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: Preliminary Minutes of WSRM TC meeting 2/8/05

Prelim minutes are attached.

Please post any corrections to the list before the end of this week.

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

Prelim Minutes of WSRM TC Conference Call –Feb 08, 2005


The meeting of the WSRM  TC took place by teleconference 

Tuesday, Feb 08 , 2005, from 5:30 to 7:00 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 WS-Reliability Specification

    6 Status of Interop SC activities

    7 Next Step Documentation

    7.1 Editorial Clarifications and Errata

    7.2 Implementation Guidelines

    7.2 Future Enhancement Requests

    7.3 Composability with other WS-Specs

    9 ws reliability PAS progression

    10 new OASIS IPR Policy

    8 Discussion of Future Meetings


2         Roll Call


First Name

Last Name






Booz Allen Hamilton











TC Chair

















NEC Corporation
























Univ of Hong Kong



Prosp Member




Meeting is quorate.


1         Minutes Discussion


Tom Rutt will take minutes.


1.1      Approval of previous meeting minutes

The minutes of the 01/25 meeting are posted at:



Alan Moved to approve the 1/25  minutes, Jacques seconded.


No opposition minutes 1/25 minutes approved



2         Status of Action Items

2.1      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.


2.2      Action 121404-2 (Jeff M and Interop SC) Pending


Action: Jeff M will provide examples of soap header dumps with both ws-reliability and ws-addressing headers in use, as in the interop demo.


Anish will ping Jeff on this.  Will Switch action item to Anish.


2.3      Action 012505-1 (Tom Rutt) Pending


Action: Tom will investigate how to change the status of printed document.  The posted standard still states CD.


2.4      Action 012505-3 (Tom Rutt) Completed


Action: Tom will post the edited Interop SC contribution.





2.5      Action 012505-4 (Jacques and Tom Rutt) Closed


Action: Jacques and Tom will check on availability of having next wsrm TC F2f for two days at OASIS symposium the last week of April.


Jacques: It is up to us.  WS CAF is also meeting for a three day meeting.  This causes an overlap.


2.6      Action 012505-3 (Tom Rutt) Closed


Tom: action – put out a summary of what PAS process is.


Excerpts from relevant JTC1 documents are included in the agenda for the 2/8 teleconf for discussion.


3         Status of WS-Reliability Specification


The public and member web site pages for the TC to have a single announcement, which refers by URL to spec and  schema at the proper location on the OASIS web site.







The spec itself still shows status a CD.


Continuing Action: Tom will investigate how to change the status of printed document.

4         Status of Interop SC activities

Nothing has happened.

5         Next Step Documentation

Tom Rutt posted the edited contribution from the Interop SC as:



Comments are requested on re-factoring this contribution into the three document types shown below.

5.1      Editorial Clarifications and Errata 

Clarifications, editorial nits, interpretations of the actual specification,

which should be posted for others to see

5.2      Implementation Guidelines / Application Notes

Things to help implementers, which, would typically be specific to application environments.

5.3      Future Enhancement Requests

Proposed changes for future versions which would ease implementation or enhance protocol capabilities.

6         Composability with other WS-Specs


After the 1/11 meeting, Jacques posted the following update to the composibility paper:



Jacques clarified that this was only an editorial update.


After the 1/11 meeting, Tom Rutt posted a pdf version of the ws-security composition document (originally posted by Alan W) at:



Tom Rutt send an email soliciting comments on both of the above documents:

Soliciation for Member Comments Tom Rutt 12 Jan 2005 14:06:44


Before the Last meeting The following response was posted:

Kicking off the discussion of the WS-R and WS-S Composability document Alan Weissberger 14 Jan 2005 19:10:51


Task force started with members Jacques, Alan,  Abbie,. and Bob F.


Jacques: The task force has nothing to report.  The task force needs to schedule a call. Tentatively at 3:00 Pacific Time on Wednesday, Feb 09.  Same number as this call bridge.


Jacques stated that the ebXML messaging group is working on how to compose ws-reliability and ws-security.  They will have compliance with ws-I BSP profile.  Security is processed after reliability on outgoing.


All this will be finalized in the forthcoming teleconference.


Tom welcomes a liaison contribution from ebXML group.


Jacques: On fault side, a message can be faulted before reaching the receiver rmp, which would result in useless resending.


Jacques: ebXML messaging version 3 is working on a modular composition of reliability implementations.  They feel that the wsrm TC should move forward for reliability of synchronous responses.


Tom: we should look for contributions in this area for future discussions.


