WS-RX TC Weekly Meeting Minutes Aug 10th 2006

1) Roll Call

Tbd

 

2) Assignment of Scribe

Marc Goodner volunteered.

 

3) Review and approval of the agenda

Approved unanimously.

 

4) Approval of the Aug 3, 2006 meeting minutes

   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/19638/Minute_WSRX_080306.htm

Approved unanimously.

 

5) AI Review 

   http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/members/action_items.php

Noted that issues should be assigned numbers as they come
in and tagged as new, rather than waiting to assign numbers on a call.

 

Where is our public comment list?

Sanjay to investigate, make sure list is up to date.

 

6) New issues since last conf-call

 

a>  Review and
disposition of comments/editorial issues against CD4  

Propoes-01 location
of normative XSD

 

Propoes-02 runon
sentence in section 2

 

Propoes-03 editorial
def'n of RMS and RMD

 

Propoes-04 clarify
second bullet in Protocol Invariants

 

Propoes-05 RM
Protocol Elements dives right into extensibility discussion, no intro

 

Propoes-06 use
of capitalization for defined terms

 

Propoes-07 Inconsistent
use of single and double quotes for values

 

Propoes-08 WS-RX
Public Review

 

Propoes-09 Text
describing extensibility syntax in WS-RM needed in WS-RM Policy

 

Propoes-10 Missing
period on line 347 of WS-RM

 

Propoes-11 Weird
gap on page 21

 

Motion to accept all proposed
issues as a single issue and adopt proposals.

Approved unanimously.

Will be tagged as issue 158 and
marked as pending.

 

b> Other new issues

 

7) Revisit Public Review planning

  8/10 conf-call: TC review of CD4 ends. Received
comments are disposed.

Done.

 

  8/11 - Editors produce a new CD4/PR candidate
draft.

 

Are editors comfortable with being able to produce this
tomorrow (including HTML)?

Yes. HTML may be a bit “off”.

Will there be a PDF with line numbers? 

Yes.

PDF and Open Office versions available tomorrow will be
enough. It would be OK if HTML version take a bit longer to get right.

Problem with html version is problems occurring from Open
Office HTML export.

Will there be a zip of everything?

Yes.

Including RDDL?

Yes.

Paul Cotton to respond to Gil on an open question
regarding the RDDL document.

 

  8/17 conf-call: Ballots are conducted to approve
CD4 and PR drafts.

Two ballots will be conducted on next week’s
conference call.

First ballot will be to accept drafts as CD.

Second ballot will be to accept CD as PR.

 

8) Issue Discussion:

 a> i153  MsgNumRollover Fault is too
restrictive

  http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i153

 

Motion to strike text "The
RM Source MUST NOT send any new messages" and remove the
"Rollover" column from the RMS state table since this change would
make this column the exact same as the "Created" one.

 

Motion passed with unanimous
consent.

 

 b> i155 RMS and RMD should not both use same STR
when sending 

   http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i155

 

Discussion of impact when using
public key tokens in the STR 

Discussion of limiting to SC
vs. leaving STR open which could lead to people choosing tokens that may
present problems.

Motion to close with no action.

Passed. 16 yes, 2 no.

 

 c> i156 New section 6 wording too specific

   http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i156

 

Motion to change to line 1272
"demonstrate proof-of-rights to the referenced key" to "demonstrate
proof-of-possession of the secret associated with the token (e.g., by using or
deriving from a private or secret key)."

 

Motion passed with unanimous
consent.

 

 d> i157 Possible interop issue with
WS-Addressing

   http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i157

 

Motion to close with no action,
note that there is a dependency on outcome at WS-Addressing there may be a new PR
issue depending on what the outcome in that WG is.

Motion passed with unanimous
consent.

 

9) Any other business

All adopted proposals today will be in the candidate CD.

 

Discussion of interop event

Doug not sure of his availability
yet.

Stefan, not available to work
on interop scenarios until after 8/31

Suggestion for interop SC to
have a call.

Note that there is a very short window between having the
scenarios available and the interop places this event at risk.

Previous agreement was this second interop was to broaden
adoption, now there are significant new features to test.

We need to add more detailed interop planning, Paul
Fremantle has been interested in driving but is unavailable today.

Will be on agenda for next week.

Suggestion to start discussion on list before next week's
call.

Who is going to participate?

When will new interop scenarios
be ready?

How much time do people need between
scenarios being available and being able to commit to participate?

Is a phased interop a good
idea? Old scenarios for phase one and new scenarios for phase two.

 

Meeting adjourned at 2:00pm
PST.