[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Prelim minutes of 10/3 teleconf
The prellim minutes of 1//3 teleconf are attached. A 14 day Kavi ballot was voted to be issued Oct 4 on Candidate CD 1.1.1 of Ws-Reliability. Tom Rutt Please proved corrections to entire list before the end of the week. -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133Title: Date: Monday August 21, 2006
|
Prelim Minutes WSI BP Teleconf Date: Tuesday October 03, 2006 Time: 11am PT Textual Conventions Ø Action Item Motion § Resolution Tom Rutt agreed to take the minutes. 1 Roll call
All voting members present. Meeting is quorate. 2 Agenda BashingAgenda 0. Confirm Scribe 1. Roll call 2. Agenda Bashing. AOB ? 3. Approval of Sep 26 2006 tele-conference minutes [2] http://members.ws-i.org/Resource.phx/lyris/newmessage.htx?id=229787 Thanks to Chris Ferris for taking minutes. 4. Review Action Items
a) Pending Action Items List (Seems out of date?) b) Action Items from Last week's Agenda Carried forward 1. Action: Chris F and Shankaran to provide new text to close Issue bp12005 Update: Does this http://members.ws-i.org/Resource.phx/lyris/newmessage.htx?id=230307 Cover it? 2. Action: Chris F to add new issue with concerns of [3] and [4] emails from Tom and Anish regarding conformance granularity Update: We have a new issues list with the above accounted for (http://tinyuri.com/f0wa ). 5. Administrative a. One-time volunteering Chair list: Sept 26th: Jonathan Oct 3rd: Prasad Oct 10th: Chris Ferris Oct 17th: F2F (Who chairs?) Proposed Community Meeting Agenda: http://members.ws-i.org/Resource.phx/lyris/newmessage.htx?id=231068&row=0 F2F Meeting room & Dial-In Info: http://members.ws-i.org/Resource.phx/lyris/newmessage.htx?id=229789&row=2 Thanks to Anish & Oracle for hosting the F2F call Oct 24th: No call (week after F2F) Oct 31st: Skip Or Shankaran b. Schedule - New BP 1.2 WGD Draft available (http://members.ws-i.org/Resource.phx/lyris/newmessage.htx?id=230567) Notify Board? Next steps? - F2F Agenda? 6. Issues discussion Updated Issues List: http://tinyuri.com/f0wa or New Issues: a. BP12030 - http://tinyuri.com/f0wa#bp12030 b. BP12031 - http://tinyuri.com/f0wa#bp12031 c. BP12032 - http://tinyuri.com/f0wa#bp12032 d. Any new arrivals? Old Issues: e. BP12005 - http://tinyuri.com/f0wa#bp12005 7. AOB 8. Adjourn [2] http://members.ws-i.org/Resource.phx/lyris/newmessage.htx?id=229787 Dial-in information: (866) 445-7018 Pass-code: 793 3746 Thanks to Skip Snow and Citigroup for
hosting the call. Agreed to discuss Anish
issue first. 3
Approval of Sep 26 2006 tele-conference
minutes [2]
http://members.ws-i.org/Resource.phx/lyris/newmessage.htx?id=229787
Thanks to Chris
Ferris for taking minutes. Chris moved to approve sep 26 minutes, Anish seconded § No objection, sep 26 minutes approved. 4
Review Action Items
a) Pending Action Items List (Seems out of
date?)
