Preliminary Minutes WSRM TC Conference Call � Jan 23, 2007

5:30 � 6:30 PM EDT.

Textual Conventions

� Action Item

Motion

� Resolution

1 Draft Agenda:

Agenda ��

WSRM TC Teleconference Meeting

US toll free: 866-760-1934

intl: 1-517-233-9562

participant: 2426197

Agenda

1. review agenda

2. Roll Call

3. Minutes approval

4. Action Items

5 Review results of IPR mode change ballot

6 Review Application Notes Draft for Reliable Response

7 New Business

2 Roll Call

Attendance:

�

Last Name	Role	Company
Durand	Secretary	Fujitsu Limited*
Iwasa	Voting Member	Fujitsu Limited*
Rutt	Chair	Fujitsu Limited*
Freund	Voting Member	Hitachi, Ltd.*
Nishiyama	Member	Hitachi, Ltd.*
Yamamoto	Voting Member	Hitachi, Ltd.*
Knight	Voting Member	Nortel Networks Limited*
Karmarkar	Voting Member	Oracle Corporation*
Wenzel	Voting Member	Sun Microsystems

Meeting is quorate

1 Minutes Discussion

Tom Rutt volunteered to take minutes.

1.1 Approval of previous meeting minutes

The minutes of the Oct 31 teleconference meeting are posted at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/21227/MinutesWsrmTC-103106b.htm�

Jacques� moved to approve the oct 31� minutes, Bob� seconded.

No opposition Oct 31 minutes are approved

2 Status of Action Items

Action: Tom will submit transition request to TC administrator.

Done

Action: Jacques to produce application notes for review of committee

Done

3 Discussion of IPR Transition Ballot

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/voting/ballot.php?id=1194

Royalty free on lmited terms.

3.1 Voting Summary

Options with highest number of votes are bold

Option	# Votes	% of Total
Yes	4	80%
No	1	20%
Abstain	0

Eligible members who have voted:	5 of 5	100%
Eligible members who have abstained:	0 of 5	0%
Eligible members who have not voted:	0 of 5	0%

3.2 Voting Details

Voter	Company	Vote	Reference Document and/or Comment
Masahiko Narita	Fujitsu Limited*	Yes
Matsuki Yoshino	Hitachi, Ltd.*	Yes
Abbie Barbir	Nortel Networks Limited*	No
Martin Chapman	Oracle Corporation*	Yes
Eduardo Gutentag	Sun Microsystems	Yes

Paul Knight had no comments on their vote on the ballot.� He cannot state at this time what IPR mode transition would get a yes vote from Nortel.

Without the member present there is no need to immediately discuss a new IPR transition.

Bob F: what is the difference with getting the apnote done and finishing before April.� What is benefit to refresh the group beyond April.

Tom: Maintenance of the spec was one thing talked about in the past.

Bob F: It has been more than a year, chances are we will not see to many maintenance requests.

Tom: I have heard about a maintenance mode TC .

Jacques: the TAB is considering a recommendation on Maintenance Mode TCs.� But is has not been progressed to date.

Pete: I am not sure it would exist in time for the April transition.

Bob F: that maintenance mode TC would require a charter.

Pete: you would close the old TC charter as work completed, and start a new TC for only errata to be produced.

Bob F: If it existed in the future, we could do that when we have maintenance to do.

Jacques: If there is not much work we can reduce the frequency of calls down to every two or three months.� The feed back from implementers may take time.� Although it is unlikely that there will be more feedback, I would like to check with people in my company.

Bob F: OASIS requires one every 6 months as minimum frequency.

Bob F: we would have to do the ipr transition to keep that group going.

Bob F: what happens if a defect on an existing oasis spec is sent in. �We could set up a maintenance tc then.� The spec is now two years old.

Jacques: If we cannot transition to new IPR mode, we could get a limited charter not authorizing new release of spec, but only errata, in which case RF mode does not matter much.

Tom: we should discuss this further at next meeting.

Tom: I will add �What to do about April IPR Transition Deadline� on agenda for next meeting.

4 Discussion of Application Notes for Reliable Response

Draft Application Notes From Jacques posted as: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/21921/wsrm-AppNotes-draft.doc

Jacques gave a review of this new version. �This new version does not do the changes to the messaging model, as was done in the draft amendment. �In these Application notes the model in not changed.� The rest is the same text as what was in the amendment. �It is a usage recommendation.

