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: Prelim minutes of WSRM TC Teleconf 1/23/2007


Prelim minutes are attached.

Please provide any corrections on minutes before next monday.

Please provide comments on application notes by Friday Feb 3.

Tom Rutt

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133



Title: Full Agenda for WSRM TC Conference Call –June 14, 2005

Preliminary Minutes WSRM TC Conference Call – Jan 23, 2007

 

5:30 – 6:30 PM EDT.

 

Textual Conventions

 

Ø  Action Item

Motion

§    Resolution

1          Draft Agenda:

Agenda           

 

WSRM TC Teleconference Meeting

 

US toll free: 866-760-1934

intl: 1-517-233-9562

participant: 2426197

Agenda

1.      review agenda

2.      Roll Call

3.      Minutes approval

4.      Action Items

5        Review results of IPR mode change ballot

6        Review Application Notes Draft for Reliable Response

7        New Business

 

2          Roll Call

Attendance: 

 

Last Name

Role

Company

Durand

Secretary

Fujitsu Limited*

Iwasa

Voting Member

Fujitsu Limited*

Rutt

Chair

Fujitsu Limited*

Freund

Voting Member

Hitachi, Ltd.*

Nishiyama

Member

Hitachi, Ltd.*

Yamamoto

Voting Member

Hitachi, Ltd.*

Knight

Voting Member

Nortel Networks Limited*

Karmarkar

Voting Member

Oracle Corporation*

Wenzel

Voting Member

Sun Microsystems

 

Meeting is quorate

 

1          Minutes Discussion

 

Tom Rutt volunteered to take minutes.

 

1.1       Approval of previous meeting minutes

 

The minutes of the Oct 31 teleconference meeting are posted at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/21227/MinutesWsrmTC-103106b.htm 

 

Jacques  moved to approve the oct 31  minutes, Bob  seconded.

 

No opposition Oct 31 minutes are approved

 

2          Status of Action Items

Action: Tom will submit transition request to TC administrator.

Done

 

Action: Jacques to produce application notes for review of committee

Done

 

3          Discussion of IPR Transition Ballot

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/voting/ballot.php?id=1194

 

Royalty free on lmited terms.

 

3.1       Voting Summary

Options with highest number of votes are bold

Option

# Votes

% of Total

Yes

4

80%

No

1

20%

Abstain

0

 

 

Eligible members who have voted:

5 of 5

100%

Eligible members who have abstained:

0 of 5

0%

Eligible members who have not voted:

0 of 5

0%

 

3.2       Voting Details

Voter

Company

Vote

Reference Document and/or Comment

*Masahiko Narita

Fujitsu Limited*

Yes

 

*Matsuki Yoshino

Hitachi, Ltd.*

Yes

 

*Abbie Barbir

Nortel Networks Limited*

No

 

*Martin Chapman

Oracle Corporation*

Yes

 

*Eduardo Gutentag

Sun Microsystems

Yes

 

 

Paul Knight had no comments on their vote on the ballot.  He cannot state at this time what IPR mode transition would get a yes vote from Nortel.

 

Without the member present there is no need to immediately discuss a new IPR transition.

 

Bob F: what is the difference with getting the apnote done and finishing before April.  What is benefit to refresh the group beyond April.

 

Tom: Maintenance of the spec was one thing talked about in the past.

 

Bob F: It has been more than a year, chances are we will not see to many maintenance requests.

 

Tom: I have heard about a maintenance mode TC .

 

Jacques: the TAB is considering a recommendation on Maintenance Mode TCs.  But is has not been progressed to date.

 

Pete: I am not sure it would exist in time for the April transition.

 

Bob F: that maintenance mode TC would require a charter.

 

Pete: you would close the old TC charter as work completed, and start a new TC for only errata to be produced.

 

Bob F: If it existed in the future, we could do that when we have maintenance to do.

 

Jacques: If there is not much work we can reduce the frequency of calls down to every two or three months.  The feed back from implementers may take time.  Although it is unlikely that there will be more feedback, I would like to check with people in my company.

 

Bob F: OASIS requires one every 6 months as minimum frequency.

 

Bob F: we would have to do the ipr transition to keep that group going.

 

Bob F: what happens if a defect on an existing oasis spec is sent in.  We could set up a maintenance tc then.  The spec is now two years old.

 

Jacques: If we cannot transition to new IPR mode, we could get a limited charter not authorizing new release of spec, but only errata, in which case RF mode does not matter much.

 

Tom: we should discuss this further at next meeting.

 

Tom: I will add “What to do about April IPR Transition Deadline” on agenda for next meeting.

4          Discussion of Application Notes for Reliable Response

Draft Application Notes From Jacques posted as: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/21921/wsrm-AppNotes-draft.doc

 

 

Jacques gave a review of this new version.  This new version does not do the changes to the messaging model, as was done in the draft amendment.  In these Application notes the model in not changed.  The rest is the same text as what was in the amendment.  It is a usage recommendation.

 

Jacques: the main difference is to support reliability of response, the RMP implementation has to cache the response.

 

Tom: There is no discussion on how RMS and RMD know when the “loose” mode is in use.  Should add text to clarify that using the request header on the response is useful if buffer requirements for caching response to expiry time is unacceptable.  I can do this on the list.

 

Jacques: it would be a reliability agreement issue whether a request header is required for the response.  It is enough to use an implementation which supports caching to get the expected behaviour.

 

Tom: but how long does the response sender keep the response in cache.

 

Jacqeus: until message expires or until ack is received.

 

Tom: could we have meeting in two weeks. Feb 6.

 

No opposition.

 

Comments on Application Notes due Friday Feb 2, before the next meeting

 

If possible we should do cd vote at that meeting or a Kavi vote after the meeting.

5          New Business

 

 



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