[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Prelim minutes of 6/14 TC Teleconf
The Prelim minutes are attached. Please post any corrections to the entire list before 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 5133Title: Full Agenda for WSRM TC Conference Call –June 14, 2005
|
Preliminary Minutes of WSRM TC
Conference Call – The meeting of the WSRM TC took place by teleconference 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 Composability with other WS-Specs 7 WS-RX Gap Analysis 8 New business 2 Roll CallAttendance:
Meeting is quorate. 3 Minutes
Discussion
Tom Rutt agreed to take minutes. 3.1 Approval of previous meeting minutesThe minutes of the 5/31 Teleconference meeting are posted at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/13059/MinutesWSRMTC053105.htm
xx Moved to approve the 5/31
minutes, yy seconded. ?? opposition minutes 5/31
minutes ?? approved 4 Status of Action Items4.1 Action 121404-2 (Anish) OpenAction: 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 4.2 Action 012505-1 (Tom Rutt) PendingAction: 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 before last meeting. OASIS Staff has posted the documents at: http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/ws-reliability/v1.1/wsrm-ws_reliability-1.1-spec-os.pdf http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/ws-reliability/v1.1/wsrm-ws_reliability-v1.1-errata-cd1.0.pdf Leave action item open until these new locations are reflected in the actual document cover page. 4.3 Action 042805-1 (Jacques Durand) PendingAction: Jacques will post a new version of the composability analysis, to reflect discussions at the F2F meeting. 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: An errata document was voted as CD at the F2F meeting and
was posted at: OASIS Staff has posted these two documents. The files are at http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/ws-reliability/v1.1/wsrm-ws_reliability-1.1-spec-os.pdf http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/ws-reliability/v1.1/wsrm-ws_reliability-v1.1-errata-cd1.0.pdf However the location of the spec on the posted spec is stated as: Location: http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/ws-reliability/v1.1 and the errata on the posted spec is stated as: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsrm/documents/errata/1.1/index.html. The cover page now needs to be corrected to agree with the actual locations. Keep action Item open on Tom to complete this. 6 Composability with other WS-Specs
WS-Security Composition paper from Fujitsu,
WS-Reliabilty
And WS-Security - First Draft The latest version of composability aspects is posted as: Jacques has an action item to post a version reflecting the
f2f discussion. 7 WS-RX Gap AnalysisThe WS-Reliability Requirements are posted at: The output of a task force effort was posted by Jacques,
before the last meeting, at: Anish stated how the document will
be submitted. Tom Rutt posted comments on this document
as: RequirementsAnalysisChangePages-ter The following non typo corrections were discussed. Page 6: 2.2.1 – agreed to reword Page 7: 2.2.1 – agreed to reword. Page 9: 2.3.1 (delete “the” before “another”) Page 12: 2.3.4 - grammar Page 12: 2.4.2 - grammar Page 13: 2.4.3 Jacques explained that the worst case numbers can get out of hand with their policy of acknowledgement. Tom: You could mention about the polling giving more control Page 16: grammar Authors agreed to post an updated version in the contributions section of our web site, with public access. Jacques and Anish stated that they will feel free to add their own changes to the document. Tom Clarified that the document does not heed official TC status to be public available. Tom: one technical discussion might be on how important the ws-reliability singleton sequence is. Anish: the Singleton group is an optimization. One can have a group ID with sequence number 1 being also last. Jacques, the overhead of starting a group was cited in the past of our Committee. Tom: ws-reliable messaging has a high overhead setting up the sequence. Anish: my point is that it is not a high overhead for single item sequences using ws-reliability. Tom: the group termination rules would actually shut down the group in the same way if the first message is also the last in a sequence. Jacques: with ws-reliable messaging high overhead sequence creation, they would not do it for single messages. Instead they would treat it as a pipe with a given qos. Anish: perhaps this is the issue that should be discussed. I see the singleton sequence optimization as syntactic sugur. Anish: is there a use case for avoiding the overhead of a sequence creation for the singleton case. Tom: is there a case of an application sending a single message at a given qos level to a one time destination. Tom: how about the use case of reliable spam? (joke) Another use case is sending reliable invitation messages. Jacques: the issue is whether reusing sequences meets the same requirement. Anish: if you want to send singleton messages between two sending and receiving rmps, the sequence will work. Jacques: there are no clear answers on this requirement. Jacques: another difference in the two specs is the use of expiry time. Please review and comment on section 3.1. We will have to, as companies, take positions on this parameter. Jacques: we invite additional comments on the next contribution, by Monday of next week. 8 New BusinessMotion to adjourn from Jeff M. Jacques seconded. Meeting Adjourned at 6:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]