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
Agenda
1. review agenda
2. Roll Call
3. Minutes
approval
4. Action Items
5
Review Application Notes Draft for Reliable
Response
6
Discusssion of IPR
Transition and committee future
7
New Business
2
Roll Call
Attendance:
|
First Name
|
Last Name
|
Role
|
Company
|
|
Jacques
|
Durand
|
Secretary
|
Fujitsu Limited*
|
|
Kazunori
|
Iwasa
|
Voting Member
|
Fujitsu Limited*
|
|
Tom
|
Rutt
|
Chair
|
Fujitsu Limited*
|
|
Robert
|
Freund
|
Voting Member
|
Hitachi, Ltd.*
|
|
Eisaku
|
Nishiyama
|
Voting Member
|
Hitachi, Ltd.*
|
|
Nobuyuki
|
Yamamoto
|
Voting Member
|
Hitachi, Ltd.*
|
|
Paul
|
Knight
|
Voting Member
|
Nortel Networks Limited*
|
|
Anish
|
Karmarkar
|
Voting Member
|
Oracle Corporation*
|
|
Pete
|
Wenzel
|
Voting Member
|
Sun Microsystems
|
Meeting
is quorate
3
Minutes Discussion
Tom
Rutt volunteered to take minutes.
3.1 Approval
of previous meeting minutes
The
minutes of the Jan 23 teleconference meeting are posted at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/21227/MinutesWsrmTC-103106b.htm
Bob moved to approve the Jan 23 minutes, Iwasa seconded.
No
opposition Jan 23 minutes are approved
4
Status of Action Items
None
5
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/21949/wsrm-AppNotes-draft-03.doc
Hi Jacques,
A couple of
editorial suggestions to draft-03. One
is in section 3.2
and one in
section 3.4.
In section 3.2,
third paragraph, change "send" to "sent"
In section
3.4, change "before concluding to a delivery failure, "
to
"before concluding that a delivery failure has occurred, "
Regards,
Paul
I think the
wording "ack response not as critical" and
"less critcal to
ack response" could
be improved.
Suggested
change:
change:
"
Given the
above, acknowledging a response message is not as critical as
acknowledging
a request message. Request acknowledgement (or failure to
get one) is
sufficient to ensure the following: (1) resending of the
response
message as a consequence of resending the request message, (2)
delivery
failure notification for both request and response, to the
request
Producer party. Because of this, it is less critical to
acknowledge a
response message than a request message. This response
acknowledgement
may be considered as optional, and will serve the
following
objectives:
(a) More
efficient cache management.
(b) Notify the
request Consumer party of failure to deliver its response
message (even
though the request Producer was also notified).
In case an
implementation adds the wsrm:Request element with an
AckRequested element to the response message, the use RM-Reply
Pattern
value must be
“Callback”.
"
to the
following:
"
Given the
above, request acknowledgement (or failure to get one) is
sufficient to
ensure the following: (1) resending of the response
message as a
consequence of resending the request message, (2) delivery
failure
notification for both request and response, to the request
Producer
party. However, without acknowledgment of the response, the
response
producer must
be willing to
cache each response until its request message expires
since it is
would not received delivery failure notifications for its
responses.
In some cases,
a producer may choose to request an acknowlegement of
receipt of its
response
messages..
This response acknowledgment will serve the following objectives:
(a) More
efficient cache management, since the response may be removed
from the cache
when its acknowledgment is received.
(b)
Notification the request Consumer party of failure to deliver its
response
message (even though the request Producer was also notified).
In case an
implementation adds the wsrm:Request element with an
AckRequested element to the response message, the use RM-Reply
Pattern
value must be
“Callback”.
"
Jacques accepted both editorial comments.
Tom: what should we do to this.
Paul: I move we progress application notes to CD with the
agreed changes, Bob F seconded.
§
No opposition, will progress to CD 01 status.
Ø
Action: Jacques will post CD in proper place
with proper cover page.
6
Discussion of
IPR Transition and Committee Future
We had a filed IPR transition ballot to Royalty free
with limited terms.
Two choices:
·
Stop committee before the IPR transition deadline.
·
Successfully construct and IPR transition ballot.
Bob: is there anyone who has an idea for new work.
Iwasa: we have a
new input on implementation guidance for developers. They are preparing a document.
Tom: what time frame.
Iwasa: in one or
two months.
Bob: IPR transition is April 15th.
Iwasa: there is a
Japanese document, It has to be translated into English.
Bob: I ask Iwasa San: does
this application note define how to implement without adding additional
constraints or guidelines?
Iwasa: It does not
change the spec, but recommends how to use the specification. It is similar to the Application not we are
working.
Bob: is it above and beyond the public open source form
implementation.
Iwasa: most
implementations should have no problem.
Bob: to avoid the calendar race with IPR deadline, is
to include as application note for open source version of protocol, outside of
OASIS>
Jacques: I would like to have a look at what is in
these guidelines that Iwasa wants to submit. It might not be critical to get blessed by
WSRM TC. But if it contains points that
improve on interoperability it might warrant an application note. Would it be possible for Iwasa
to get a preview or summary of what the document is talking about.
Iwasa: I will try
to do it, is two weeks ok?
Bob: My concern is not objection for non normative
implementation guidance, however it is the timeframe. We have two months and a week to complete
this application note. That would be
very fast action for this TC, and if there were any controversy we have a good
chance to time out.
Jacques: It took a while for these application notes to
be approved, but that is due to a convoluted path. Under pressure of IPR transition deadline, we
need a preview within a couple of weeks.
Tom: would anyone want to go forward.
Paul K: My understanding is that Nortel could not
approve any IPR status change for this committee. However we could approve a cd if we have time before april.
Jacques: does the Nortel position depend on the
maintenance mode.
Paul K: there is no maintenance mode transition process
in place however.
Jacqeuse we could recharter the TC to have less responsibilities. This might make it easier to approve a new
IPR mode.
Paul K: I would have to talk to corporate people on
that.
Bob: the point is that, at some point in time
constitutes a recharter, whether a month from now or
after new maintenance guidelies. All caveats related to recharter
a group holds true. That would include
any form of IPR Mode would , as a new TC, exist. That would take more than a good will to move
on an application note. It would
required a commitment from TC members for that new charter.
Paul K: I do not see a straight forward way to recharter within this timeframe. It would require a new TC. The two months might be to produce a
committee draft, but there would be no public review
Jacques, I was not thinking about more than a CD
Bob: could Iwasa distribute a
Japanese document immediately.
Ø
Action: Iwasa will
post a Japanese version to the site.
Ø
Action: Iwasa will
post an English summary by end of next week.
Next meeting in two weeks Feb 20, to discuss potential
plan for CD.
Tom: I realize that there is not a likelihood to have
an IPR change for this TC by the April Deadline.
7
New Business
Bob moved to adjourn. Paul seconded.
|