20:34:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-arch
20:34:59 <ugo> ugo has joined #ws-arch
20:35:18 <zulah> zulah has joined #ws-arch
20:35:25 <Kreger> Kreger has joined #ws-arch
20:35:44 <Roger> zakim, who is here?
20:35:45 <Zakim> sorry, Roger, I don't know what conference this is
20:35:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see Kreger, zulah, ugo, RRSAgent, Zakim, JimD, Roger, MartinC, mchampion, chrisf, Mark_J
20:36:13 <prasad> prasad has joined #ws-arch
20:36:24 <chrisf> zakim, this is arch
20:36:25 <Zakim> ok, chrisf
20:36:32 <Roger> zakim, this is ws
20:36:34 <Zakim> this was already WS_ArchWG()3:30PM
20:36:34 <Zakim> ok, Roger
20:36:34 <Zakim> +M.Mahan
20:36:45 <Zakim> + +1.650.849.aabb
20:36:47 <Roger> zakim, who is here?
20:36:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Prasad_Yendluri, ??P9, Mike_Champion, ??P11, DOrchard, ??P14, ??P15, Hugo, +1.650.875.aaaa, Colleen_Evans, Mark_A_Jones, Eric, ??P20, ??P21, ??P22, ??P24,
20:36:50 <Zakim> ... Chris_Ferris, M.Mahan, +1.650.849.aabb
20:36:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see prasad, Kreger, zulah, ugo, RRSAgent, Zakim, JimD, Roger, MartinC, mchampion, chrisf, Mark_J
20:37:12 <Zakim> -??P24
20:37:13 <Zakim> -??P11
20:37:23 <Zakim> +??P27
20:37:33 <Zakim> +??P11
20:37:34 <chrisf> zakim, aabb is probably sinisa
20:37:35 <Zakim> +Sinisa?; got it
20:37:45 <Roger> zakim ??p11 is Roger
20:37:57 <Roger> Zakim, ??p11 is Roger
20:37:58 <Zakim> +Roger; got it
20:38:52 <JimD> having some cell phone troubles; will reconnect in 5
20:40:49 <Roger> Roger scribing.
20:41:22 <Roger> A bunch of minutes have been posted.  Hugo wants more time to review.
20:41:49 <Roger> Clean up response to XMLP attachment action item?
20:41:52 <Roger> Not done yet.
20:42:12 <Roger> WSDL requirements draft -- any architectural issues noted?
20:42:20 <Zakim> +??P24
20:42:37 <JimD> ??P24 is JimD
20:42:51 <Roger> Chris F volunteers to do over holidays.  WSDL wants response by 12/31, but they can probably get whatw they get.
20:43:07 <chrisf> ACTION: Chris to review WSD Requirements WD and summarize any potential arch issues
20:43:27 <Roger> Note sent to Mark Baker saying will consider his issue, we are not closing it.
20:43:29 <JimD> zakim, ??P24 is JimD
20:43:31 <Zakim> +JimD; got it
20:43:54 <Roger> Mike C has volunteered to harvest RM threads for document.
20:44:06 <chrisf> zakim, who is here?
20:44:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see Prasad_Yendluri, ??P9, Mike_Champion, DOrchard, ??P14, ??P15, Hugo, +1.650.875.aaaa, Colleen_Evans, Mark_A_Jones, Eric, ??P20, ??P21, ??P22, Chris_Ferris,
20:44:09 <Zakim> ... M.Mahan, Sinisa?, ??P27, Roger, JimD
20:44:10 <Zakim> On IRC I see prasad, Kreger, zulah, ugo, RRSAgent, Zakim, JimD, Roger, MartinC, mchampion, chrisf, Mark_J
20:44:48 <Roger> Hugo has on to-do list to take care of capitalization of wEB sERVICES in glossary, etc.
20:44:58 <Roger> He's going to put everything lower case for the moment.
20:45:31 <Roger> It was discussed last week.  WSDL wants some sort of input pretty soon.