Tom: we should consider discussions about composition of ws-reliability with ws-addressing, as w3c ws-addressing becomes stable.



7         WS-reliability PAS progression


From Last meeting:

Bob: I would like to introduce the concept of progressing this specification to ISO for their purposes.  It is potentially feasible for us.


Tom:  OASIS has been granted PAS (Publically Available Spec) Submitter status by ISO/IEC JTC1, and can now.submit specifications to be voted on as a fast track ISO standards.


Bob: people should discuss whether we should do this for ws-reliability on the list, and it should be put on the agenda for next meeting.


From the OASIS application for PAS submitter status: JTC1 N 7458:

“ Ongoing Maintenance

a) What is the willingness and resource availability to conduct ongoing maintenance,

interpretation, and 5 year revision cycles following JTC 1 approval (see also 5.2.5)?

b) What level of willingness and resources are available to facilitate specification

progression during the transposition process (e.g., technical clarification and normal

document editing)?


OASIS intends to continue the maintenance of its completed and approved specifications (OASIS Standards) even after submission for approval under the JTC1 process. While some OASIS TCs have completed their work and have been closed, most remain active for some period of time after approval of their work as OASIS Standards, either to continue revision of the OASIS Standard or to encourage implementation. We will submit OASIS Standards with the understanding that the OASIS TC will continue maintenance of the specification; for implementation purposes, it is essential that the specifications approved by JTC 1 remain aligned to the OASIS Standard. Where the OASIS TC is closed or has decided that it is no longer interested in maintenance of the specification, OASIS may submit with permission to JTC1 to modify and maintain the specification if JTC1 so desires. OASIS will be willing to participate in the five year review as appropriate.


Tom Recommends that the wsrm tc would want to maintain maintenance responsibility for our spec. Changes during transposition

a) What are the expectations of the proposer toward technical and editorial changes to the specification during the transposition process?

b) How flexible is the proposing organization toward using only portions of the proposed specification or adding supplemental material to it?

OASIS will submit OASIS Standards completed and approved under the OASIS

technical process for approval by JTC1 with the understanding that the OASIS Standard will either be approved as-is by JTC1 or returned with comments for the OASIS TC to revise. This is for purpose of keeping the OASIS-approved and JTC1-approved specifications identical. A representative of the OASIS TC will attend the JTC1 ballot resolution meeting if requested, and the OASIS TC will also provide an editor for the changes. If comments are submitted to OASIS by JTC1, the TC will address those comments and revise the specification as appropriate. After revision and re-approval of the specification under the OASIS TC Process the specification will be resubmitted to JTC1 along with an account of the disposition of the JTC1 comments. Future Plan)

a) What are the intentions of the proposing organization toward future additions,

extensions, deletions or modifications to the specification? Under what conditions?

When? Rationale?

b) What willingness exists to work with JTC 1 on future versions in order to avoid

divergence? Note that the answer to this question is particularly relevant in cases where

doubts may exist about the openness of the submitter organization.

c) What is the scope of the organization activities relative to specifications similar to but beyond that being proposed?

As above (see OASIS expects that submitted OASIS Standard be approved as-is, and that any comments or requests for change be submitted to the OASIS TC. The rationale for this policy is to prevent divergence, i.e. to prevent the possibility of there being two versions of the same specification, one from OASIS and one from JTC1, in circulation.


The intent of OASIS is, after approval of a OASIS Standard by JTC1, to submit further versions of the same work to JTC1 for approval. Appropriate liaison should be established between the OASIS TC and the applicable JTC1 SC in order to provide adequate lines of communication between the two groups.



The following exerpt is from JTC1 N 7633 - OASIS Response to National Body Comments Contained in JTC 1 N 7617, Summary of Voting on Document JTC 1 N 7458, OASIS Application for JTC 1 PAS Submitter Status



From: Karl F. Best [karl.best@oasis-open.org]

Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 9:17 AM

To: Lisa Rajchel

Cc: Jameson, Scott K; Karen Higginbottom

Subject: Re: OASIS application for JTC1 PAS submitter status


OASIS expresses its appreciation for JTC1's approval of its request to become a PAS submitter,

and responds to France's and Japan's comments as


[France would like to ask OASIS to clarify its rules and procedures in order to enable

cooperation (e.g. by means of the current JTC 1 Liaison mechanisms)]

OASIS' policy in regards to forming liaisons is published at http://www.oasisopen.

org/committees/liaison_policy.php. This policy describes how both formal and informal

relationships are established between OASIS and other organizations, and between OASIS TCs and the committees or working groups of other organizations.