Jacques: the main difference is to support reliability of response, the RMP implementation has to cache the response.

Tom: There is no discussion on how RMS and RMD know when the �loose� mode is in use. �Should add text to clarify that using the request header on the response is useful if buffer requirements for caching response to expiry time is unacceptable.� I can do this on the list.

Jacques: it would be a reliability agreement issue whether a request header is required for the response. �It is enough to use an implementation which supports caching to get the expected behaviour.

Tom: but how long does the response sender keep the response in cache.

Jacqeus: until message expires or until ack is received.

Tom: could we have meeting in two weeks. Feb 6.

No opposition.

Comments on Application Notes due Friday Feb 2, before the next meeting

If possible we should do cd vote at that meeting or a Kavi vote after the meeting.

wsrm message

5:30 � 6:30 PM EDT.

1 Draft Agenda:

Agenda ��

WSRM TC Teleconference Meeting

US toll free: 866-760-1934

intl: 1-517-233-9562

participant: 2426197

Agenda

1. review agenda

2. Roll Call

3. Minutes approval

4. Action Items

7 New Business

2 Roll Call

1 Minutes Discussion

1.1 Approval of previous meeting minutes

2 Status of Action Items

Action: Tom will submit transition request to TC administrator.

Done

3 Discussion of IPR Transition Ballot

3.1 Voting Summary

3.2 Voting Details

4 Discussion of Application Notes for Reliable Response

Jacques gave a review of this new version. �This new version does not do the changes to the messaging model, as was done in the draft amendment. �In these Application notes the model in not changed.� The rest is the same text as what was in the amendment. �It is a usage recommendation.

Jacques: the main difference is to support reliability of response, the RMP implementation has to cache the response.

Tom: There is no discussion on how RMS and RMD know when the �loose� mode is in use. �Should add text to clarify that using the request header on the response is useful if buffer requirements for caching response to expiry time is unacceptable.� I can do this on the list.

Jacques: it would be a reliability agreement issue whether a request header is required for the response. �It is enough to use an implementation which supports caching to get the expected behaviour.

Tom: but how long does the response sender keep the response in cache.

Jacqeus: until message expires or until ack is received.

Tom: could we have meeting in two weeks. Feb 6.

No opposition.

Comments on Application Notes due Friday Feb 2, before the next meeting

If possible we should do cd vote at that meeting or a Kavi vote after the meeting.

5 New Business

wsrm message

5:30 � 6:30 PM EDT.

1 Draft Agenda:

Agenda ����������

WSRM TC Teleconference Meeting

US toll free: 866-760-1934

intl: 1-517-233-9562

participant: 2426197

Agenda

1. review agenda

2. Roll Call

3. Minutes approval

4. Action Items

7 New Business

2 Roll Call

1 Minutes Discussion

1.1 Approval of previous meeting minutes

2 Status of Action Items

Action: Tom will submit transition request to TC administrator.

Done

3 Discussion of IPR Transition Ballot

3.1 Voting Summary

3.2 Voting Details

4 Discussion of Application Notes for Reliable Response

Jacques gave a review of this new version. �This new version does not do the changes to the messaging model, as was done in the draft amendment. �In these Application notes the model in not changed.� The rest is the same text as what was in the amendment. �It is a usage recommendation.

Jacques: the main difference is to support reliability of response, the RMP implementation has to cache the response.

Tom: There is no discussion on how RMS and RMD know when the �loose� mode is in use. �Should add text to clarify that using the request header on the response is useful if buffer requirements for caching response to expiry time is unacceptable.� I can do this on the list.

Jacques: it would be a reliability agreement issue whether a request header is required for the response. �It is enough to use an implementation which supports caching to get the expected behaviour.

Tom: but how long does the response sender keep the response in cache.

Jacqeus: until message expires or until ack is received.

Tom: could we have meeting in two weeks. Feb 6.

No opposition.

Comments on Application Notes due Friday Feb 2, before the next meeting

If possible we should do cd vote at that meeting or a Kavi vote after the meeting.

5 New Business

Agenda ��