20:45:56 <Roger> We decided "Web services" last week, we think.
20:46:19 <Roger> ACTION: Hugo to clean up capitalization of web services in glossary.
20:46:38 <Roger> MTF report?
20:46:39 <Zakim> +??P28
20:47:03 <Roger> Heather - discussions of requirements for information on WS components ongoing.
20:47:06 <Roger> Or something like that.
20:47:10 <chrisf> zakim, ??p28 is igor
20:47:11 <Zakim> +Igor; got it
20:47:34 <Shishir> Shishir has joined #ws-arch
20:47:51 <Roger> Tom has published the issues list, the URL is in the agenda.
20:48:13 <Roger> We will now plan on structuring time in the telcons for processing issue list.
20:49:05 <Roger> Mark J - What are these issues against?  General?  Arch doc?  Requirements doc?
20:50:02 <Roger> 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.
20:50:20 <Roger> Action: Tom clarify what documents are referred to.
20:50:40 <Roger> ACTION: Tom clarify what documents are referred to.
20:50:50 <Roger> Who is Tom?
20:52:05 <Zakim> -M.Mahan
20:52:06 <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)
20:52:29 <Roger> Actions 3 and 4 are the same.
20:52:33 <Zakim> +M.Mahan
20:53:10 <Roger> If you find yourself in need of something to do, go through issues and think about draft responses.  Start discussion if seems warrented.
20:53:37 <Roger> Reliability:
20:54:23 <Roger> Roadmap for major issues and status?
20:54:44 <Roger> 1 - Security.  Status: deferred to OASIS for the moment.
20:55:02 <Roger> IBM et al has released a bunch of security specs.
20:55:17 <Roger> Should we be looking at these and referencing them?
20:56:06 <Roger> Seems like a good idea to be familiar with them.
20:57:12 <Roger> Microsoft and IBM are both buying into and implementing this security roadmap.
20:58:13 <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/
20:58:21 <Roger> ACTION: MikeC to summarize RM threads for Arch document.
20:59:25 <Roger> 2 - Choreography.  Status - in whatever state it's in, probably waiting for TB-L.
20:59:31 <Roger> 3 - Reliable Messaging
21:00:07 <Roger> What other things besides RM should we be thinking about besides RM as focii of attention.
21:00:48 <Roger> Somebody asks whether a whole WG is needed for a simple ack?
21:01:18 <Roger> Duane Nickol - Requirements of business often both RM component AND a service agreement saying what happen if fails.
21:01:57 <Roger> If scoping RM, should leave hook in for something to describe those rules of engagement.
21:02:12 <Roger> Same somebody says it looks like this is overlapping with choreography.
21:03:09 <Roger> 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.
21:03:33 <Mark_J> q+
21:04:05 <mchampion> ack mark
21:04:08 <mchampion> ack hugo
21:04:36 <Roger> MarkJ - MOM lets client send message and have something higher up stack do best to get delivered.
21:04:38 <MartinC> q+
21:04:50 <Roger> Message queuing and so on.
21:05:06 <Roger> Is that a feature of asynch messaging or RM?  Or both?
21:05:45 <Roger> Somebody says they have tried to make distinction between business level ack and transport level ack.
21:06:02 <Roger> Transport level is closer to synchronous, pushes info up stack.
21:06:22 <Roger> Business level acknowledgement is at a higher level, involving agreed choreography.
21:06:27 <Roger> q+
21:07:09 <Roger> Software that tries to get delivery without dealing with business level?
21:07:38 <Roger> ebXML relies on TCP/IP to get simple response code.  Higher level tracks through to business level choreography.
21:07:56 <Zakim> -M.Mahan
21:08:02 <Roger> Does the business level get involved immediately if synchronous transport fail?
21:08:17 <Roger> Transport level does not require immediate success.
21:08:34 <chrisf> can we have one conversation please?
21:08:56 <Roger> Reliability processes usually concentrate on transport.
21:09:20 <Roger> I have no earthly idea who is talking.
