Web Services Architecture WG Telcon
19 Dec 2002

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Contents

• Agenda Items
• Summary of Action Items

<Roger> zakim ??p11 is Roger

<JimD> having some cell phone troubles; will reconnect in 5

<Roger> Roger scribing.
... A bunch of minutes have been posted. Hugo wants more time to review.
... Clean up response to XMLP attachment action item?
... Not done yet.
... WSDL requirements draft -- any architectural issues noted?

<JimD> ??P24 is JimD

<Roger> Chris F volunteers to do over holidays. WSDL wants response by 12/31, but they can probably get whatw they get.

<chrisf> ACTION: Chris to review WSD Requirements WD and summarize any potential arch issues

<Roger> Note sent to Mark Baker saying will consider his issue, we are not closing it.
... Mike C has volunteered to harvest RM threads for document.
... Hugo has on to-do list to take care of capitalization of wEB sERVICES in glossary, etc.
... He's going to put everything lower case for the moment.
... It was discussed last week. WSDL wants some sort of input pretty soon.
... We decided "Web services" last week, we think.
... ACTION: Hugo to clean up capitalization of web services in glossary.
... MTF report?
... Heather - discussions of requirements for information on WS components ongoing.
... Or something like that.
... Tom has published the issues list, the URL is in the agenda.
... We will now plan on structuring time in the telcons for processing issue list.
... Mark J - What are these issues against? General? Arch doc? Requirements doc?
... Chris - Issues list should indicate which doc, if any, it applies to. This appears to be the "Req" column, which seems to have such references in it.
... Action: Tom clarify what documents are referred to.
... ACTION: Tom clarify what documents are referred to.
... Who is Tom?

<chrisf> ACTION: TomC to clean up issues list so that the Spec column uses consistent terms (e.g. both Arch and Spec are used to refer to the arch WD)

<Roger> Actions 3 and 4 are the same.
... If you find yourself in need of something to do, go through issues and think about draft responses. Start discussion if seems warrented.
... Reliability:
... Roadmap for major issues and status?
... 1 - Security. Status: deferred to OASIS for the moment.
... IBM et al has released a bunch of security specs.
... Should we be looking at these and referencing them?
... Seems like a good idea to be familiar with them.
... Microsoft and IBM are both buying into and implementing this security roadmap.

<chrisf> here's the link to the updated roadmap and all of the recently published Policy and Security specs: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-secroad/

<Roger> ACTION: MikeC to summarize RM threads for Arch document.
... 2 - Choreography. Status - in whatever state it's in, probably waiting for TB-L.
... 3 - Reliable Messaging
... What other things besides RM should we be thinking about besides RM as focii of attention.
... Somebody asks whether a whole WG is needed for a simple ack?
... Duane Nickol - Requirements of business often both RM component AND a service agreement saying what happen if fails.
... If scoping RM, should leave hook in for something to describe those rules of engagement.
... Same somebody says it looks like this is overlapping with choreography.
... DN - Rules of engagement are next level up. One approach is to keep RM down the stack and push the agreement component events up the stack.
... MarkJ - MOM lets client send message and have something higher up stack do best to get delivered.
... Message queuing and so on.
... Is that a feature of asynch messaging or RM? Or both?
... Somebody says they have tried to make distinction between business level ack and transport level ack.
... Transport level is closer to synchronous, pushes info up stack.
... Business level acknowledgement is at a higher level, involving agreed choreography.
... Software that tries to get delivery without dealing with business level?
... ebXML relies on TCP/IP to get simple response code. Higher level tracks through to business level choreography.
... Does the business level get involved immediately if synchronous transport fail?
... Transport level does not require immediate success.

<chrisf> can we have one conversation please?

