Minutes WSRM TC Conference Call – Apr 3, 2007


5:30 – 6:30 PM EDT.


Textual Conventions


Ř  Action Item


§    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


First Name

Last Name





Voting Member

Fujitsu Limited*




Fujitsu Limited*



Voting Member

Hitachi, Ltd.*



Voting Member

Hitachi, Ltd.*



Voting Member

Hitachi, Ltd.*




Oracle Corporation



Meeting is quorate


3          Minutes Discussion


Tom Rutt volunteered to take minutes.


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



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.

5          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


   “ 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.”



2.Section 4 is missing the following elements and attributes:













Applied all

3. Section4.2.1 and 4.2.2 have duplicate @groupid.


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






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.

6          Discussion of Application Notes for Information Appliances

Recent Documents Posted by Iwasa:


6.1         Submission letter from Intap




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.







> 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


> 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


> kojima@intap.or.jp





6.2         A Profile of Reliable Web Services Messaging for Information Appliances ServicesWS-Reliability



A Profile of Reliable Web Services Messaging for Information Appliances ServicesWS-ReliabilityVersion 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, Japan and Fujitsu Limited 2007”


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:


*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.

6.3         Deployment Profile of Information Appliances Services for WS-Reliability1.1 Version 1.0



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:

*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:




Date Received sort descending



New Issue: Template: blank lines in table

Robert Freund

03 Apr 2007 17:38:55



New Issue: Template usage of at most once

Robert Freund

03 Apr 2007 17:37:59



New Issue: Template resending

Robert Freund

03 Apr 2007 17:37:07



New Issue:Profilke document: reference to ebMSGuide

Robert Freund

03 Apr 2007 17:36:10



New Issue: Profile document profile management

Robert Freund

03 Apr 2007 17:34:58



New Issue: Profile incorrect figure number

Robert Freund

03 Apr 2007 17:34:14



New Issue: Profile document unclear annotation

Robert Freund

03 Apr 2007 17:32:46



New Issue: Proile document, incorrect figure

Robert Freund

03 Apr 2007 17:30:43



NEW Issue profile document: Identity of SPIA

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.


<Following Correction to draft minutes, ws sent by email:>


Tom: Since we have issues raised today, we are unable to

vote them today. But we have chance to approve them

as CDs next week.


Bob: Since we have no enough time in the today's conf call,

I propose Iwasa propose resolutions to issues raised today,

rather than discussing the resolutions now. Then we can

continue the discussion to resolve those issues by the next telecon.


Iwasa: I agree to propose resolutions to the issues raised

to resolve the issues on the mailing list by the next telecon.


</end amendment>

7          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.

1          New Business

Meeting adjourned at 6:28 PM.