Re: [opencsa-ms] Proposed - OpenCSA Steering Committee (StC) Proposed Agenda - 14 August 2009

Possible apologies: I just returned from vacation and am in catch-up mode today. Will try to attend if possible.

Mark.

On 13 Aug 2009, at 20:26, Mike Kaiser wrote:

PROPOSED AGENDA - OpenCSA Steering Committee (StC) PROPOSED AGENDA - 14 August 2009 9:00 AM PST 
 
Call-In Information: 
 
        Participant passcode: 784631  
 
        North America Toll free 1-888-240-4148  
        Toll/International +1-719-234-0214  
        London, UK, Local +44 (0) 20 7663 2217  
        UK toll free 0 800 051 6872  
 
        *6 mute/un-mute, *0 operator, *1 help 
 
 
 Our thanks to David Burke and TIBCO for hosting the teleconference number. 
 
         
0. Agenda bashing and Roll 
         
1. Minutes Approval  
 
        - 10 July 2009:  
         
        http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/opencsa-ms/download.php/33329/Open_CSA_SC_20090710_Draft.txt 
 
2. Open Action Item Review and Discussion  
 
        AI20081212-001 - Coordinate an effort with Assembly TC to produce an  
                SCA primer as the specs approach standardization (in review). 
 
                STATUS: On Hold until we get closer to standardization. 
                        Keep on hold. 
 
        AI20090313-001 Jeff to send the following recommendation to  
                the TC's. 
 
                Recommendation: 
                Steering Committee Recommends inclusion of the  
                completed test suite with the main package for  
                the initial CS vote.  
 
                STATUS: Still open. Jeff will do this.          
                        Leave as open. 
 
 
        AI20090605-002 David to set up new moderator call for future 
                steering committee meetings. 
 
                STATUS:  Targeting completion for August StC meeting. 
 
         
3. Overall TC Milestones Status as discussed by LSC: 
         
        The following represents the current state of each TC relative  
        to Public Reviews         
 
        * = PR 04/24 - 06/23 
        & = PR 06/08 - 08/07 
           ? = PR 08/08 - 10/07  
         - = Schedule not available at this time. (lower priority) 
 
        SCA-Assembly TC Specifications (V1.1) 
                * SCA Assembly Model Specification 
 
        SCA-Policy TC Specifications (V1.1) 
                * SCA Policy Framework 
 
        SCA-BPEL TC Specifications (V1.1) 
                * SCA WS-BPEL Client and Implementation Specification 
 
        SCA-C/C++ TC Specifications (V1.1) 
                * SCA Client and Implementation Model Specification for C 
                * SCA Client and Implementation Model Specification for C++ 
 
        SCA-J TC Specifications (V1.1) 
                & SCA Java Common Annotations and APIs Specification 
                & SCA Java Component Implementation Specification 
                - SCA EJB Session Bean Binding Specification 
                - SCA Spring Component Implementation Specification 
                 - SCA JEE Integration Specification 
 
        SCA-Bindings TC Specifications (V1.1) 
                ? SCA Web Services Binding Specification 
                ? SCA JMS Binding Specification 
                ? SCA JCA Binding Specification 
                - SCA HTTP Binding Specification 
 
        SDO TC Specifications (V3.0) 
                - Service Data Objects Specification  
                - Service Data Objects for Java  
 
 
        Where are we on the Test Suite progress for each?  
                (i.e. Test Cases, Test Assertions) For each 
                  - When is TC final review scheduled? 
                  - When is vote for PR scheduled? 
                  - When is Submission to TC Admin for PR scheduled? 
                  - When is PR targeted?         
 
4. Compliant implementation plans         
        We know that we need something about mid year.  There are 
        several companies working this but implementation timing is  
        unknown.  Open Source (Apache Tuscany, looks to be one 
        source for at least some of the TC's.  Fabric3 may be another).   
        Each TC will have to make it's own decision on what compliant  
        implementations they are going to use based on what's available  
        in the         timeframe of standardization and what their test plan  
        looks like. 
 
        The SC must eventually resolve the question of "how it will 
        make approval decisions" and communicate this to the TC's.  
        It is expected that the Testing Plans for each TC will  
        incorporate implementation/testing aspects which encompass 
        the broader "SCA" picture. 
 
******>        We must address the following core questions: 
          Are we all in agreement that the exit criteria in each  
          charter applies to Member Submission for vote and not  
          for Committee Specification approval? 
 
          At this stage, what (if any) compliant applications  
          are the likely candidates which the SC will likely  
          generally accept? 
 
        FROM JUNE 05, 2009 MEETING: 
        There is some debate as to whether the exit criteria requiring 
        spec validation by two implementations is necessary prior to 
        Committee Specification or not.  
 
        (A) 
        One camp argues that CS is defined by OASIS process as a final 
        deliverable and therefore is subject to the exit criteria.  The 
        CS is a standard of sorts, it is just not one which has been 
        approved by the entire OASIS Membership.  Many (maybe 70%) of 
        the OASIS specs are in this state without intent to gain 
        OASIS Membership standardization status.  Because of this 
        CS status should not be granted until there is validation of 
        at least 2 implementations.  we shouldn't have final deliverables 
        which haven't been fully debugged using the 2 implementation  
        compliance rule. 
 
        (B) 
        The other camp argues that public perception is that CS's are 
        not OASIS standards. Perception is that they do represent a  
        level of specification which is stable enough that Vendors  
        and customers can implement with some assurances that the OASIS  
        Member Standard (if there is one) is likely to have little if  
        any substantive change.  This level of specification is used  
        by some as the tipping point to make resource/dollar/timing  
        decisions around formal implementations. Therefore, CS status  
        should be granted to encourage implementations to formally  
        validate against.  
        CONTINUE DISCUSSION 
         
 
5. New Teleconference Passcode Process 
        Status? 
         
 
6. Response to Microsoft and Siemens SCA-Assembly Public Review comments. 
        Microsoft and Siemens (and other internal SCA members) have 
        raised the question around which of the two following paths 
        should be taken for claiming SCA Compliance (i.e. A or B). 
         
        A) SCA Compliant extensions must be compliant with all of the 
           following: 
                a) SCA Assembly, 
                b) SCA Policy, 
                c) SCA Binding, and 
                d) at least one of the SCA Implementation Types 
                    (currently Java, BPEL, C or C++ ) 
 
        B) SCA Compliant extensions must be compliant with all of the 
           following: 
                a) SCA Assembly, 
                b) SCA Policy and 
                c) SCA Binding 
 
         
        What is the Steering Committee position? 
 
        Additionally, Siemens has challenged the notion that c) should 
        also not be included in the compliancy requirement. 
         
        What is the Steering Committee position? 
 
 
7. Any Other Business? 
 
                 
8. Future SC Agenda Topics?  
 
         
9. Next Meeting  
           - The next regular teleconference is scheduled for Sept 11th, 2009  
                9:00am PST, 12:00pm EST, 5:00pm UK 
 
        (OpenCSA Steering Committee calls are scheduled for the second Friday  
                of each month.) 
 
 
10. Adjourn 
         

 

---

Mark Little



JBoss, by Red Hat

Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom.

Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA), Matt Parsons (USA) and Brendan Lane (Ireland).