hi,
one more piece of info.
The relationship between the various specs under development and the
initial batch of SCA specs which we expect to be part of SCA 1.1 -- so
which of the java, binding, other language specs we expect to put up
to become Final Deliverables.
cheers,
jeff
On Oct 08, 2010, at 10:49 AM, Patil, Sanjay wrote:
>
> Sure. I think we can ask the TC chairs to provide the following
> information:
>
> For each deliverable specification -
> - What is the current status of the specification (CD, CS, PR, etc)?
> - What is the remaining amount of work in terms of number of open
> issues, estimated time to resolve, etc?
> - What is the status of testing (Test Assertions complete, Test Case
> complete, In PR, etc)?
> - What is the estimated timeline of completing the testing work?
> - How many compliant implementations do you expect to become
> available before finalization of the specification? Which ones are
> they?
> - Are there any concerns regarding the completion of the spec work
> which the SC should be aware of and can help with?
> - Are there any issues that require coordination with the other TCs
> via the Liaison Subcommittee?
>
>
> Anything else we would like to know?
>
> Based on the TC chairs' replies, we can decide whether a
> coordination via LSC calls is warranted or not!
>
> Best wishes,
> Sanjay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Burke [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 10:27 AM
> To: Jeff Mischkinsky
> Cc: Patil, Sanjay;
> Subject: Re: [opencsa-ms] Proposed - OpenCSA Steering Committee
> (StC) Proposed Agenda - 10 July 2009,
>
> Just to be clear, the update should cover all the dimensions of "how
> close is the TC to exit status?" This would include status and
> estimated future timeline of the spec, testing, availability of
> compliant implementations, and anything else related.
>
> Regards, David
>
> On Oct 8, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Jeff Mischkinsky wrote:
>
>> hi sanjay,
>> So I think you should get that process started so we have some real
>> data for our next SC meeting on nov 12.
>>
>> Also, should we have an LSC meeting to discuss before the 12th?
>>
>> cheers,
>> jeff
>> On Oct 07, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Patil, Sanjay wrote:
>>
>>> I think it makes sense for the SC to get an update on the status
>>> of the OpenCSA TCs. However I am not prepared to collect and
>>> compile a status report by tomorrow. I can try to do that in the
>>> coming two weeks and send an email to the SC.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Sanjay
>>>
>>> From: David Burke [mailto:]
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 12:18 PM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: [opencsa-ms] Proposed - OpenCSA Steering Committee
>>> (StC) Proposed Agenda - 10 July 2009,
>>>
>>> Any interest in an SC meeting tomorrow?
>>>
>>> It would be great to get an LSC update on the current status of
>>> all TCs.
>>>
>>> Regards, David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2009, at 8:03 AM, Mike Kaiser wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> PROPOSED AGENDA - OpenCSA Steering Committee (StC) PROPOSED AGENDA
>>> - 10 July 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
>>>
>>> - 05 June 2009:
>>>
>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/opencsa-ms/download.php/32808/Open_CSA_SC_20090605_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.
>>>
>>> AI20090605-001 Mike to agenda the following for the July 10th
>>> Steering Committee meeting:
>>> a) further discussion around the 2 compliance
>>> validation
>>> prior to CS, and
>>> b) discussion regarding the SCA implementation
>>> language
>>> requirement.
>>>
>>> STATUS: Done, see agenda item 4 and 6 below.
>>>
>>> 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 submission imminent.
>>> - = 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?
>>>
>>> For Assembly, Policy, BPEL, C/C++ specs;
>>> - How did the PR's go?
>>> - What is plan for PR comments?
>>> - Is another PR required?
>>>
>>> Schedule Detail for Binding Specs;
>>> Public review draft vote June 25th successful.
>>> However issue 76
>>> was not rolled in correctly requiring re-spin.
>>> Now attempting to work with Mary for CD03 submission
>>> package
>>> for PR. Complications noted.
>>> Test assertions complete one month beyond PRD - July
>>> 30th
>>> Test cases one month after that - August 27th
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Due to time constraints, further discussion was deferred
>>> for continuation at today's meeting (July 10th).
>>>
>>> CONTINUE DISCUSSION
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. New Teleconference Passcode Process
>>> Because of potential fraudulent use of the previous
>>> use of the Steering Committee teleconference number provided
>>> by TIBCO (thanks!!). Future calls will now be set up as
>>> requiring
>>> a moderator. The moderator code will be distributed to
>>> Steering
>>> Committee members only. In general, Mike and/or Jeff will
>>> automatically dial in using the moderator number. If you,
>>> as a Steering Committee member, dial in and find no moderator,
>>> you should hang up and use the moderator code. That way there
>>> should be no instance where multiple members are waiting on
>>> a non-active line because the moderator hasn't joined yet.
>>>
>>> This process is expected to begin at the next Steering
>>> Committee meeting (Aug 14th)...so keep an eye out for call-in
>>> # changes.
>>>
>>> Any questions?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>> None.
>>>
>>> 8. Future SC Agenda Topics?
>>> None
>>>
>>> 9. Next Meeting
>>> - The next regular teleconference is scheduled for August
>>> 14th, 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
>>>
>>>
>>> David Burke
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Mischkinsky
>> Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware +1(650)506-1975
>> and Web Services Standards 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
>> Oracle Redwood Shores, CA 94065
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> David Burke
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
--
Jeff Mischkinsky
Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware +1(650)506-1975
and Web Services Standards 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
Oracle Redwood Shores, CA 94065
