Minutes WSRM TC Conference Call – Apr 3, 2007
5:30 – 6:30 PM EDT.
Textual Conventions
Ø Action Item
Motion
§ Resolution
1
Draft Agenda:
1. review agenda
2. Roll Call
3. Minutes
approval
4. Action Items
5. Consider Draft
Deployment Template Document as Candidate CD
5
Review Draft Application Notes for Intelligent
appliances
6
Discusssion mechanics
of committee future
7
New Business
Bob: sent in 9
issues relative to the documents, template or profile.
Agreed to discuss at appropriate time.
2 Roll Call
Attendance:
|
First Name |
Last Name |
Role |
Company |
|
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.* |
|
Anish |
Karmarkar |
Member |
Oracle Corporation |
Meeting is quorate
3
Minutes Discussion
3.1 Approval of previous meeting minutes
The minutes of the March 20 teleconference meeting are posted at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/23194/MinutesWsrmTC-032007.htm
Iwasa moved to approve the March 20 minutes,
Tom seconded.
No opposition March 20 minutes are approved
approved
4 Status of Action Items
Action 1: Jacques to arrange for OASIS staff to post CD 01 for application notes correct OASIS url.
Action 2 on Tom is update public site to ensure it has up to date links.open.
Action: Jacques and Iwsasa to consult OASIS staff about IPR discussion. – Iwasa will distribute mail from OASIS staff.
1
Discussion on
Draft Deployment Template Document
Posted by Jacques: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/22956/wsrm-wsrel11-Deployment-Profile-Template-CD.doc
Comments posted: by Iwasa: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/email/archives/200703/msg00016.html
I have the following comments to the template.
section4. I would suggest to add the following sentence to the first place of
section4.
“ This section may be used as is, or this section may be modified.e.g.,
elements and attributes may be listed one by one, if prefer.”
In any cases, all elements and attributes defined in WS-Reliability1.1
should be mentioned in this section. If any elements or attributes
are omitted in this section, then it must be considered there is
no recommendation or profiling for the element or attribute.”
Withdrew.
2.Section 4 is missing the following elements and attributes:
Request/MessageId/SequenceNum/@number
PollRequest/RefToMessageIds/SequenceNumRange\@from
PollRequest/RefToMessageIds/SequenceNumRange\@to
Response/NonSequenceReply
Response/NonSequenceReply/@groupId
Response/NonSequenceReply/@fault
Response/SequenceReplies
Response/SequenceReplies/@groupId
Response/SequenceReplies/ReplyRange
Response/SequenceReplies/ReplyRange/@from
Response/SequenceReplies/ReplyRange/@to
Response/SequenceReplies/ReplyRange/@fault
Applied all
3. Section4.2.1 and 4.2.2 have duplicate @groupid.
Applied
4. 2nd page: email for Iwasa should be kiwasa@jp.fujitsu.com
Resolve by no email addresses.
5. Section1.2 should have reference. I think RFC2119 was removed
when the section for reference was removed.
Added to latest draft.
Revised candidate CD, incorporating Iwasa Changes, posted by Iwasa: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/email/archives/200704/msg00001.html
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/email/archives/200704/doc00000.doc
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/email/archives/200704/pdf00000.pdf
Bob F: I used a base document which may not be the correct document.
1) Section 4.1.1 line 101 row b) How is the message resending mechanism controlled? (Number of retries? Interval between retries?)
Is overspecifying and has no interop concerns
2) 4.1.3 ..line 105 usage of at most once item b)
What is the behavior of a receiving RMP when a duplicate request is received, for which a response had already been previously sent? (is a Fault be sent back? Or a duplicate of the cached response?)
How does this affect interop, if you get the fault you do not have it. It could in some cases be regenerated not cached.
3) Lists open ended items 5.x: there it either “others” in last line, or blank last line. What is the intents.
Tom: these need to be resolved before voting on CD. Due to confusion on getting proper draft, we need to resolve these before a vote.
2
Discussion of
Application Notes for Information Appliances
Recent Documents Posted by Iwasa:
2.1
Submission letter
from Intap
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/email/archives/200703/msg00020.html
All,
I am forwarding the letter from INTAP.
I believe this is enough statement from INTAP.
However, if anyone in this TC have any concern with
this statement, please let me know by the end of this week.
I will coordinate with INTAP to resolve the concern
by the next teleconference.
We have time limited, so I will do my best to
resolve all issues/concerns and I want to satisfy all of you.
Thanks,
Iwasa
> TO: Chair of Reliable Web Services Messaging SIG, SPIA Forum
> CC: Iwasa-san,
>
> Please forward the following e-mail to OASIS WSTM TC.
>
> Best Regards,
> Tomihiko Kojima
> INTAP
> kojima@intap.or.jp
>
> --
>
> INTAP would like to contribute "A Profile of Reliable
> Web Services Messaging for Information Appliances Services
> [WS-Reliability]" to OASIS WSRM TC for further process
> in this TC. This is an English translation of deliverable
> from Reliable Web Services Messaging SIG in SPIA Forum
> that was approved by the SIG.
