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 for 5/16 Teleconf

The prelim minutes are attached.

Please post any corrections to the list by 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 for WSRM TC Conference Call –May 17, 2005


The meeting of the WSRM  TC took place by teleconference 

Tuesday, May 17, 2005, 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 WS-Reliability Specification

    6 Interop SC Future activities

    7 Next Step Documentation

    7.1 Editorial Clarifications and Errata

    7.2 Implementation Guidelines

    7.2 Future Enhancement Requests

    8 Composability with other WS-Specs

    9 ws reliability PAS progression

   10 Liaison with WS-RX TC

    11 Discussion of Future Meetings

    11 New business


2         Roll Call


First Name

Last Name






Fujitsu Limited*




Fujitsu Limited*



TC Chair

Fujitsu Limited*



Voting Member




Voting Member




Voting Member

NEC Corporation*



Voting Member








OASIS Staff Contact




Member - Probation




Voting Member




Voting Member





Sun *



Voting Member

VeriSign *



Meeting is quorate.


3         Minutes Discussion


Tom Rutt will take minutes.


3.1      Approval of previous meeting minutes

The minutes of the 4/28 New Orleans F2F meeting are posted at:



Alan Moved to approve the 4/28   minutes, Bob seconded.


No opposition minutes 4/28  minutes are approved



4         Status of Action Items

4.1      Action 121404-2 (Anish) Open

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

Anish posted email:

WSS and WS-Reliability header dumps  Anish Karmarkar 24 Feb 2005 23:22:27

Anish may post some additional examples of other combinations.  Leave open

Sumit stated that the already sent in one example.

4.2      Action 012505-1 (Tom Rutt) Pending

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

Continuing action, sent newest version to OASIS Staff with Errata to post

4.3      Action 020805-2 (Tom Rutt) open

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

 Jamie Clark is investigating how to get the documents on the OASIS Site.


4.4      Action 042805-1 (Jacques Durand) Pending

Action: Jacques will post a new version of the composability analysis, to reflect discussions at the F2F meeting.

Leave open.

5         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 at the above link itself still shows status a CD.


Tom posted a version with edited cover page with proper ID and status at:



We now await OASIS Staff to post it at the appropriate location.

6         Interop SC Future activities

Discussion of Future activities for Interop SC.


Jacques: Only one commitment from NEC for the new security interop test round.  They would like to have three participants before the interop.


They are not sure how much publicity for two participants.


Waiting for new participants for at least informal testing. 


Contact Jaques if interested.

7         Next Step Documentation

Comments have been requested on the following three draft documents.

7.1      Editorial Clarifications and Errata 

Clarifications, editorial nits, interpretations of the actual specification,

The following document was voted as CD at the F2F meeting and was posted at:




This is awaiting to be posted at the proper location by the OASIS Staff.

7.2      Implementation Guidelines / Application Notes

Things to help implementers, which, would typically be specific to application environments.  The following document was posted as working draft, reflecting the discussion at the Face To Face.




Any member can submit comments to open discussion.

7.3      Future Enhancement Requests

Proposed changes for future versions which would ease implementation or enhance protocol capabilities.  The following document was posted, reflecting the discussion at the Face to Face.




Add comments if interested in putting more things on it.


Doug: high level question – I am not sure how we should address liaison with TC which does not exist.


Lets discuss later.

8         Composability with other WS-Specs


WS-Security Composition paper from Fujitsu, Hitachi and NEC:

               WS-Reliabilty And WS-Security - First Draft  


The latest version of composability aspects is posted as:

                Composability Analysis (V0.5)


Jacques has an action item to post a version reflecting the f2f discussion.

9         WS-reliability PAS progression


OASIS Staff has not given us status regarding our request to pursue PAS progression of WS-Reliability 1.1.


10   Liaison with WS-RX TC

The following test was extracted from the f2f minutes:

Bob: our TC requirements could serve as a basis for an analysis of how the following two xmlsoap.org ws-reliable messaging specs (2/5) relates to these requirements.


Web Services Reliable Messaging Protocol (WS-ReliableMessaging). February 2005.


Web Services Reliable Messaging Policy Assertion (WS-RM Policy). February 2005


Tom: TC members should provide contributions a gap analysis between our TC requirements and the above reference specs.


Contributions are solicited from TC members for discussion at the May 17 Teleconf on how the specs referenced above meet (or do not meet) our requirements.


Contributions should focus on uses cases that one can or can not accomplish with each specification.



The call for participation for WS-RX TC is posted as:



The WS-Reliability Requirements are posted at:



Doug: I am not sure how we can avoid discussions of documents which have not been submitted to this tc, with respect to a TC which does not yet exist.


Tom: One simple thing we can do is let them be aware of our requirements.


Doug: This TC at this point cannot really discuss the things that are their input contributions.


Jeff: There are limitations on IP with which we submit


Doug: I am only concerned about us making comment on their inputs.  Members could submit any recommendations.


Tom: I want to suggest this TC to send our requirements to them, to facilitate migration from our spec to theirs.


Jamie: Is their a TC strategy regarding migration strategy. 


Jamie: any TC may make suggestions to any other TC.  If there are APR restriction tell them.  Requirements may not have this problem.  The TC can instruct its chair to do so, or a member could do so, if they are a member of the new TC.


Alan: I was told that the requirements doc alone would not be enough.  It should be more than a simple transfer of requirements.


Tom: It might be better to have detailed comments on their spec be put into their TC.


Jamie: If you want to have them use things it must go through their own tc. 


Bob: there is at least one member who would like to know how our requirements stack up with what they are doing.  We also know that our requirements will not be dealt with in their committee.  Our TC could do a gap analysis, but members of the other TC could make the recommendations.


Tom: should our TC conduct  a gap analysis against their spec.


Jeff: there is a lot of confusion about IPR. One is copyright, the other is implementation licenses.


Bob: several steps.  First, is it important to do gap analysis.  One we have that decision, if it is yes (trying to inform members of our TC about difference with their input), does that gap analysis have enough to influence the new TC committee work.


Bob: this TC could send it over the fence, but experience admits that it hardly ever works.

TC members themselves need to bring these gaps into the new tc.


Tom: should we put this on our agenda for next meeting


Bob: first decide if members care.


TOM is there any objections to our committee doing a gap analysis.  None.


Tom: I will put gap analysis in agenda for next meeting.  Submit any contributions for that meeting.   We should get commitment from members for the contents of the gap analysis.


Anish: I am interested in working on this.


Bob: it would be better to have a task force to drive this.


Jacques: I am interested in being on a task force.


Alan: I am interested.


Action: Anish, Jacques, Alan, and Iwasa will work on a document for consideration at our next meeting.


11   Discussion of Future Meetings


Tom has posted biweekly meetings, starting May 17, from 5:30 – 6:30 PM.


Bob: let f2f slide and look for future opportunities.



Jeff: The better gap analysis might be the differences in the specs themselves.


Jamie:  presence of PAS Items in our doc registry  Generic in calendar docs.  In WSRM.


Action item closed.



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