Minutes of WSRM TC Conference Call August 24, 2004

 

The meeting of the WSRM TC took place by teleconference 

Tuesday, Aug 24, 2004, from 5:30 to 7:30 PM Eastern Standard Time

 

 

1         Draft Agenda:

1 Draft Agenda to WSRM TC Conference Call

2 Roll Call

3 Minutes Discussion

3.1 Appointment of Minute Taker

3.2 Approval of previous meeting minutes

4 Action Item Status Review

5 Discussions of unresolved comments

6 Scheduled Vote for CD (only if all comments are resolved and we are quorate, else we could initiate a Kavi 7 day ballot)

7 Scheduled Votes for further progression (only if CD is voted yes)

7.1 Vote on whether changes from CD .992 are substantive

7.2 Vote to Submit to OASIS for member vote (subject to no vote on 7.1))

7.3 Vote for second 30 day public review (subject to yes vote on 7.1)

8 Discussion of document progression and future meeting schedule

 

2         Roll Call

Attendance:

First Name

Last Name

Role

Company

Vote for CD 1.086

vote on whether changes from CD .992 are substantive

vote to submit to OASIS Member Vote

Chi-Yuen

Ng

Member

Univ of Hong Kong

y

n

y

Doug

Bunting

Secretary

Sun Microsystems

y

y

n

Tony

Graham

Member

Sun Microsystems

y

y

n

Pete

Wenzel

Member

See Beyond

y

a

y

Sunil

Kunisetty

Secretary

Oracle

y

n

y

Mark

Peel

Secretary

Novell

y

y

y

Abbie

Barbir

Member

Nortel Networks

y

n

a

Junichi

Tatemura

Member

NEC Corporation

y

n

y

Alan

Weissberger

Member

NEC Corporation

y

n

y

John

Fuller

Observer

Individual

 

 

 

Robert

Freund

Member

Hitachi

y

n

y

Eisaku

Nishiyama

Member

Hitachi

y

n

y

Nobuyuki

Yamamoto

Member

Hitachi

 

n

y

Jacques

Durand

Secretary

Fujitsu

y

n

y

Tom

Rutt

TC Chair

Fujitsu

y

a

y

Jeff

Turpin

Member

Cyclone Commerce

y

n

y

Joseph

Chiusano

Member

Booz Allen Hamilton

y

n

y

 

 

Meeting is quorate.

 

3         Minutes Discussion

3.1      Appointment of Minute Taker

Tom Rutt will take minutes.

 

Minutes will serve to record issue resolutions.

3.2      Approval of previous meeting minutes

The minutes of the Aug 17 teleconf are posted at:

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8870/MinutesWSRMTC081704.htm

 

 

BoB F moved to approve, Alan seconded.

 

No opposition, minutes of Aug 17 approved.

 

4         Status of Action Items

 

4.1      Action 052503-1 (Tom Rutt) pending

 
Tom took an action item to complete the status column of 
pre public review issues list, with correct URLs.

 

4.2      Action 060104-5 (Jacques) Pending

 

Action: Jacques, will propose further edits, on the FAQ for composability.

 

Still open, low priority

 

 

4.3      Action 081704-1 (Jacques) Complete

 

Action: Jacques will post an updated draft by Thursday 8/19.

 

On 8/19 Jacques posted http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8844/WS-Reliability-1085-jdak-b.pdf .

 

On 8/20, Jacques posted another refinement, with new figures provided by Tom Rutt, at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8874/WS-Reliability-1085-jdak-c-figs.sxw .

 

On 8/22 Mark Peel posted an editorial cleanup, at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8879/WS-Reliability-1085-jdak-d-figs.sxw .

 

On 8/23 Doug Bunting posted the output of the editing team, Draft 1.086, at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8909/WS-Reliability-2004-08-23.pdf .

 

5         Discussion of Issues and editorial Comments

The following issues list includes items which have been resolved as of the output of the 7/6/1004 TC meeting:

 

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/7725/PublicCommentsIsssues-070604OutputB.html

 

The editing team posted draft 1.086 to the server which resolved the editorial items from the 8/17 minutes,:

PDF:

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8909/WS-Reliability-2004-08-23.pdf

.

PDF with changes against 1.085

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8910/WS-Reliability-2004-08-23-diff.pdf

 

Open office source:

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8908/WS-Reliability-2004-08-23.sxw

 

As of the morning of 8/24 there were no comments posted on any of the drafts.

 

6         Scheduled Vote on Draft 1.086 as CD (only if we are quorate)

 

else we could initiate a Kavi 7 day ballot, or wait till Aug 31.

