Minutes for Sept 14th RX Impl call

1) Roll call

Matt L

Doug D

Jacques D

Paul F

Marc G

Ondrej H

 

2) Assignment on minute taker

Marc volunteered

 

3) Agenda

Accepted

 

4) Action items

None

 

5) Interop planning

Not discussed. Here is last agreed schedule.

 

6) Interop scenarios

Phase 1 change from Jacques

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx-implement/200609/msg00009.html

Adopted with unanimous consent

Marc will get updated doc tomorrow

 

Walk through of new scenarios

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx-implement/200609/msg00011.html

 

Discussion of 3.1 Request-Reply, Non-Addressable Client

Discussion of rmi:useHTTPResponse

In step 3 rmi:useHTTPResponse
should be false at least once rather than all the time

Applies to 3.2 as well

 

Should send ack for response seq with final marker on
response in step 7

Paul notes that this was discussed as a viable option in
the TC

Allow the offered inbound seq to expire rather than
terminate

 

If you want to validate this works, if you optionally
sent the inbound seq ack with final, when the client makes a new connection it
should get an unknown seq fault

 

Will move this discussion to the mailing list

 

It would be helpful to tag the sequences in the scenarios
as outbound/inbound (applies to this scenario and 3.2)

 

Who will implement this scenario?

IBM, Microsoft, WSO2

 

Discussion of 3.2 Request-Reply, Non-Addressable Client,
No Offer

Similar to 3.1, uses RM anon URI instead of seq id

Able to poll for CSR

 

New bullet on step 5, first message back from server will
be a CS because there is no Offer

 

Should there be a variant with Offer as well?

That is a valid scenario, in the interest of time another
variant does not seem to be a good idea.

As the client knows the response needs to be sent
reliably why would the client not send an Offer?

If client has not looked at policy and the response is
optionally reliable it may be up to the server.

 

Who will implement this scenario?

IBM

 

Discussion of 4.1 One-way, Non-Addressable Client, WS-SC

Why is the policy assertion for the STR called out? 

It’s a should, the header should suffice if policy
isn’t used.

 

Who will implement this scenario?

IBM, Microsoft, WSO2

 

Discussion of 4.2 Request-Reply, Non-Addressable Client,
WS-SC

 

Who will implement this scenario?

IBM, Microsoft, WSO2

 

Discussion of 4.3 Request-Reply, Non-Addressable Client,
No Offer, WS-SC

 

wsa anonymous should be RM anon URI

Who will implement this scenario?

IBM 

 

7) AOB

 

Who is going to implement the phase one scenarios on the
new CD?

IBM, Microsoft, WSO2