On May 17, 2005, at 3:48 PM, Tom Rutt wrote:
> The prelim minutes are attached.
>
> Please post any corrections to the list by the end of this week.
>
> Tom Rutt
> WSRM TC Chair
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt email: ;
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
>
>
> Prelim Minutes for WSRM TC Conference Call –May 17, 2005
>
>
> The meeting of the WSRM TC took place by teleconference
>
> Tuesday, May 17, 2005, from 5:30 to 6:30 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 Status of WS-Reliability Specification
>
> 6 Interop SC Future activities
>
> 7 Next Step Documentation
>
> 7.1 Editorial Clarifications and Errata
>
> 7.2 Implementation Guidelines
>
> 7.2 Future Enhancement Requests
>
> 8 Composability with other WS-Specs
>
> 9 ws reliability PAS progression
>
> 10 Liaison with WS-RX TC
>
> 11 Discussion of Future Meetings
>
> 11 New business
>
>
>
> 2 Roll Call
>
> Attendance:
>
> First Name
>
> Last Name
>
> Role
>
> Company
>
> Jacques
>
> Durand
>
> Secretary
>
> Fujitsu Limited*
>
> Kazunori
>
> Iwasa
>
> Secretary
>
> Fujitsu Limited*
>
> Tom
>
> Rutt
>
> TC Chair
>
> Fujitsu Limited*
>
> Robert
>
> Freund
>
> Voting Member
>
> Hitachi
>
> Nobuyuki
>
> Yamamoto
>
> Voting Member
>
> Hitachi
>
> Alan
>
> Weissberger
>
> Voting Member
>
> NEC Corporation*
>
> Paul
>
> Knight
>
> Voting Member
>
> Nortel
>
> Mark
>
> Peel
>
> Secretary
>
> Novell
>
> James
>
> Clark
>
> OASIS Staff Contact
>
> OASIS *
>
> Sumit
>
> Gupta
>
> Member - Probation
>
> Oracle
>
> Anish
>
> Karmarkar
>
> Voting Member
>
> Oracle
>
> jeff
>
> mischkinsky
>
> Voting Member
>
> Oracle
>
> Doug
>
> Bunting
>
> Secretary
>
> Sun *
>
> Hans
>
> Granqvist
>
> Voting Member
>
> VeriSign *
>
>
>
>
>
> Meeting is quorate.
>
>
>
> 3 Minutes Discussion
>
>
>
> Tom Rutt will take minutes.
>
>
>
> 3.1 Approval of previous meeting minutes
>
> The minutes of the 4/28 New Orleans F2F meeting are posted at:
>
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/12633/
> MinutesWSRMf2f0405.htm
>
>
>
> Alan Moved to approve the 4/28 minutes, Bob seconded.
>
>
>
> No opposition minutes 4/28 minutes are approved
>
>
>
>
>
> 4 Status of Action Items
>
> 4.1 Action 121404-2 (Anish) Open
>
> Action: Oracle will provide examples of soap header dumps with both
> ws-reliability and ws-Security headers in use, as in the interop demo.
>
> Anish posted email:
>
> WSS and WS-Reliability header dumps Anish Karmarkar 24 Feb 2005
> 23:22:27
>
> Anish may post some additional examples of other combinations. Leave
> open
>
> Sumit stated that the already sent in one example.
>
> 4.2 Action 012505-1 (Tom Rutt) Pending
>
> Action: Tom will investigate how to change the status of printed
> document. The posted standard still states CD.
>
> Continuing action, sent newest version to OASIS Staff with Errata to
> post
>
> 4.3 Action 020805-2 (Tom Rutt) open
>
> Action: Tom will investigate how to post the three OASIS pas documents
> on our server.
>
> Jamie Clark is investigating how to get the documents on the OASIS
> Site.
>
>
>
> 4.4 Action 042805-1 (Jacques Durand) Pending
>
> Action: Jacques will post a new version of the composability
> analysis, to reflect discussions at the F2F meeting.