 

Alan moved to vote on draft 1.086 as cd, seconded by Jacques.

 

Voted 15 yes, 0 no, 0 Abstain (see column in roll call table)

 

Greater than 2/3 members vote yes. Motion carries.

7         Scheduled Votes for further progression (only if CD is voted yes)

7.1      Vote on whether changes from CD .992 are substantive

Doug: I sent an email to the list with a group of issues which add up to this being substantial difference from .992. While each change might be construed as minor, all of the changes put together are a substantive change.

 

Doug: I would like to frame the motion better. If we need to ask for motions from the floor for the other votes.

 

Alan: NEC implementers told me that the sum of all the changes do not add up to substantive change in their implementation, only minor coding changes are required.

 

Bob F: Hitachi experience with this spec are that the changes are centered in areas outside the scope of what the implementations deal with, so they do not believe the changes are substantive.

 

Doug: You stated the changes are in areas that do not matter to them.

 

Bob F: the biggest changes are outside the area which impacted their implementation.

 

Doug: I am concerned that the emails are regarding changes from parts of .992.

 

Bob F: We are admitting that we do not have a full implementation of .992.

 

Jacques: I just relayed the opinion of our implementor, on our opinion the interpretation of substantive is crucial here. If Substantive means new features are added, the changes are not substantive, since we have made changes which have shifted things around for editorial reasons. From an implementation consideration, the changes are not substantive.

 

Mark Peel: Have the implementers took the .992 spec and interpreted the words to be the same as the clarifications made in the 1.086 spec.?

 

Bob F: Our implementers have made very few interpretations which are different than what is in 1.086, and thus have to make very little changes to the implementation.

 

Jacques moved that we vote on whether the changes from .992 are substantive. Alan seconded.

 

Yes means they are substantive , no means not

 

 

Voted 3 yes, 11 no, 2 Abstain (see column in roll call table)

 

No votes carry. Majority say changes are not substantive

7.2      Vote to Submit to OASIS for member vote (subject to no vote on 7.1))

 

Bob F moved to submit this CD for OASIS member vote for approval seconded by Joe.

 

 

Voted 13 yes, 2 no, 1 Abstain (see column in roll call table)

 

Yes votes carry, motion passes.

 

8         Discussion of document progression and future meeting schedule

 

8.1      Future F2F meeting

From Aug 17 minutes:

Tom: lets consider two possible tracks:

  1. A: changes from CD .992 are voted as not substantive we can submit to oasis member vote by Sept 15. They send out on October 1 the 30 day member vote, we get comments by October 31. This points to a Face to face to resolve member comments in November (to resolve member comments)
  2. B: changes from CD .992 are voted as substantive can initate a new public review could initiate on Aug 25th. Closing Sep 24. Earliest Oasis member vote submission on October 15, with Oasis member vote going out Nov 1 ending Nov 31. This would lead to a Face to Face in December (to resolve member comments).

 

Oasis staff knows

 

The first week of Nov is no good.

 

XML 2004 nov 15 12.

 

Second week of November 8-12 are potentially a good date.

 

One day Face to face in Miami at the end of the first week. As possibility.

 

Pete: if there are fewer than 15% voting no, those have to be address, and the TC has to then vote to accept as a standard.

 

8.2      Next teleconf.

 

Tom asked question, should next meeting be in Two or three weeks.

 

Bob: we are now sitting around.

 

Doug: New letters need to be send from companies referring to their experience citing cd 1.086.

 

Bob F: I do not want our meeting to miss the Sept 15 deadline.

 

Agreed on every two weeks for 1 hour, starting sept 7.

8.3      Interop SC progress report

Bob F: being discussed among OASIS staff is a interop demo as an OASIS event before the end of this year. I have indicated to OASIS the desire to be part of that. It would be better to concentrate our efforts for public event to that one.

 

For the Private event, a rational time might be the private demo at the beginning of week during the November meeting at the end of the week. Early November in CA is a good time.

 

8.4      Future Work Items

Agenda items for next week's call
From "Alan Weissberger" <ajwdct@technologist.com> on 10 Aug 2004 23:35:43 -0000

 

work plan: prioritize and schedule all work items, including:

 

a]response to CD and public review comments,

 

b] app note/ implementer's guide, updated requirements doc, etc.

 

c]Define a process for iterating results/ feedback from interop event and new requirements into version 2 of the WS Reliability spec

 

d] other work items, TBD

 

Doug: one question is whether we want to put the source in the zip file for the CD.

 

No difference pdf file in the zip. File.

 

Bob F moved to adjourn, Joe C seconded.