21:09:30 <Zakim> +??P5
21:09:59 <Roger> From a business level, you often need to send a separate business level ack back.
21:10:21 <Roger> q?
21:10:33 <Zakim> +M.Mahan
21:11:19 <mchampion> ack martinc
21:11:44 <Roger> MartinC - Another thing, related, is other MEP's.  Asynch, once only, etc.
21:11:58 <Roger> One to many, intermediaries, etc.
21:12:06 <Roger> THis is something else for the roadmap.
21:12:18 <mchampion> ack roger
21:13:33 <Roger> Roger - separate business from message ack.
21:14:42 <Roger> MikeC - couple issues on the table.
21:14:56 <Roger> Is this the next thing we want to table or do we need to sort out MEP's first.
21:15:30 <Roger> Is this something where there is a simple, 80-20 -- low hanging fruit -- simple protocol that retries N times?
21:15:48 <Roger> Is it worthwhile to spawn off a spec in this simple vein?
21:16:16 <Roger> How do we sort out more complex questions of how to deal with failures - choreography and business level implications.
21:16:39 <Roger> Certainly would not dump the latter on XMLP, but the simple, low-fruit might be a possibility.
21:17:16 <Roger> 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.
21:17:58 <Roger> DN - ebXML agrees that failure is failure -- has hook to go to what implication is.
21:18:29 <Roger> What is the mechanism for going ahead on the simple thing?  Full WG seems to be overkill.  Will XMLP take it?
21:19:33 <Roger> MikeC - Has this come up in XMLP meetings?
21:19:50 <Roger> They are clearly going to work on attachments?
21:20:22 <Roger> Call yesterday - there's a laundry list that the group could do, but the group does not feel well positioned to determine priorities.
21:20:46 <Roger> Would like input on prioritization from WS-ARCH or CG.
21:20:55 <Roger> Also potentially chartering issues.
21:21:09 <Roger> I think the previous comments were from MarkJ.
21:21:33 <Roger> Mike - if WS-ARCH said this was an important thing, what would XMLP think?
21:21:54 <Roger> Answer - Would probably have issues about doing it without going to AC.
21:22:04 <Roger> Everybody agrees -- would have to go to AC.
21:22:29 <Roger> q+
21:22:56 <Roger> Somebody says should do architecture, not RM.
21:23:20 <chrisf> +1 to that
21:23:26 <Zakim> -Chris_Ferris
21:23:36 <DaveO> DaveO has joined #ws-arch
21:23:39 <Roger> DN - OASIS TC would be favorable to receiving comments from this group.  Messaging Group.
21:24:47 <Roger> The ebXML messaging group may be evolving toward a more generic messaging group.
21:25:26 <Roger> Coleen Evans - Msging group does not seem to be heading that way yet.
21:26:13 <Roger> Is that group actually going there?  Probably more discussion than actual motion.
21:30:20 <Roger> Roger - Low hanging fruit should be grabbed and handed off.
21:31:49 <Roger> MikeC - Concentrate on arch, defer RM until F2F.
21:31:56 <Roger> q?
21:32:01 <Roger> q-
21:33:33 <Roger> Hao - RM experience - Time factor helps to simplify situation dramatically.
21:34:31 <Roger> Simpler if responsibility for RM stays with client.
21:34:33 <Zakim> +??P0
21:35:06 <Zakim> -Prasad_Yendluri
21:35:11 <dougb> dougb has joined #ws-arch
21:35:30 <Roger> Applications can simply take care of this without a protocol?
21:35:45 <Roger> Or is there value in simple re-try protocol?
21:41:44 <Roger> Hao is saying that sender has the basic responsibility in RM.
21:42:00 <Roger> Or that there is an RM mechanism that will work where this is true.
21:42:17 <Roger> We seem to be talking past each other -- seems to be disconnect here.
21:42:26 <Roger> Need to discuss on mailing group.
21:43:55 <Mark_J> q+
21:45:15 <Roger> ebXML spec.  Need URL for it.
