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: Corrected WSRM member vote submission letter with correct URLs

Karl: I am sorry, but somehow two URLs got screwed up in the previous 
submission letter I sent..

The url at:

has the corrected logo included.

Somehow i sent the wrong submission letter (an earlier draft) with the 
wrong url for both
the CD and the public review comment resolutions..

The correct zip file has CD1.086.zip at the end, the bad file has CD1086 
at the end.

I attach a word version and an html version of the corrected submission 
letter which changes
two urls.

Please let me know if this gets you to the correct zip file.

The submission is also in open office format at:


Tom Rutt

Karl F. Best wrote:

> Tom:
> There is one thing that I would like to have done: I noticed that the 
> spec document uses the old OASIS logo. Could you please replace this 
> with the latest logo, then create a new PDF and zip file? Then just 
> give me the link for the new zip (and make sure that it is public 
> viewable). This is a non-normative change so won't require any TC 
> approval or changing the document date or rev number, etc.
> The latest logo is at 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/spectools/images/oasis.gif, and you can see 
> an example of its use at 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/spectools/docs/wd-spectools-word-sample-04.doc
> Everything else with the submission looks pretty good.
> -Karl
> Karl F. Best wrote:
>> I'll announce to members end of Sept. First half of October is 
>> familiarization, second half is voting. Voting will end 31 October. 
>> If it's unanimous affirmative then I'll announce the new OS right 
>> away (1 November), but if there's any negative votes then the TC must 
>> decide (within 30 days) how to respond.
>> -Karl
>> Tom Rutt wrote:
>>> Thanks for the ack.
>>> By the way, we are assuming the member vote will be over by the 
>>> first week of November.  Is this
>>> a correct assumption?  Will be know what all the member comments are 
>>> by the first week of November?
>>> Tom Rutt
>>> Karl F. Best wrote:
>>>> Tom:
>>>> I received your submission on the 3rd, so that counts as having met 
>>>> the deadline for the 15th of the month. I'll be checking through 
>>>> this submission and preparing an announcement to the membership at 
>>>> the end of month, as required by the TC Process. If I need any 
>>>> additional information, clarifications, etc. I'll let you know.
>>>> thanks for following up
>>>> -Karl
>>>> Tom Rutt wrote:
>>>>> Last week I sent you the WSRM member vote submission for 
>>>>> WS-Reliability spec, which is archived at:
>>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200409/msg00010.html
>>>>> Have you received this, and do I have to do anything else to 
>>>>> submit it formally before
>>>>> tomorrow, Sept 15th?
>>>>> Tom Rutt
>>>>> WSRM TC Chair

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


Title: Draft Submission Letter for WS-Reliability 1
Submission Letter for WS-Reliability 1.1
OASIS Web Services Reliable Messaging TC
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 
- Guaranteed message delivery, or At-Least-Once delivery semantics.
- Guaranteed message duplicate elimination, or "At-Most-Once" delivery
- 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 
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 
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.  
5. An account of each of the comments/issues raised during the public 
review period, along with its resolution.
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:
WSRM TC list:
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:
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 
Submitted by the TC chair, Tom Rutt, trutt@us.fujitsu.com


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