. A clear English-language summary of the specification.
>
> The WS-Reliabilty specification, version 1.1, specifies a transport-
> independent, SOAP based protocol for the reliable delivery of messages.
> Reliable message delivery may be critical to some applications using
> Web Services.
>
> SOAP over HTTP [RFC2616] is not sufficient when an application-level
> messaging protocol must also guarantee some level of reliability and
> security. This specification defines reliability in the context of
> current Web Services standards.
>
> The WS Reliability specification provides the following reliability
> features:
>
> - Guaranteed message delivery, or At-Least-Once delivery semantics.
> - Guaranteed message duplicate elimination, or "At-Most-Once" delivery
> semantics.
> - Guaranteed message delivery and duplicate elimination, or "Exactly-
> Once" delivery semantics.
> - Guaranteed message ordering for delivery within a group of
> (sequential) messages.
>
> The WS-Reliabilty specification uses SOAP 1.1 or 1.2 Part 1. It may be
> used with other transport protocols/bindings besides HTTP.
>
> 3. A statement regarding the relationship of this specification to
> similar work of other OASIS TCs or other standards developing
> organizations.
>
> This specification has been designed to be used in combination with
> other complementary protocols, and has built upon previous experiences
> from the ebXML Message Service [ebMS].) Both WS-Reliability and ebMS
> have same messaging reliability contracts as objectives: guaranteed
> delivery, no duplicate delivery, ordered delivery, and combinations of
> these.
>
> However, WS-Reliability has improved on scalability and performance by
> generalizing the use of sequence numbers, and can accommodate different
> security and access conditions on each party, as this is more
> frequently the case with a Web service and its clients, compared to
> more symmetrical access conditions in messaging. The reliability
> contract is more "application-oriented" in WS-R, where acknowledgment
> is on final delivery, in contrast to "on receipt" by the message
> handler in ebMS.
>
> 4. Certification by at least three OASIS member organizations that they
> are successfully using the specification consistently with the OASIS
> IPR Policy.
>
> The chair has received statements from the following TC member
> organizations. We include pointers to the e-mail archive record of the 
> statements made.
>
> Hitachi:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200409/msg00000.html
>
> Fujitsu
> http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200408/msg00130.html
>
> Oracle:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200408/msg00125.html
>
> NEC:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200408/msg00127.html
>
> 5. An account of each of the comments/issues raised during the public
> review period, along with its resolution.
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/7725/PublicCommentsIsssues-070604OutputB.html 
>
>
> 6. An account of and results of the voting to approve the
> specification as a Committee Draft.
>
> TC roll call vote at teleconf on August 24, 2004
>
> Name Company Vote for CD 1.086
> --------------- ------------------- ------------------
> Joseph Chiusano Booz Allen Hamilton y
> Jeff Turpin Cyclone Commerce y
> Jacques Durand Fujitsu y
> Kazunori Iwasa Fujitsu Not present
> Tom Rutt Fujitsu y
> Jishnu Mukerji Hewlett-Packard Not present
> Robert Freund Hitachi y
> Eisaku Nishiyama Hitachi y
> Nobuyuki Yamamoto Hitachi Not present
> Junichi Tatemura NEC Corporation y
> Alan Weissberger NEC Corporation y
> Abbie Barbir Nortel Networks y
> Mark Peel Novell y
> Sunil Kunisetty Oracle y
> Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle Not present
> Pete Wenzel SeeBeyond y
> Doug Bunting Sun Microsystems y
> Tony Graham Sun Microsystems y
> Chi-Yuen Ng Univ of Hong Kong y
>
> 15 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain, 4 not present
>
> 78% of eligible voting members voted yes
> 0% of eligible voting members voted no
> 0% of eligible voting members abstained
>
> 7. An account of or pointer to votes and comments received in any
> earlier attempts to standardize substantially the same specification,
> together with the originating TC's response to each comment.
>
> This specification has not been previously submitted to OASIS.
>
>
> 8. A pointer to the publicly visible comments archive for the 
> originating TC
>
> WSRM TC public comment list:
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm-comment/
>
> WSRM TC list:
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/
>
>
> 9. A statement from the chair of the TC certifying that all members of
> the TC have been provided with a copy of the OASIS IPR Policy.
>
> The TC chair certifies that all members have been reminded to read the
> IPR statement on numerous occasions and also in an e-mail
> “Call for IPR disclosure regarding ws-Reliability spec” at:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200405/msg00022.html
>
>
> 10. Optionally, a pointer to any minority reports submitted by one or
> more TC members who did not vote in favor of approving the Committee
> Draft, or certification by the chair that no minority reports exist.
>
> No minority reports have been submitted to the chair as of this
> writing.
>
>
> Submitted by the TC chair, Tom Rutt, trutt@us.fujitsu.com
>
>
> ------------------
>

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





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