[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Revised: Minutes Nov 21, 2013
Revised minutes for Nov 21, 2013 (more complete, from Gershon chat notes) ---------------------------------------- DRAFT MINUTES OASIS WS-BRSP TC Meeting 21 November 2013, 11:00am to noon PDT ---------------------------------------- Scribe: Jacques Durand 0. Call to Order and roll call Jacques Durand calls the meeting to order and welcomes everyone. * Roll call: Ram Jeyaraman Jacques Durand Alessio Soldano Tom Rutt Micah Hainline Gershon Janssen Excused: Doug Davis This meeting is quorate. Agenda adopted. 1. Administrative: min Oct 31. (to be posted) 2. Test Tools follow-up status (short) 3. Public Review feedback: - assessment: do we have major, "material" comments? - rough classification: (a) need no action at all, (b) purely editorial, worth doing, (clarifications, typos...) (c) apparently substantial (may be "material" , affect conformance) (d) classification pending (unsure which category) Action Items: AI-1: Jacques to do a more precise inventory of test tools AI-2: Ram: will do inventory of Microsoft test tools, and also check current MSFT licensing terms. AI-3: Jacques: to check WS-I licensing with Jamie, does it have any impact, AI-4: Everyone who developed test tools in the past, to check if their company is OK with an OSS style licensing. Minutes: 1. Administrative: min Oct 31. (postponed) 2. Test Tools follow-up status (short) No progress. 3. Public Review feedback: - large number of comments (~300 total over the 4 profiles) - assessment: do we have major, "material" comments? - rough classification: (a) need no action at all, (b) purely editorial, worth doing, (clarifications, typos...) (c) apparently substantial (may be "material" , affect conformance) (d) classification pending (unsure which category) Reminder of categories: - Bucket C1: need not be addressed: the TC can ignore it, i.e. no change in the spec (although we’ll explain why in our comment disposition) - Bucket C2: need a "non-material" spec change (see definition below) that the TC should do, for the sake of spec quality and also because editorial requirements may need this for OS status. - Bucket C3: need a "material" spec change: the fix may affect implementations and the normative meaning of the specification. - Bucket C4: don’t know exactly where to classify this comment (1,2,3?) “Non-Material Change" is any change to the content of a Work Product (i.e. specification) that does not add or remove any feature of the Work Product and that: (a) constitutes only error corrections, editorial changes, or formatting changes;…”. A Non-material comment does not require another public review, when fixed. Tom: lots of C2 , no C3 comments. See: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-brsp/201311/msg00013.html Tom: review of TAB-302, 343, 392. "Appendix A. Extensibility ..." suggests this is a non-normative appendix. Move to C1 class. Gershon +1. Jacques: even if we have only C1 and C2 comments, we may want to consider a new PR (15 days) just because of the large numbers, and as courtesy to reviewer(s) having spent lots of time on it. Jacques: proposes to work from "major" (and "blocker" and "critical")comments down to "minor" comments. Reason: fixing some major comments will solve the minor ones. Ram: What are "blocker" comments? some could be material changes. Micah: need to better distinguish Normative vs. non-normative content. Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): TAB-303, 344 about Appendix C. Testing consists of instructions for how to apply the test assertions, which are said in 1.3 Test Assertions. Need to clarify test assertions Not a normative document. Also At a minimum, mark the appendix as non-normative. Suggest to mark both Appendix A and C as Informative TomR request all to review C2 items and focus on items classified as Major and Blocker, leaving the Minor ones alone for now. Jacques: review of comments for BP1.2: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-brsp/201311/msg00015.html Gershon Janssen: Jacques explains his proposal for semantic categories for comments and how we might handle those. Tom will handle the reference & citations related comments. (TAB-165, TAB-222, TAB-167, TAB-155, TAB-301) investigate dead links Jacques will work on teh conformance-related, conformance Claim mechanism . All: ivited to suggestion to look at the merged ZIP file on the list with all comments / triage URL for ZIP: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=51482&wg_abbrev=ws-brsp Summary of Jacques review: Summary of my own review of BP1.2 (sorry should have posted it earlier this week): - The reviewer has categorized comments as minor / major / critical / blocker. We need to answer properly the “major / critical / blocker” - A short list of the major comment types: 1. General packaging : should all profiles be a single Work product (single spec)? (TAB-400) 2. Confusion about Test Assertions status: normative/not? (TAB-265) 3. Confusion about Appendix status: normative/not? (TAB-302) 4. Confusion about some examples status: normative/not? (TAB-290) 5. Conformance Claim mechanism itself: normative or not? (TAB-278) 6. References and citations need major clean-up, some need be updated? (TAB-165, TAB-222, TAB-167, TAB-155, TAB-301) 7. HTML validation issues (TAB-120) 8. Normative scope of content: only the Rxxx or more? (TAB-267) Expectation to dispose all comments by Feb/2014 4. Adjourn |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]