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] Prelim Minutes for 5/16 Teleconf



On May 17, 2005, at 3:48 PM, Tom Rutt wrote:

> The prelim minutes are attached.
>
> Please post any corrections to the list by the end of this week.
>
> 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
>
>
> 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
>
> Attendance:
>
>  First  Name
>
> Last Name
>
> Role
>
> Company
>
> Jacques
>
> Durand
>
> Secretary
>
> Fujitsu  Limited*
>
> Kazunori
>
> Iwasa
>
> Secretary
>
> Fujitsu  Limited*
>
> Tom
>
> Rutt
>
> TC Chair
>
> Fujitsu  Limited*
>
> Robert
>
> Freund
>
> Voting  Member
>
> Hitachi
>
> Nobuyuki
>
> Yamamoto
>
> Voting  Member
>
> Hitachi
>
> Alan
>
> Weissberger
>
> Voting  Member
>
> NEC  Corporation*
>
> Paul
>
> Knight
>
> Voting  Member
>
> Nortel
>
> Mark
>
> Peel
>
> Secretary
>
> Novell
>
> James
>
>  Clark
>
> OASIS  Staff Contact
>
> OASIS *
>
> Sumit
>
> Gupta
>
> Member -  Probation
>
> Oracle
>
>  Anish
>
> Karmarkar
>
> Voting  Member
>
> Oracle
>
>  jeff
>
> mischkinsky
>
> Voting  Member
>
> Oracle
>
>  Doug
>
> Bunting
>
> Secretary
>
> Sun *
>
> Hans
>
> Granqvist
>
> 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:
>
>   
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/12633/ 
> MinutesWSRMf2f0405.htm
>
>  
>
> 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.
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/06/WS-Reliability-CD1.086.pdf
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/06/fnp-1.1.xsd
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/06/reference-1.1.xsd
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/06/ws-reliability-1.1.xsd
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/06/wsrmfp-1.1.xsd
>
>  
>
> 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:
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/12516/ 
> wsrm-ws_reliability-1.1-spec-os.pdf
>
>  
>
> 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:
>
>  
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/12518/ 
> wsrm-ws_reliability-v1.1-errata-cd1.0.pdf   
>
>  
>
> 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.
>
>  
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/12466/ 
> Implementation%20Guidelines%20.htm  
>
>  
>
> 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.
>
>  
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/12436/ 
> wsReliabityFutureFeatures.htm   
>
>  
>
> 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:
>
>  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200505/msg00004.html
>
>  
>
> The WS-Reliability Requirements are posted at:
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/3389/ 
> WS-Reliability_Requirements-2003-09-05a.pdf
>
>  
>
> 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
I'm not sure I can recall my exact words, but i'm sure the above does  
not capture what i said (what does the above stmnt mean?). It was  
something along the lines that IPR limitations are relevant for final  
specifications that a TC adopts. The TC, if it so chooses, can  
certainly "discuss" publicly available documents and formulate  
opinions/comments on them.

cheers,
   jeff

>
>  
>
> 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.
>
>  
>
>  
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in  
> OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--
Jeff Mischkinsky					jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Web Services Standards		+1(650)506-1975
Consulting Member Technical Staff           500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 4OP9
Oracle                                                               
Redwood Shores, CA 94065



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