Minutes of the OASIS SCA Bindings TC Meeting 8th October 2009
Attendance:
Tom Rutt / Fujitsu Limited*Bryan Aupperle / IBM
David Booz / IBM
Mike Edwards / IBM
Simon Holdsworth - chair / IBM
Anish Karmarkar / Oracle Corporation
Plamen Pavlov / SAP AG*
Eric Johnson – scribe / TIBCO Software Inc.
LOA: Martin Chapman, Kanderao Kand, Ashok Malhotra
Resolutions:
· Minutes of the Bindings TC meeting of 1st October approved with no objections
· Issue BINDINGS-99 opened (m: Bryan Aupperle, s: David Booz, no objections)
· Issue BINDINGS-87 reopened (m: David Booz, s: Eric Johnson, no objections, 2/3 majority achieved)
Completed Action Items:
· 20090827-1 [Anish Karmarkar] Complete WS TA document, target 24/09/09
Open action items:
· 20090211-4 [General] Write up HTTP binding use cases
· 20090709-2 [Editors] Update the schema appendix title to include 1.1
· 20090820-2 [Simon Holdsworth] Look at the templating mechanism with respect to policy.
· 20091001-1 [Simon Holdsworth] Respond to comments on JMS TA document
· 20091001-2 [Bryan Aupperle] Get Piotr to respond to comments on proposals for issue BINDINGS-88 and BINDINGS-89
· 20091008-1 [Eric Johnson] Raise issue about Simon H's posting to public comment mailing list
· 20091008-2 [Eric Johnson] Append new text to existing issue description for BINDINGS-87
· 20091008-3 [Eric Johnson] Raise issues for items #4 and #12 in Durusau’s PR comment.
Open issue ownership (no current proposed resolution in red):
7 open issues, 1 deferred
Simon Holdsworth: 93, 94, 95, 96, 97
Bryan Aupperle: 88, 89
Unassigned: 99
Current Schedule for Bindings Specifications:
Test assertions complete one month beyond PRD - July 30th.
Test cases one month after that - August 27th.
Web Service binding TA document: completed draft submitted; needs to be reviewed
JMS TA document: initial draft completed, Simon needs to respond to comments, raise issues.
JCA TC document: initial draft submitted; needs to be reviewed
Raw Chat room transcript (actions and resolutions marked in blue):
Eric Johnson: Topic: Agenda review
Eric Johnson: (No comments on agenda)
Eric Johnson: Topic: Approval of the minutes from the last meeting.
Eric Johnson: No objections to approving the minutes - minutes approved.
Eric Johnson: Topic: Action items
Eric Johnson: 20090827-1 - Anish completed this.
Eric Johnson: Topic: New issues
Eric Johnson: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-99 - public review comment
Eric Johnson: Simon: Approach I thought we should take is to open an issue for the entire set of comments, and then figure out how to dispose of the individual items, and go back to the commenter with those decisions.
Eric Johnson: Bryan moves to open issue 99, Dave B. 2nds.
Eric Johnson: (no discussion, no objections to unanimous consent). Issue opened.
Eric Johnson: Topic: Public review
Eric Johnson: Simon: Microsoft sent a response, what do we do?
Eric Johnson: Dave: This happened in assembly.
Eric Johnson: Simon: In terms of process, it is effectively another public review comment. Eric - will you raise another issue?
Eric Johnson: Action: Eric to raise a new issue about Microsoft's response.
Eric Johnson: Action: Eric to raise issue about Simon H's posting to public comment mailing list.
Eric Johnson: Dave: Have feedback on what Assembly did based on a conversation around public review comments. See Assembly 132. Assembly reopened the issue, and is still in the open state.
Eric Johnson: Simon H: That sounds like a reasonable approach.
Eric Johnson: Bryan: We cannot reopen the issue today - requires a 2/3rds majority.
Eric Johnson: Eric: Should we send an initial response indicating we're looking at reopening -
Eric Johnson: Simon: No: Action - Simon to make sure reopening the Microsoft comment related issue is on the agenda.
Eric Johnson: Subtopic: reviewing comment from Patrick Durusau
Eric Johnson: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings-comment/200910/msg00001.html
Eric Johnson: #1 - Action: Editors to review and determine appropriate response.
Eric Johnson: Simon H: Probably relevant across the bindings
Eric Johnson: #2 - Action: Editors to clarify text
Bryan Aupperle: FYI, the Assembly spec uses 2005, 2009 for the copyright dates. I recall that Mike E. checked this with lawyers before the Assembly spec went to public review.
Eric Johnson: #3 - Action: Editors to revise text to reword or remove as appropriate.
Eric Johnson: #4 -
Simon: really a general comment about terms that are defined in the assembly and policy spec. What do we do in Policy
Eric Johnson: Dave: In Policy, we assume that you read the assembly spec before you open up the policy spec, and only refer back for subtle technical points.
