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 9/21 conf call

The prelim minutes are attached.

Please post any corrections to the list before friday.

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 Agenda to WSRM TC Conference Call May 06, 2003

Preliminary Minutes WSRM TC Conference Call September 7, 2004


The meeting of the WSRM TC took place by teleconference 

Tuesday, Sep 21, 2004, from 5:30 to 6:30 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 Status of Member vote submission

6 Status of Interop SC

7 Discussion of Potential Version 2.0 Features

8 Discussion of future meeting schedule


2         Roll Call


First Name

Last Name






Booz Allen Hamilton











TC Chair

























Nortel Networks



Prosp Member




Prosp Member





SeeBeyond Technology Corporation




Sun Microsystems




Sun Microsystems




University of Hong Kong



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 Sep 07 teleconf are posted at:



Bob F moved to approve, Iwasa seconded.


No opposition, minutes are approved.


4         Status of Action Items


4.1      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.


4.2      Action 060104-5 (Jacques) Pending


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


Still open, low priority



4.3      Action 090704-1 (Tom) Pending


Action: Tom will try to find, from previous minutes, a list of features we have put off for future versions and will post it to the list for discussion.



5         Status of Member vote submission

Corrected WSRM member vote submission letter with correct URLs

From Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> on 14 Sep 2004 16:40:55 -0000

I just posted a corrected CD 1.086, with Figure 6 showing
From Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> on
20 Sep 2004 22:30:54 -0000


They will process submission on Sep 15, and a review will be posted on October 1.


A Two week vote will initate October 15, which will close on Oct 31.


After the comments are received, the TC needs to review the comments.



6         Status of Interop SC

Carol Geyer has posted the interop policy at the oasis site today.




Bob: there is no offer of support from OASIS. The presenters cover all costs.


Bob: we have a requirement to do a demo proposal. I do not know the timing requirements.


This does apply to XML 2004.


Jeff: This TC needs to make itself a candidate.


Tom: Bob and the interop SC should determine the timing, so we can make the XML 2004. It requires 20 Days.


ACTION: Bob F to work with the interop SC to Determine the timing by contacting OASIS staff, to meet the XML 2004, for DC, in particular.


Discussion of publicity for the WS-Reliability 1.1 specification and the Member vote.


Carol Geyer, of OASIS Staff, asked whether the following article should be referenced from the OASIS Site:


Article for discussion at WSRM TC teleconf
From Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> on
20 Sep 2004 22:44:25 -0000


Joe Chiusano: An assertion is that one, the standard, and the vendor spec are incompatible. Could one do an adapter.


Tom: I believe a gateway is do-able.


Joe: if a gateway is possible, we may use that to counter the article.


Tom: I draw that the author does not know about our interop efforts.


Jeff: why have oasis posting a reference at all.


Bob: why would they do that unless the reference is a glowing reference.


Doug: I do not think a pointer to an article, which is not negative, is a good thing.


Joe: Could this spark a debate about which should the the winning


Abbie: it is clear the two sides are far away. As a pointer we should be able to accept such a review.


Doug: that is the most important specific answer.


Bob: I would like more info on where this is posted.


Jeff: I think the article looks fairly critical.


Joe: I agree it is critical.


Jeff: why would we want to reinforce that idea.


Pete: the worst statement is about the unclarity of the spec, and the need for interop. The rest is not negative, it just talks about two solutions.


Tom: I do not think we as a committee should make a formal response to the author.


Bob: however the fact is that if the pointer is made along with a statement that the vendors declined to work within the standards process, it would be more acceptable.


Joe: does posting it do more good than harm. What are we giving up.


Abbie: is this the only article.


Doug: I have seen referenced to a new cover page, showing the status.


Joe: Prasad from Web Methods had an article posted on the need for Reliable messaging, with a reference to our spec.


Tom: we need publicity, along with interop demos.


Bob: we need to get a publicity professional on this if we want publicity.


Abbie: this has to be done within our companies.


Bob: There has to be put an effort into this. It takes soliciting editors of publications to write letters on it.


Tom: I believe an interop demo is crucial.


Bob: what would a publicity push cost, I estimate about 20K for making this happen.


Abbie: we need a common set of slides.


Tom: we should update the slides from the New Orleans conference.


Abbie: having newcomers adopting this spec is crucial.


Bob: what is the whole deal.


Abbie: sometimes you have to get publicity by causing controversy. Any Ink is good Ink.


Bob: members will need to work together, however no single company can do this independently. 5 to 10 K a month is required. For that amount over a three to four month period you can whip up a considerable storm.


Tom: This should be done outside the official action of this TC.


Bob: this is not usually done well by a Technical Committee.


Bob: Deployment of the competing spec is the most critical.


Tom: we need to create deployment of our spec to counter other side.


Tom: I am not against this in the proper light.


Bob: I suggest we need to see how the reference will actually be used, to ensure it is done in the proper light.



7         Discussion of Potential Version 2.0 Features

Tom stated there are two areas which could be the subject of Version 2 features:

  • Reliable request and response.
  • Explicit support for Intermediaries.


8         Discussion of future meeting schedule

Given we will have the member vote over by the end of October, a Second week of Nov f2f seems like a good time.


Jacques: I have Not checked yet.


Initial proposal for Dates from Nov 9 thru 11. The interop on the 9th, and the f2f starting on the 10th.


The 11th would be reserved as second day of f2f.


We may need the extra time for comment resolutions.


Initially, we agreed to have the F2F in the bay area, with the dates Nov 9 Thru 11th.


Jacques; who are the candidates for hosting.


Abbie: why not have it on the east coast before the XML 2004?


Venue will be determined at next teleconf meeting, in two weeks. We should have remote connectivity for the interop testing.


Bob, we could use xml 2004 for a public demo. We could host a NJ interop Monday and Tuesday the following week. If we are going to target xml 2004, the following week, we would need to pre-stage it before we got there. Plan for an east coast location for the following week. 15 16 Nov, Jeff M stated he will try to make the arrangements.


Monday could be in NJ, and possibly Tuesday if necessary.


Tom: I would rather keep the interop with the f2f, and had thought that the bay area would be best.


Bob: some would prefer not to make two trips, if they are going to xml 2004.


Abbie: could we get a host on the east coast?


After Nov 2, demand on hotel rooms would be light in DC. We could consider the pretest Sunday and Monday, or thurs and fri preceeding xml 2004.


Bob: Tom Should ask for a straw poll on XML 2004 attendance.


Tom: the interop SC should come up with one or two proposals, including a host for both the interop and at least one day for the f2f.


Defer the decision to the next meeting in two weeks.


The third week of November is XML 2004, in DC is 15th thru 19th.


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