[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] Prelim minutes of 10/3 teleconf
Tom,
I don't believe the minutes is the correct one.
Thanks,
Iwasa
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Rutt" <tom@coastin.com>
To: "wsrm" <wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 7:10 AM
Subject: [wsrm] 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 5133
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Date: Monday August 21, 2006Prelim Minutes WSI BP Teleconf
Date: Tuesday October 03, 2006
Time: 11am PT
Textual Conventions
? Action Item
Motion
? Resolution
Tom Rutt agreed to take the minutes.
1 Roll call
Company
Last Name
First Name
Citigroup
Subramanian
Shankaran
Fujitsu Limited
Rutt
Tom
IBM
Ferris
Chris
Microsoft Corp.
Marsh
Jonathan
Oracle Corporation
Karmarkar
Anish
Sun Microsystems
Pandey
Vivek
webMethods Inc.
Yendluri
Prasad
All voting members present.
Meeting is quorate.
2 Agenda Bashing
Agenda
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 Pending Action Items List (Seems out of date?)
???
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?
?????? 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
???
http://members.ws-i.org/dman/Document.phx/Private+Folders/Community+Folder/Working+Groups/WSBasic+Profile/Profile/BP1.2/BP1.2+Issues+List
??? 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
[1]
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=8&day=29&year=2006&hour=11&min=0&sec=0&p1=224
[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? 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:
?? http://tinyuri.com/f0wa ??or
???
http://members.ws-i.org/dman/Document.phx/Private+Folders/Community+Folder/Working+Groups/WSBasic+Profile/Profile/BP1.2/BP1.2+Issues+List
?
??? New Issues:
?
7 BP12030 -? http://tinyuri.com/f0wa#bp12030
Defer until resolution of BP 12031
8 BP12031 -? http://tinyuri.com/f0wa#bp12031
Description
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 ?f 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 ?ssertion?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? issue is different, but one solution to Anish? issue could resolve
that.
Agreed to resolve Anish? issue first, then resolve Tom? 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? issue open until Anish? issue is resolved.
9 BP12032 -? http://tinyuri.com/f0wa#bp12032
Description
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? 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? think of looking for it
there.? But that? OK, it is duplicated in it? 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?e 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? 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 ?isallowed 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? 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]