http://members.ws-i.org/dman/Document.phx/Private+Folders/Community+Folder/Working+Groups/WSBasic+Profile/Meetings/pending_AI.html b) Action Items
from Last week's Agenda Carried forward 1. Action: Chris F and Shankaran
to provide new text to close Issue bp12005 Update:
Does this http://members.ws-i.org/Resource.phx/lyris/newmessage.htx?id=230307 Cover it? Chris F: I understood, from email, that the issue is moot. I do not remember volunteering to provide clarification text. Prasad: the thread is summarized in http://members.ws-i.org/Resource.phx/lyris/newmessage.htx?id=230307 Jonathan: Skip wanted some text added. It is almost a bug layering addressing on top of soap. I am in favor of clarification text. The current suggestion from Chris is not clear enough yet. Chris F: I could accept new text. Prasad: Skip was volunteering to draft text. We should put this on email and reassign action item to Skip REASSIGNED to SKIP 2. Action:
Chris F to add new issue with concerns of [3] and [4] emails from Tom and Anish regarding conformance granularity Update: We
have a new issues list with the above accounted for (http://tinyuri.com/f0wa ). CLOSED, now on new issues list. 5
Administrative
5.1
One-time volunteering Chair list:
Sept 26th:
Jonathan Oct 3rd: Prasad Oct
10th: Chris Ferris Oct 17th: F2F (Who chairs?) Skip: Two requests for joint meetings, one from RSP and the other from Requirements WG. Jonathan: we need a schedule for these joint meetings. Prasad: I sent a mail with a link to the f2f agenda. Jonathan: this is not an agenda, but rather is a schedule. Prasad: there is a room for BSP. Tom agreed to be volunteer chair for F2F. Need to find joint meeting for Requirements WG. Prasad: resolving any issues and progressing BP 1.2 to WGAD and starting to work on BP 2. Proposed
Community Meeting Agenda: http://members.ws-i.org/Resource.phx/lyris/newmessage.htx?id=231068&row=0
F2F Meeting room & Dial-In Info: http://members.ws-i.org/Resource.phx/lyris/newmessage.htx?id=229789&row=2
Thanks
to Anish & Oracle for hosting the F2F call Oct
24th: No call (week after F2F) Oct
31st: Skip Or Shankaran Tom: Anish’s resolution would
resolve my issue. 5.2
b. Schedule
- New BP 1.2 WGD Draft available
(http://members.ws-i.org/Resource.phx/lyris/newmessage.htx?id=230567) Notify
Board? Next steps? - F2F Agenda? Jonathan: Did we send note to board to make WGD public? Chris F: I will do that. Jonathan: Last week we could not agree on WGAD. Chris F: is there a link to the WGD. Prasad: http://members.ws-i.org/dman/Document.phx/Private+Folders/Community+Folder/Working+Groups/WSBasic+Profile/Profile/BP1.2/Basic+Profile+1.2+WGD does say WGD on it Jonathan: I want to be sure this is not missing anything needed to have the board make it public. Chris: That action is done, I sent the link with a request to the board. 6
Issues discussion
Updated Issues
List: New Issues: 7
BP12030 - http://tinyuri.com/f0wa#bp12030
Defer until resolution of BP 12031 8 BP12031 - http://tinyuri.com/f0wa#bp12031Description What requirements exist for BP 1.2
conformance claims URI(s) ? Especially in the context of merging of BP and SSBP Jonathan: how does Oracle use the conformance claim URI. Anish: the conformance claim is in the WSDL. This determines which assertions to apply from the profile. It is also an aid for the USER, the WSDL has a better promise of interoperability. Jonathan: it is consumed by the tool as well as the users? Anish: yes. Jonathan: when consumed by the tool and changes behaviour of messages, this is close to a policy assertion taking affect. I am concerned about the long range overlap with the future policy assertions. Prasad: this is the mechanism we made for conformance claims. Policy assertions is a different approach. Anish: we could define things which are available for either conformance clams as well as policy. Chris F: two aspects, 1) do we use conformance claim as tool to determine what tooling will do, 2) I am wsi conformant with this profile. We should look at conformance claims to know whether endpoint can do mtom. If motivation is marker in wsdl or uddi to see if it supports mtom this might not be good. The other is if conformant with profile must you do this stuff. I have looked at conformance as “if you do it, do it this way”. The reason we had separate spec for attachments was that some did not want to do attachments at all. That is why we did a special soap only spec. Tom