<Roger> Reliability processes usually concentrate on transport.
... I have no earthly idea who is talking.
... From a business level, you often need to send a separate business level ack back.
... MartinC - Another thing, related, is other MEP's. Asynch, once only, etc.
... One to many, intermediaries, etc.
... THis is something else for the roadmap.
... Roger - separate business from message ack.
... MikeC - couple issues on the table.
... Is this the next thing we want to table or do we need to sort out MEP's first.
... Is this something where there is a simple, 80-20 -- low hanging fruit -- simple protocol that retries N times?
... Is it worthwhile to spawn off a spec in this simple vein?
... How do we sort out more complex questions of how to deal with failures - choreography and business level implications.
... Certainly would not dump the latter on XMLP, but the simple, low-fruit might be a possibility.
... Chris - Thinks the two issues are orthogonal. Msg gets through or doesn't. That's one issue. Implication of whether the msg got through is another issue.
... DN - ebXML agrees that failure is failure -- has hook to go to what implication is.
... What is the mechanism for going ahead on the simple thing? Full WG seems to be overkill. Will XMLP take it?
... MikeC - Has this come up in XMLP meetings?
... They are clearly going to work on attachments?
... Call yesterday - there's a laundry list that the group could do, but the group does not feel well positioned to determine priorities.
... Would like input on prioritization from WS-ARCH or CG.
... Also potentially chartering issues.
... I think the previous comments were from MarkJ.
... Mike - if WS-ARCH said this was an important thing, what would XMLP think?
... Answer - Would probably have issues about doing it without going to AC.
... Everybody agrees -- would have to go to AC.
... Somebody says should do architecture, not RM.

<chrisf> +1 to that

<Roger> DN - OASIS TC would be favorable to receiving comments from this group. Messaging Group.
... The ebXML messaging group may be evolving toward a more generic messaging group.
... Coleen Evans - Msging group does not seem to be heading that way yet.
... Is that group actually going there? Probably more discussion than actual motion.
... Roger - Low hanging fruit should be grabbed and handed off.
... MikeC - Concentrate on arch, defer RM until F2F.
... Hao - RM experience - Time factor helps to simplify situation dramatically.
... Simpler if responsibility for RM stays with client.
... Applications can simply take care of this without a protocol?
... Or is there value in simple re-try protocol?
... Hao is saying that sender has the basic responsibility in RM.
... Or that there is an RM mechanism that will work where this is true.
... We seem to be talking past each other -- seems to be disconnect here.
... Need to discuss on mailing group.
... ebXML spec. Need URL for it.
... Levels seem to hurt.
... Need to list features that are needed rather than immediately try to categorize them.
... What does an ack mean? Different aspects there as well.
... ebXML: couples meaning of ack with behavior of application.
... Specifies that the message handler will order messages.
... ebXML is more than messaging but also has components of interface to apps.
... Could talk about communication protocol on its own.
... Here is the URL for the ebXML Messaging Spec V2: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/documents/ebMS_v2_0.pdf
... Tuning of protocol for performance can be separated out, too.
... Three things; 1 - Bits on the wire exchanged; 2 - TUning of exchange; 3 - QOS offered on either side.

<dougb> The ebXML Messaging 2.0 specification is also available at http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebMS2.pdf

<Roger> Look around pg 35 of the ebXML spec.
... MikeC has the action item to harvest the mailing list and references to take a first cut at architecture straw man.
... For RM.
... New Topic.
... Comment from P3P WG saying that they don't get no respect.
... Is this an official WG communication?
... Hugo - This issue has some history.
... P3P had some requests from XMLP. Wanted to be able to associate P3P policy with SOAP message.
... XMLP said that they weren't going to provide the explicit connection.
... Passed along to Arch group.
... Need to have on issues list.
... MarkJ - Concerns are deeper and have arch implications.
... P3P policies refer to URI's. This talks about a particular operation or service.
... No canonical way to describe implications of service.
... How do you state that a SOAP message will satisfy some privacy requirement.
... Might get some folks together to consider issue?
... Get P3P people to make presentation at F2F about their concerns.
... Mike - schedule face time at Plenary?
... Hugo - Seems reasonable.
... ACTION: Hugo coordinate with P3P group and schedule communication.

<mchampion> ACTION: Hugo will contact P3P people to suggest meeting at Plenary in march

Summary of Action Items