>
> INTAP also agreed that Fujitsu submit this document as a
> contribution to OASIS WSRM TC conforming to OASIS
> IPR policy.
>
> INTAP will upload approved document in the following
> address sometime in the future:
> http://net2.intap.or.jp/SPIA/sig3_hrwsm.htm
> INTAP also agree OASIS or OASIS TC web site refers
> to this page to introduce the profile.
>
> Best Regards,
> Tomihiko Kojima
> INTAP
> kojima@intap.or.jp
WS-ReliabilityProfileforInformationAppliancesEnglish1.0.14.doc
2.2
A Profile of
Reliable Web Services Messaging for Information Appliances Services（WS-Reliability）
A Profile of Reliable Web Services Messaging for Information Appliances Services（WS-Reliability）Version 1.0
February 26, 2007
Reliable Web Services Messaging SIG
Forum on Service Platform for Information Appliances
With copyright footer:
“All Rights Reserved, Copyright (C) Interoperability
Technology Association for Information Processing,
A WS-Reliability Profile for Information Appliances 1.0 Name A WS-Reliability Profile for Information Appliances 1.0
Description This document is to recommend how WS-Reliability should be implemented or used for Information Appliances.
You will be able to download the approved version at the followling link:
http://net2.intap.or.jp/SPIA/sig3_hrwsm.htm
*Currently it is not yet posted there.
Iwasa: this first document is created by intap. The SIG has approved this document. Intap may make it an INTAP standard after the SIG standard is finalized.
Tom: Has Intap approved an English translation of this document.
Bob: this is output from SIG, which will go for review as an INTAP approved document. INTAP could revise before producing a final document.
Has INTAP provided the rights to
Tom: has it been discussed to use the new template for this document.
Iwasa: INTAP has agreed to change before final publication.
2.3
Deployment
Profile of Information Appliances Services for WS-Reliability1.1 Version 1.0
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/23275/wsr-profile-ias02.pdf
Deployment Profile of Information Appliances Services for WS-Reliability1.1 Version 1.0
Working Draft 02
2 April 2007
With copyright footer:
“Copyright © OASIS® 1993–2007. All Rights Reserved. OASIS trademark, IPR and other policies apply.”
A
WS-Reliability Profile for Information Appliances 1.0 Name 
A
WS-Reliability Profile for Information Appliances 1.0
Description
This document is to recommend how WS-Reliability
should be implemented or used for Information Appliances.
You will
be able to download the approved version at the followling
link:
http://net2.intap.or.jp/SPIA/sig3_hrwsm.htm
*Currently
it is not yet posted there.
Iwasa: Second document has incorrect cover page. The first document is from intap, the second document was created in this tc. We can have ownership in this TC. I propose we only vote on this document.
Tom: What is relation of second document and the one which INTAP is voting on.
The second document is a proposed CD from Fujjitsu.
Iwasa: the INTAP has approved the Japanese version of the first document.
Bob: the question I have is that during the INTAP process the document, which is the source for information appliance profile, could undergo some change.
Iwasa: The SIG states the document is final.
Tom: will the SIG ever change their document to use the OASIS template?
Iwasa: They did not use the template.and I do not know of plans to recast. Once this TC has approved the OASIS template they could defer to use the new template.
Bob: comments:
|
Actions |
||||
|
180478 |
Robert Freund |
03 Apr 2007 17:38:55 |
||
|
180477 |
Robert Freund |
03 Apr 2007 17:37:59 |
||
|
180473 |
Robert Freund |
03 Apr 2007 17:37:07 |
||
|
180472 |
Robert Freund |
03 Apr 2007 17:36:10 |
||
|
180471 |
Robert Freund |
03 Apr 2007 17:34:58 |
||
|
180470 |
Robert Freund |
03 Apr 2007 17:34:14 |
||
|
180469 |
Robert Freund |
03 Apr 2007 17:32:46 |
||
|
180468 |
Robert Freund |
03 Apr 2007 17:30:43 |
||
|
180467 |
Robert Freund |
|
|
Summary of my issues against Information appliance profile.
Line 62 SPIA is not known
Line 79 – Figure number is incorrect.
Line 136 – section 2.3.2 use case registration, just before chart 3 there is a * stating one way, it should be a footnote for chart 3.
Line 218 – section 2.5 scope of profile, figure number seems incorrect.
Line 358 – section 6.2 non normative ref: ref to ebms guide, this is erroneous non normative ref, which is not explained anywhere in document.
Line 345 – Section 5.4 profile management: pair of N/A whose purpose is not understood.
Bob: Ask if other TC members agree to go back and correct the documents, or if they do not agree start an argument on discussion List.
Bob If making a CD I would like to be clean.
3 Discussion of Committee Closure
Every member should be a
public web site reviewer. Mail editorial issues to list. The public site will be all that is available
after April 15.
Bob: my personal view is that if we move to point to the INTAP document, I would have no objection, but pushing to CD might be difficult given the time we have..
Tom We have a better chance to resolve the deployment template CD, since it is more editorial in nature.
Propose next meeting in one weeks: April 10
50% on CD.