I am concerned that an endpoint is sent a message with MTOM, and they cannot receive it. Jonathan: Using addressing as a policy assertion is how Microsoft handles ws addressing. Anish: are you saying that instead of using conformance claims on what to expect, use policy assertion to say you support MTOM. That would satisfy what we are trying to do. However, what is the policy assertion or wsdl marker when doing this in wsdl 1.1 for soap 1.1. As published it has no markers for policy assertion. Jonathan: our product uses a policy assertion that engages mtom. Prasad: This is in line with BP 1.0, which included uddi, which does not mean all end points have to support UDDI. Tom: my issue would be solved by having words in profile making it clear that MTOM support is optional for the profile. Anish: I do not have an issue with addressing, since there is a policy assertion which can be used which conveys what is supported or not. If we go down policy route, I would like to know what that assertion is, and have the profile put that in scope, since it does not exist yet. Jonathan: there is a timing issue. My view is that there are two places to go: 1) clarify that how you describe this stuff is out of scope for BP 1.2, and may be in BP 2 2) to agree now to use a few policy assertions in a policy conformant way. However, this exceeds the scope of our charter. Jonathan: make sure it is optional, and can be constrained with extensions. Anish: Assuming policy is seen as the long term way to go. A third way is to change CACM to define values which could be used for Policy assertions. Anish: we could change the structure itself to allow conformance claims to be policy assertions, and then construct an assertion for MTOM which we can use with this framework. Prasad: It would take some time to change CACM and the conformance framework. Anish: We could weasel our way for the using addressing thing in wsa. We agreed someone could also use the value as a ws-policy assertion. Prasad: the uddi text states: Registration
of Web service instances in UDDI registries is optional. By no means do all
usage scenarios require the kind of metadata and discovery UDDI provides, but
where such capability is needed, UDDI is the sanctioned mechanism. Tom: some text like this for MTOM being optional for implementation would satisfy my issue. I can also agree to have conformance claim values defined which we know could be used in ws-policy. Jonathan: I am concerned about two ways to do the conformance claim in the wsdl, since ws-policy approach is the way forward. Anish: what if we keep conformance claim uris as they are, but define a lower case “assertion” which says that MTOM can be used. Jonathan: we have an assertion in our product which we already use. However, that assertion could be made available in a way that it can be profiled. Anish: WCS has an assertion which is not recognized by other systems, getting something like that in a profile would help the community. Jonathan: that would be a good long term solution, however we are not there yet. Which version of policy would be used for expressing our Proprietary MTOM assertion value. Prasad: ws policy primer http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-primer.html?rev=1.16#optional-policy-assertion has an example of an MTOM assertion. Anish: that is only an example. The weasel solution is to ensure semantics of marker are the same that WCS uses, and define a qname which can be used in various ways (e.g. in an assertion). Tom: I can agree with defining a qname, which is policy version independent. Anish: my proposal is to add three conformance claims, and you can advertise what you want. Jonathan stated that an overlap with the long term solution is not favorable. Now I am stating we have only one conformance claim URI for BP 1.2, (making it more policy freiendly). However we define another qname on mtom support which can be used in multiple frameworks. Jonathan: my first approach does not even go this far. Rather than do weasel words now, do a better thing in BP 2.0. There are Conflicts: schedule and descriptive capability. Jonathan: I would prefer a real spec to point at. Anish: this does not address my concern. I would like a way to mark MTOM support with a qName. Further discussion on alternatives for conformance claims. Realization that Tom’s issue is different, but one solution to Anish’s issue could resolve