[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] Second Draft Submission Letter for WS-Reliability
I just updated the pubic comments issue resolutions to include Doug's change of replyPattern on response, along with the reordering of the rm-replies. Thus I want to change the answer to question 5 to: 5. An account of each of the comments/issues raised during the public review period, along with its resolution. http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/9023/PublicCommentsIsssues-090204.html Tom Rutt wrote: > Here is a second draft, which updates the references to the experience > letters, and changes the summary > as suggested by Alan W. (I eliminated the first sentence of the last > para of Alan's suggestion because it repeats what is in the next > question. > > If There are no comments on this second draft, I will send it to Karl > Best Tomorrow morning. > > Tom Rutt > WSRM TC Chair > ------------------ > Draft Submission Letter for WS-Reliability 1.1 > > > 1. A formal specification that is a valid member of its type, together > with appropriate documentation for the specification, both of which > must be written using approved OASIS templates. > > Zip file at: > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8936/WS-Reliability-CD1.086.zip > containing the following five files: > WS-Reliability-CD1.086.pdf WS-Reliability version 1.1, CD 1.086 > ws-reliability-1.1.xsd Ws-Reliability schema > reference-1.1.xsd Reference type schema > fnp-1.1.xsd Features and Properties schema > wsrmfp-1.1.xsd wsrm features and properties schema > > > 2. A clear English-language summary of the specification. > > The WS-Reliabilty specification, version 1.1, specifies a transport- > independent, SOAP based protocol for the reliable delivery of messages. > Reliable message delivery may be critical to some applications using > Web Services. > > SOAP over HTTP [RFC2616] is not sufficient when an application-level > messaging protocol must also guarantee some level of reliability and > security. This specification defines reliability in the context of > current Web Services standards. > > The WS Reliability specification provides the following reliability > features: > > - Guaranteed message delivery, or At-Least-Once delivery semantics. > - Guaranteed message duplicate elimination, or "At-Most-Once" delivery > semantics. > - Guaranteed message delivery and duplicate elimination, or "Exactly- > Once" delivery semantics. > - Guaranteed message ordering for delivery within a group of > (sequential) messages. > > The WS-Reliabilty specification uses SOAP 1.1 or 1.2 Part 1. It may be > used with other transport protocols/bindings besides HTTP. > > 3. A statement regarding the relationship of this specification to > similar work of other OASIS TCs or other standards developing > organizations. > > This specification has been designed to be used in combination with > other complementary protocols, and has built upon previous experiences > from the ebXML Message Service [ebMS].) Both WS-Reliability and ebMS > have same messaging reliability contracts as objectives: guaranteed > delivery, no duplicate delivery, ordered delivery, and combinations of > these. > > However, WS-Reliability has improved on scalability and performance by > generalizing the use of sequence numbers, and can accommodate different > security and access conditions on each party, as this is more > frequently the case with a Web service and its clients, compared to > more symmetrical access conditions in messaging. The reliability > contract is more "application-oriented" in WS-R, where acknowledgment > is on final delivery, in contrast to "on receipt" by the message > handler in ebMS. > > 4. Certification by at least three OASIS member organizations that they > are successfully using the specification consistently with the OASIS > IPR Policy. > > The chair has received statements from the following TC member > organizations. We include pointers to the e-mail archive record of the > statements made. > > Hitachi: > http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200409/msg00000.html > > Fujitsu > http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200408/msg00130.html > > Oracle: > http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200408/msg00125.html > > NEC: > http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200408/msg00127.html > > 5. An account of each of the comments/issues raised during the public > review period, along with its resolution. > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/7725/PublicCommentsIsssues-070604OutputB.html > > > 6. An account of and results of the voting to approve the > specification as a Committee Draft. > > TC roll call vote at teleconf on August 24, 2004 > > Name Company Vote for CD 1.086 > --------------- ------------------- ------------------ > Joseph Chiusano Booz Allen Hamilton y > Jeff Turpin Cyclone Commerce y > Jacques Durand Fujitsu y > Kazunori Iwasa Fujitsu Not present > Tom Rutt Fujitsu y > Jishnu Mukerji Hewlett-Packard Not present > Robert Freund Hitachi y > Eisaku Nishiyama Hitachi y > Nobuyuki Yamamoto Hitachi Not present > Junichi Tatemura NEC Corporation y > Alan Weissberger NEC Corporation y > Abbie Barbir Nortel Networks y > Mark Peel Novell y > Sunil Kunisetty Oracle y > Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle Not present > Pete Wenzel SeeBeyond y > Doug Bunting Sun Microsystems y > Tony Graham Sun Microsystems y > Chi-Yuen Ng Univ of Hong Kong y > > 15 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain, 4 not present > > 78% of eligible voting members voted yes > 0% of eligible voting members voted no > 0% of eligible voting members abstained > > 7. An account of or pointer to votes and comments received in any > earlier attempts to standardize substantially the same specification, > together with the originating TC's response to each comment. > > This specification has not been previously submitted to OASIS. > > > 8. A pointer to the publicly visible comments archive for the > originating TC > > WSRM TC public comment list: > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm-comment/ > > WSRM TC list: > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/ > > > 9. A statement from the chair of the TC certifying that all members of > the TC have been provided with a copy of the OASIS IPR Policy. > > The TC chair certifies that all members have been reminded to read the > IPR statement on numerous occasions and also in an e-mail > “Call for IPR disclosure regarding ws-Reliability spec” at: > http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200405/msg00022.html > > > 10. Optionally, a pointer to any minority reports submitted by one or > more TC members who did not vote in favor of approving the Committee > Draft, or certification by the chair that no minority reports exist. > > No minority reports have been submitted to the chair as of this > writing. > > > Submitted by the TC chair, Tom Rutt, trutt@us.fujitsu.com > > > ------------------ > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]