Eric Johnson: Eric: Suggest an issue rather than a discussion.
Eric Johnson: Action: Eric to enter an issue for #4.
Eric Johnson: #5:
Eric Johnson: Bryan: We had a comment like this against the C++ spec. Snippets, tables, figures, have been labeled, and can be referenced by caption.
Mike Edwards: I just got dropped
Mike Edwards: from the call - redialling
Eric Johnson: ... partially did a "scrub" on uses of "following", "latter". Editorial, but it does enable references from further away in the doc.
Mike Edwards: back now
Eric Johnson: Action: Editors to caption all examples, figures, snippets, etc., scrub text of use of former, latter, above, below, following. Replace with precise references.
Eric Johnson: #6
Eric Johnson: (Additional role check, Mike, Anish, Plamen on the call - now 100% of voting members present)
Eric Johnson: Simon: Would like to go back to the Microsoft response to our public review comment. Would like to reopen issue.
Eric Johnson: Dave: Issue 87
Eric Johnson: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-87
Eric Johnson: Dave moves to reopen 87, Eric 2nds.
Eric Johnson: Action: Eric to append text to existing issue description.
Eric Johnson: No objections to reopening, motion passed, issue reopened.
Eric Johnson: Back to #6:
Eric Johnson: Action: Editors to clean up the text with regards to this item.
Eric Johnson: #7
Eric Johnson: Bryan: He is objecting to having a section with paragraphs before the first sub-section.
Eric Johnson: Dave: This seems unreasonable.
Eric Johnson: TC decision - no action.
Eric Johnson: #8
Eric Johnson: Action: Editors to look at whether the section is relevant still, or needs to be populated.
Eric Johnson: #9:
Eric Johnson: Eric: Sounds like an issue to me.
Eric Johnson: Simon: Suggestion reads as if it is formalizing what is there. Why would we want to lose the examples?
Eric Johnson: Bryan: Mr. Durusau has raised some of the same issues against the C++ spec.
Eric Johnson: Mike: So these are unwritten laws....
Eric Johnson: Bryan: At least in his opinion.
Eric Johnson: Action: Editors to clean up naming conventions section.
Mike Edwards: using "shall" seems over the top
Eric Johnson: #10
Mike Edwards: since who is the target of these conventions??
Eric Johnson: Simon: Looks like cleanup, editorial.
Eric Johnson: Mike: The current wording makes it clear that this is conditional.
Eric Johnson: ... don't agree with his comment that it is timid.
Eric Johnson: Bryan: Current wording is implying optionality that Patrick's wording does not.
Eric Johnson: Mike: Could use optional wording that uses "can".
Eric Johnson: Bryan: Not much better than what we have.
Eric Johnson: ... Bindings @uri attribute, if present, specifies an endpoint.
Eric Johnson: Simon: That sounds more definite.
Eric Johnson: Action: Editors to look for cleanup along the lines of the discussion above.
Eric Johnson: #11
Eric Johnson: Action: Editors to do something to clarify this.
Eric Johnson: #12:
Eric Johnson: Bryan: I observe that we have an incorrect "should" in the text.
Eric Johnson: Simon: Well spotted.
Eric Johnson: Action: Eric to raise an issue for #12
Eric Johnson: #13
Eric Johnson: Simon: If we go by the precedence of the web services binding, we wouldn't say anything. Do we need to say that we don't provide them?
Eric Johnson: Dave: Like the fact that it isn't there, and highlights it.
Eric Johnson: Bryan: Makes it clear that we're not doing anything.
Eric Johnson: Mike: If you read the assembly spec, you would have an expectation that it would show up in the binding spec, so mentioning it is a good thing.
Eric Johnson: Simon: Consensus that the section should stay?
Eric Johnson: Bryan: I think so. Should respond back that the Assembly spec provides for this, so it deserves a mention.
Eric Johnson: Dave: For what it is worth. EJB spec went back through and added a section on things that aren't supported.
Eric Johnson: Simon: Conclusion - no action, response as worded in chatroom
Eric Johnson: #14:
Eric Johnson: Dave: I strongly dislike specs with no examples.
Eric Johnson: Simon: Examples could be improved via one of the previous comments.
Eric Johnson: Dave: We could consider putting these in a non-normative appendix section.
Eric Johnson: Mike: Driven nuts by pure definition text. Examples are good.
Eric Johnson: Simon: We don't intend to do anything about removing them. Will clean up references to them as per previous point.
Eric Johnson: #15:
Eric Johnson: Same as #14
Eric Johnson: #16:
Eric Johnson: Should there be something in each appendix indicating whether it is normative?
Eric Johnson: (oops that was Simon)
Eric Johnson: Mike: We haven't done that for other specs.
Mike Edwards: Appendix G. Committee Members (Non-Normative)
Eric Johnson: (from the BPEL spec)
Eric Johnson: Simon: We've run out of time.
Eric Johnson: Meeting adjourned. Next meeting same time next week.