21:45:35 <mchampion> ack mark
21:47:01 <Roger> Levels seem to hurt.
21:47:21 <Roger> Need to list features that are needed rather than immediately try to categorize them.
21:47:27 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2002/12/19-ws-arch-irc#T21-47-21
21:48:29 <Roger> What does an ack mean?  Different aspects there as well.
21:48:47 <Roger> ebXML: couples meaning of ack with behavior of application.
21:49:03 <Roger> Specifies that the message handler will order messages.
21:49:23 <Roger> ebXML is more than messaging but also has components of interface to apps.
21:49:37 <Roger> Could talk about communication protocol on its own.
21:51:12 <Roger> Here is the URL for the ebXML Messaging Spec V2: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/documents/ebMS_v2_0.pdf
21:52:02 <Roger> Tuning of protocol for performance can be separated out, too.
21:52:27 <Roger> Three things; 1 - Bits on the wire exchanged; 2 - TUning of exchange; 3 - QOS offered on either side.
21:52:31 <dougb> The ebXML Messaging 2.0 specification is also available at http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebMS2.pdf
21:53:12 <Zakim> -M.Mahan
21:54:20 <Roger> Look around pg 35 of the ebXML spec.
21:55:28 <Roger> MikeC has the action item to harvest the mailing list and references to take a first cut at architecture straw man.
21:55:36 <Roger> For RM.
21:55:56 <Roger> New Topic.
21:56:10 <Roger> Comment from P3P WG saying that they don't get no respect.
21:56:30 <Roger> Is this an official WG communication?
21:56:44 <Roger> Hugo - This issue has some history.
21:57:17 <Roger> P3P had some requests from XMLP.  Wanted to be able to associate P3P policy with SOAP message.
21:57:34 <Roger> XMLP said that they weren't going to provide the explicit connection.
21:57:46 <Roger> Passed along to Arch group.
21:58:06 <Mark_J> q+
21:58:30 <Roger> q+
21:59:08 <Roger> Need to have on issues list.
21:59:19 <Roger> MarkJ - Concerns are deeper and have arch implications.
21:59:39 <Roger> P3P policies refer to URI's.  This talks about a particular operation or service.
21:59:50 <Roger> No canonical way to describe implications of service.
22:00:06 <Roger> How do you state that a SOAP message will satisfy some privacy requirement.
22:00:23 <Zakim> -??P9
22:01:10 <Roger> Might get some folks together to consider issue?
22:01:24 <Roger> Get P3P people to make presentation at F2F about their concerns.
22:01:32 <mchampion> ack mark
22:02:12 <mchampion> ack roger
22:04:28 <Zakim> -??P27
22:04:48 <Roger> Mike - schedule face time at Plenary?
22:04:57 <Roger> Hugo - Seems reasonable.
22:05:40 <Zakim> -DOrchard
22:06:31 <Roger> ACTION: Hugo coordinate with P3P group and schedule communication.
22:06:36 <Zakim> -JimD
22:06:39 <mchampion> ACTION: Hugo will contact P3P people to suggest meeting at Plenary in march
22:07:14 <Zakim> -Colleen_Evans
22:07:14 <Zakim> -??P21
22:07:15 <Zakim> -Igor
22:07:16 <Zakim> -Mark_A_Jones
22:07:18 <Zakim> -??P5
22:07:19 <Zakim> -??P22
22:07:20 <Zakim> -Sinisa?
22:07:21 <Zakim> -??P15
22:07:21 <Zakim> -??P14
22:07:24 <Zakim> - +1.650.875.aaaa
22:07:25 <Zakim> -??P20
22:07:34 <Zakim> -Hugo
22:07:35 <Zakim> -Eric
22:08:42 <Zakim> -Roger
22:10:41 <Zakim> -??P0
22:10:42 <Zakim> -Mike_Champion
22:10:44 <Zakim> WS_ArchWG()3:30PM has ended
23:03:48 <ugo> ugo has left #ws-arch