As described in the OASIS application for JTC1 PAS submitter status (17 June 2004) OASIS makes great efforts to establish relationships for the purpose of working with other organizations to promote interoperability and reduce duplication of effort. OASIS' application is evidence of this effort, as are our established liaisons with ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34, ISO TC 154 and the MoU


MG. We are also actively participating in the JTC1 Web Services Study Group.


[According to the subclause M6.1.1 of of JTC 1 Directives (5th edition),

application of PAS submitter has to be accompanied by an identification

of initial PAS(s). JTC1 N7458 has, however, no such information.

Therefore the national body of Japan requests OASIS to provide the

information on the initial PAS(s).]

OASIS technical committees are working on a number of specifications

related to Web Services, including application security, business

process, application framework, distributed management, notification,

reliable messaging, resource framework, remote portlets, and security.

Our intent is to submit work to other organizations such as JTC1 upon

their completion and approval under the OASIS Technical Committee

Process. A number of the above efforts are nearing completion. OASIS

will work with the JTC1 Web Services Study Group to prioritize its

submissions while being mindful of the JTC1 requirement to submit the

first document within six months of our approval as a PAS submitter.




Tom: I recommend we consider the progression of our standard thru this process as an ISO standard.


Bob: some organizations will see the ISO standard as an important mark.


Action: Tom will investigate how to post the three OASIS pas documents on our server.


Doug: I am wondering about the TC dealing directly with this.


Tom; The OASIS CEO makes the determination of what to submit.


Tom: what we are really talking about is asking Jamie to do this on behalf of the TC.


Open discussion on the Email list.

8         New IPR policy for OASIS

Tom sent out email:

-         Notification of Revised IPR Policy & New IPR Transition Policy] Tom Rutt 08 Feb 2005 15:58:34


    * From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>

    * To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org, tc-announce@lists.oasis-open.org

    * Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:55:54 -0800


     Please note the official announcement of our revised IPR policy [1],

which will become effective beginning 15 April 2005.  Details are available

at the link below.


~   James Bryce Clark

~   Director, Standards Development, OASIS

~   jamie.clark@oasis-open.org


[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/members/200502/msg00006.html



Jeff M: the policy becomes effective April 15.  Once effective all new TCs will operate under new policy.  Existing TCs will have a transition period.


There is a new membership agreement that goes along with this.  There is a maximum one year for this to happen when they re-up their membership.  They can agree sooner.


If a tc gets a critical mass of members under the new agreement (50%) somebody can intiate a motion to transfer to the new IPR policy.  Then the TC has a vote on changing to new IPR Policy


The TC can decide to transition.


There are two rf modes (rf with rand) and (rf with limited).


Jeff: our tc would get to pick one of the two rf modes.


Jeff: the vote has to be unanimous to transition.  14 day ballot.


Oasis will let us operate under the old policy for two years.


Jeff: there are two kinds of legally binding participant obligations:

-         Written contribution obligations

-         Participation obligations after 60 days



9         Discussion of Future Meetings


when is the next Face to face?


Jacques put in request to OASIS staff on the feasibility of two days f2f meeting at Symposium.


At Jan 11 meeting, we agreed to continue schedule of 90 minute teleconferences every two weeks, from, Feb 8, Feb 22, thru the end of march.


Jacques: Jane sent a spreadsheet on TCs committed.   WS-CAF plans to meet for two and ½ days.  Our cross membership might be of concern.


There will be an OASIS TAB meeting wed or Thursday.


Jacques: the big question is how much overlap there is with WS-CAF.


Three TC members are on both committees.


Tom: should we request all day Wed and Thursday.


Bob: we need to have an agenda with time phase.


Tom: should I request all day Wed and Thursday after the symposium for Our TC.


10   New Business


Jacques: I would like to give an update on pilot project AIAG and rosetta net multiple messaging services project.


In AIAG there is a project aimed at demonstrating that the automotive supply chain is ready to use the latest e-business standards.


Fujitsu participated in an effort last year, which resulted in standing demonstration showcasing webservices and ebxml technology.  There was no demonstration of reliability.


This year there are intentions to demonstrate further web service technologies.   IBM is expected to be participating.


Rosetta Net is also working on such demonstration activities.


Jacques: My point is that I do not see a lot of TC member participation in such activities regarding ws-reliability as we perhaps should be doing.  Just being there is important.


Doug B moved to adjourn Alan seconded.

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