>
> Leave open.
>
> 5 Status of WS-Reliability Specification
>
>
>
> The public and member web site pages for the TC to have a single
> announcement, which refers by URL to spec and schema at the proper
> location on the OASIS web site.
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/06/WS-Reliability-CD1.086.pdf
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/06/fnp-1.1.xsd
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/06/reference-1.1.xsd
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/06/ws-reliability-1.1.xsd
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/2004/06/wsrmfp-1.1.xsd
>
>
>
> The spec at the above link itself still shows status a CD.
>
>
>
> Tom posted a version with edited cover page with proper ID and status
> at:
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/12516/
> wsrm-ws_reliability-1.1-spec-os.pdf
>
>
>
> We now await OASIS Staff to post it at the appropriate location.
>
> 6 Interop SC Future activities
>
> Discussion of Future activities for Interop SC.
>
>
>
> Jacques: Only one commitment from NEC for the new security interop
> test round. They would like to have three participants before the
> interop.
>
>
>
> They are not sure how much publicity for two participants.
>
>
>
> Waiting for new participants for at least informal testing.
>
>
>
> Contact Jaques if interested.
>
> 7 Next Step Documentation
>
> Comments have been requested on the following three draft documents.
>
> 7.1 Editorial Clarifications and Errata
>
> Clarifications, editorial nits, interpretations of the actual
> specification,
>
> The following document was voted as CD at the F2F meeting and was
> posted at:
>
>
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/12518/
> wsrm-ws_reliability-v1.1-errata-cd1.0.pdf
>
>
>
> This is awaiting to be posted at the proper location by the OASIS
> Staff.
>
> 7.2 Implementation Guidelines / Application Notes
>
> Things to help implementers, which, would typically be specific to
> application environments. The following document was posted as
> working draft, reflecting the discussion at the Face To Face.
>
>
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/12466/
> Implementation%20Guidelines%20.htm
>
>
>
> Any member can submit comments to open discussion.
>
> 7.3 Future Enhancement Requests
>
> Proposed changes for future versions which would ease implementation
> or enhance protocol capabilities. The following document was posted,
> reflecting the discussion at the Face to Face.
>
>
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/12436/
> wsReliabityFutureFeatures.htm
>
>
>
> Add comments if interested in putting more things on it.
>
>
>
> Doug: high level question – I am not sure how we should address
> liaison with TC which does not exist.
>
>
>
> Lets discuss later.
>
> 8 Composability with other WS-Specs
>
>
>
> WS-Security Composition paper from Fujitsu, Hitachi and NEC:
>
> WS-Reliabilty And WS-Security - First Draft
>
>
>
> The latest version of composability aspects is posted as:
>
> Composability Analysis (V0.5)
>
>
>
> Jacques has an action item to post a version reflecting the f2f
> discussion.
>
> 9 WS-reliability PAS progression
>
>
>
> OASIS Staff has not given us status regarding our request to pursue
> PAS progression of WS-Reliability 1.1.
>
>
>
> 10 Liaison with WS-RX TC
>
> The following test was extracted from the f2f minutes:
>
> Bob: our TC requirements could serve as a basis for an analysis of how
> the following two xmlsoap.org ws-reliable messaging specs (2/5)
> relates to these requirements.
>
>
>
> Web Services Reliable Messaging Protocol (WS-ReliableMessaging).
> February 2005.
>
>
>
> Web Services Reliable Messaging Policy Assertion (WS-RM Policy).
> February 2005
>
>
>
> Tom: TC members should provide contributions a gap analysis between
> our TC requirements and the above reference specs.
>
>
>
> Contributions are solicited from TC members for discussion at the May
> 17 Teleconf on how the specs referenced above meet (or do not meet)
> our requirements.
>
>
>
> Contributions should focus on uses cases that one can or can not
> accomplish with each specification.
