Full Agenda WSRM TC Conference Call –April
The meeting of the WSRM TC will take place by teleconference
Tuesday, 24 Jan 2006, 05:30pm to
Toll only :
Participant code: 375491
2) Roll Call
of potential TC future activities
Reliability of Response
Assertions for Sequences
5.3 Interworking WS-Reliability and WS-Reliable Messageing
5.4 OASIS IPR
Status for TC
Meeting ?? quorate
Volunteered to take minutes.
<![endif]>Approval of previous meeting minutes
The minutes of the 2/21 teleconference meeting are posted
xx moved to approve the 2/21
minutes, yy seconded.
?? opposition minutes 2/21
minutes ?? approved
<![endif]>Status of Action Items
2006-02-21-1 - Closed
Action: Tom will post a contribution on interworking
ws-reliablity with ws rm.
Action: Jacques will clarify what he thinks we should do on
reliability of req-resp.
2006-02-21-3 - Closed
Action: Iwasa will try to find out
what da levels are being used for ws
<![endif]>Discussion of Potential Future TC activites
The working list of potential enhancements to WS-Reliability
was posted after the last f2f as:
TC needs to decide among the following possibilities
to resolve new issues raised within charter of TC,
the tc into maintenance mode (i.e., two meetings
a year awaiting usage issues),
vote to disband TC
<![endif]>Reliable Request Response
Jacques posted the following contribution before the last
<![endif]>Delivery Assertions for Sequences
Fujitsu posted a contribution in January:
Which included the following sub- proposal:
Develop a high level specification
for delivery assurance/QoS of a
message. We need to define the notion
of reliable message
assurance in the context of QoS by describing the
(but not the syntax or protocol). The
standardization of the
of delivery assurance could be used to support either WS-R or
We believe that a
"mark-up" of the standard representation of delivery
would be very valuable for the WS industry and would be more
developed, generated and approved in the WSRM TC (vs
TC) due to its
proposed sharper focus.
For example, we recommend
distinguishing between an acknowledgement from
receiving RMg entity (e.g. in WS-RX spec) vs an acknowledgement that
that the layer above the receiving RMg entity
(perhaps a WS
protocol or application layer) has correctly received the
from the RMg entity.
Also, there may be different
notions of the various forms of reliable
delivery: at least once, atmost once (AKA duplicate
guaranteed delivery, sequential delivery, etc.
notions really mean to the layer above?
They need to be precisely
Iwasa posted the following Email::
Here is my action item in the last telecon.
will try to find out what da levels are being use for ws reiliialbiy.
As far as I know, there are two
industry groups that are implementing WS-Reliability in Japan.
Both industry groups are
implementing Delivery Assuarance, but neither
Ordered Delivery at this point.
WS-Reliability and WS-Reliable Messaging
Tom R posted the following Email, outlining an Interworking unit for WS-Reliability and WS-Reliable messaging.:
<![endif]>OASIS IPR Status of TC
Tom Rutt forwarded the following
email, from Jamie Clark, as:
* From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clarkAToasis-open.org>
* To: tomATcoastin.com
* Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:04:03 -0800
As you know, our current OASIS IPR Policy was adopted in April 2005
2-year transition period, during which the OASIS TCs
choose when to convert from the old IPR Policy to the new one under
IPR Transition Policy . As we
announced back in 2005 ,
has until April 2007 to select one of the new policy's three
IPR Modes, and conduct the transition vote;
or cease operations
transition vote is successfully completed by April 2007.
Tom, it would be helpful to know whether your TC has discussed plans to
convert. Could you please advise back to me whether
your TC has begun
this, and if so, roughly on what schedule?
This is an informal
inquiry: we are asking only for current thinking, not
or TC member poll. The level of answer
we hope for is:
__ We haven't considered our timing yet.
__ We are considering starting a transition
roughly in ___ [calendar quarter] 2006/07
__ We probably will close before April 2007 and
If planning has not started, OASIS
standards development staff will be in
discuss your TC's plans, needs and timing between now
OASIS Symposium in San Francisco in May. Obviously we will be happy to assist.
Thanks for your attention and
Best regards Jamie Clark
James Bryce Clark
Director, Standards Development, OASIS
At last meeting, TC agreed to decide on the next meeting at this