that. Agreed to resolve Anish’s issue first, then resolve Tom’s issue. Tom: can Anish draft text on his approach. Jonathan: I would like more discussion before we make a decision. To me it is between doing something about policy values now, or leaving this as a future extensibility point. Discussion about a qname being used in multiple versions of policy framework. Anish: It seems to me that whatever version of policy framework is supported, the qname should be able to work.. Jonathan: that value alone, without a pointed at version of policy, will not support interoperability on use of assertions. Anish: that is why I call it a weasel proposal. If we have this qname defined, with a statement that it can be used in policy assertions statements, without pointing at a particular version of policy framework. It would work if both parties understood. Agreed to keep Tom’s issue open until Anish’s issue is resolved. 9 BP12032 - http://tinyuri.com/f0wa#bp12032Description A couple of BP 1.2 requirements are
duplicated. R1033 appears to be a duplicate of R9704. R1034
appears to be a duplicate of R4005 Prasad: the following mail is good for discussion http://members.ws-i.org/Resource.phx/lyris/newmessage.htx?id=226642 Thanks. The suggested changes make
sense to me also. Are people ok with making these
changes as editorial (at editor’s level) or do we need a formal approval by the
WG? Regards, Prasad From: Jonathan Marsh
[mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006
11:06 AM To: Prasad Yendluri;
wsi_wsbasic@lists.ws-i.org Subject: [wsi_wsbasic]
RE: New BP 1.2 Editors Draft Thanks, yes I see the situation is
rather involved. In BP 1.1, R1034 (against
DESCRIPTION) appears in the section on SOAP Envelopes, which is a little
strange. One wouldn’t think of looking
for it there. But that’s OK, it is
duplicated in it’s entirety as R4005, in the Required Description section. If we deem this worthy of fixing through
errata, I propose we strike R1034 as redundant, and format the target
DESCRIPTION in R4005 as bold rather than italic. In BP 1.2, we have the same issue
(sans the formatting nit), and we can solve it the same way, by striking R1034
as redundant. In addition, we’ve introduced a
further redundancy in the resolution to 12015, which we now can see
clearly. Section 3.1.2
with parts of 3.2.4. One or the
other should go, and while I don’t have a strong preference, eliding 3.1.2
seems better as it keeps the text closer to BP 1.1 and it keeps the
functionality under the useful heading “Disallowed Constructs”. From: Jonathan Marsh
[mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006
2:42 PM To: Prasad Yendluri;
wsi_wsbasic@lists.ws-i.org Subject: RE: [wsi_wsbasic]
New BP 1.2 Editors Draft Thanks for getting this done! I noticed a couple of editorial
items: R1033 appears to be a duplicate of
R9704. I think R1033 should be removed, along with the explanatory text
relating to namespaces. R1034 appears to be a duplicate of R4005, I think R1034 should be removed. Jonathan: Leaving it in the description section makes sense. R1034 should be removed. Jonathan moved to remove R1034 from BP 1.2, seconded by Chris § No objections to Remove R1034 from BP 1.2 Jonathan We need to do
same thing to BP 1.1 as an errata, and also the description target in R4005 is
not bold. Prasad: I agree with
this. Jonathan
moves to strike R1034 and change formatting on description target in R4005 to
be bold, in BP 1.1, through an errata, Tom Seconded. § No objection, motion passes for BP 1.1 errata. Jonathan: the last
part is another redundancy, which is only in BP 1.2. Section 3.1.2 has new R9704 duplicate of R1033.
The entire section 3.1.2 should be removed. Jonathan
moves to strike section 3.1.2 from BP 1.2, Tom Seconded. § No objection, motion passes to strike section 3.1.2 from BP 1.2 Tom Can we now close
the issue. Prasad: Issue 32 is
now formally closed with the three motions 10
Any new arrivals?
Old Issues: e. BP12005 - http://tinyuri.com/f0wa#bp12005 defer to next week 11
AOB
Agenda for next week should include Issue BP 12005 (after seeing Skip’s proposed clarification text) Issue BP 12031 and its impact on schedule Issue BP 12030 (if not resolved by BP 12031, we could add text along lines of UDDI optionality in BP 1.1) Discussion of timing for Joint meeting with Requirements WG. 12
Adjourn
Meeting Adjourned late at 3:40 EDT |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]