>
>
>
>
>
> The call for participation for WS-RX TC is posted as:
>
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200505/msg00004.html
>
>
>
> The WS-Reliability Requirements are posted at:
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/3389/
> WS-Reliability_Requirements-2003-09-05a.pdf
>
>
>
> Doug: I am not sure how we can avoid discussions of documents which
> have not been submitted to this tc, with respect to a TC which does
> not yet exist.
>
>
>
> Tom: One simple thing we can do is let them be aware of our
> requirements.
>
>
>
> Doug: This TC at this point cannot really discuss the things that are
> their input contributions.
>
>
>
> Jeff: There are limitations on IP with which we submit
I'm not sure I can recall my exact words, but i'm sure the above does
not capture what i said (what does the above stmnt mean?). It was
something along the lines that IPR limitations are relevant for final
specifications that a TC adopts. The TC, if it so chooses, can
certainly "discuss" publicly available documents and formulate
opinions/comments on them.
cheers,
jeff
>
>
>
> Doug: I am only concerned about us making comment on their inputs.
> Members could submit any recommendations.
>
>
>
> Tom: I want to suggest this TC to send our requirements to them, to
> facilitate migration from our spec to theirs.
>
>
>
> Jamie: Is their a TC strategy regarding migration strategy.
>
>
>
> Jamie: any TC may make suggestions to any other TC. If there are APR
> restriction tell them. Requirements may not have this problem. The
> TC can instruct its chair to do so, or a member could do so, if they
> are a member of the new TC.
>
>
>
> Alan: I was told that the requirements doc alone would not be enough.
> It should be more than a simple transfer of requirements.
>
>
>
> Tom: It might be better to have detailed comments on their spec be put
> into their TC.
>
>
>
> Jamie: If you want to have them use things it must go through their
> own tc.
>
>
>
> Bob: there is at least one member who would like to know how our
> requirements stack up with what they are doing. We also know that our
> requirements will not be dealt with in their committee. Our TC could
> do a gap analysis, but members of the other TC could make the
> recommendations.
>
>
>
> Tom: should our TC conduct a gap analysis against their spec.
>
>
>
> Jeff: there is a lot of confusion about IPR. One is copyright, the
> other is implementation licenses.
>
>
>
> Bob: several steps. First, is it important to do gap analysis. One
> we have that decision, if it is yes (trying to inform members of our
> TC about difference with their input), does that gap analysis have
> enough to influence the new TC committee work.
>
>
>
> Bob: this TC could send it over the fence, but experience admits that
> it hardly ever works.
>
> TC members themselves need to bring these gaps into the new tc.
>
>
>
> Tom: should we put this on our agenda for next meeting
>
>
>
> Bob: first decide if members care.
>
>
>
> TOM is there any objections to our committee doing a gap analysis.
> None.
>
>
>
> Tom: I will put gap analysis in agenda for next meeting. Submit any
> contributions for that meeting. We should get commitment from
> members for the contents of the gap analysis.
>
>
>
> Anish: I am interested in working on this.
>
>
>
> Bob: it would be better to have a task force to drive this.
>
>
>
> Jacques: I am interested in being on a task force.
>
>
>
> Alan: I am interested.
>
>
>
> Action: Anish, Jacques, Alan, and Iwasa will work on a document for
> consideration at our next meeting.
>
>
>
> 11 Discussion of Future Meetings
>
>
>
> Tom has posted biweekly meetings, starting May 17, from 5:30 – 6:30 PM.
>
>
>
> Bob: let f2f slide and look for future opportunities.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeff: The better gap analysis might be the differences in the specs
> themselves.
>
>
>
> Jamie: presence of PAS Items in our doc registry Generic in calendar
> docs. In WSRM.
>
>
>
> Action item closed.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
> OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--
Jeff Mischkinsky
Director, Web Services Standards +1(650)506-1975
Consulting Member Technical Staff 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 4OP9
Oracle
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
