WS-DD Face To Face Meeting – Sept 16-18
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
- Welcome, Convener and meeting host
started9:04am
- Introductions and roll call, Convener
20peopleon call, 18 are voting members.
a) WS-DD TC roster
b) OASIS WS-DD TC home page:
3. Appointment of Note taker(s), Convener – Geoff Bullen
4. Selection of TC chairs, Convener – Toby, Alain nominated
Unanimous consent
9:09am finished – Colleen broke record for shortest convener section of call
5. Approval of meeting agenda, Chairs
No objections, approved
6. Introduction to OASIS process, OASIS staff
Oasis welcomes the TC and describes OASIS TC process
7. Selection of issues list editor(s), Chairs
Nominations: Ram Jeyaraman, Accepted by chair
8. Review of TC charter, Chairs
a) Original Call for Participation
b) WS-DD TC charter
Charter is reviewed. No comments.
9. TC administration, Chairs
a) Distributed meeting schedule (day of week and time of day)
Propose: 8am PT every Tuesday, for 2 hours. First Meeting 23rd September.
b) TC and meetings aids such as email archive, document repository, etc.
i) Email archive:
ii) Document repository
Can we use Live Meeting for each Conference call? No objections.
AI: Toby will create a perm live meeting for TC.
Done -
c) Future F2F meeting schedule
Propose next F2F: Nov 18th – 20th, or Dec 2nd – 4th – December date is looking good.
Propose 3rd F2F: Feb 3rd-5th, 2009 or Feb 10th-12th, 2009
Revisit later in the meeting.
15 min Break…
Note:
3 specs have been submitted to committee by MS
White Paper has been submitted by MS
AI: Chairs: We need to elect an Editor for this and decide how to submit issues associated with it
d) TC roles (secretary, specification editors, etc.)
Secretary: Propose Geoff Bullen.
DPWS: Propose Dan Driscoll and Antoine Mensch
WS-DISC: Propose Vipul. Coeditor: Devon Kemp
SOU: Propose Ram.
Ram: Walks through Issues list submission process. Sent process to TC list.
What happens over next three days?
- submit issues ASAP, each as a separate emails.
For issues arising in a meeting, what happens?
- submit in email as usual.
AI: Ram to send out issues template- DONE.
Chair: we need get the submitted input specs into OASIS format.
AI for spec editors – update the format.
10. Presentations
a) Devices Profile for Web Services (DPWS)
Dan D. + Devon:
b) WS-Discovery
Vipul+Prasad+David:
Questions about adding discovery proxies and how adding them can change the implementation of the client. How does client know when metadata changes in the proxy? It is not defined in the spec at the moment.
AI: Schneider + SAG + Ricoh should enter an issue about this.
Several other issues were raised – these will also be submitted to the TC in the standard way.
c) SOAP-over-UDP
Ram:
Some issues were raised by Ram during the presentation and they will be submitted to the TC as issues in the normal way.
d) Additional Scenarios
François:
Main Points – Think simple, small cheap devices. Need asynccomms and BP compatibility.
Has submitted a number of issues to the list.
Shin:
Has an issue with Eventing sending events to all printers.
It was decided weshould submit issues to Ram directly and he will assign an issue number and submit them to the TC mailing list. It is OK to send file attachments in docx format.
Do we need to walk through the specs?
Discussion on submitted updates to spec in to conform to OASIS statndard format.
Doc format is the authoritative format. Accepted.
Dan has sent a revised DPWS spec:
Dan explained differences from original spec
Do we accept this as the base spec? Accepted.
Vipul has sent a revised Discovery spec:
Vipul explained differences from original spec
Do we accept this as the base spec? Accepted.
Ram has sent a revised Soap-over-UDP spec:
Ram explained differences from original spec
Do we accept this as the base spec? Accepted.
AI: spec authors: update specs to include authoritative format as doc and make sure specs are in doc format.
Should the source files for the images to be stored in repository?
Toby: Yes, that would be good.
AI: spec authors: Upload source files for all images to repository.
AI: Ram: to look into copyright notice issues.
AI: Ram: verify you can have ‘_’ character in file names and investigate how best to delimit this.
AI: Ram: file issue to use OASIS namespace.
Gottfried: Docid includes underscore, which is hard to read.
We are now adjourned for the day.
11. Issues discussion
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
At the beginning of the meeting today there are 21 issues submitted to the TC list.
Chair decided to “round robin” issues since there are 4 people who have submitted issues.
Antoine, Vipul, Alain, Dan
Issue 6:
Are we building general purpose spec for SOAP-over-UDP?
Ram: We don’t really have all the use cases, as the only user of spec is Discovery.
Are we really the right team to do this work?
Issue 6 changed to Active – no objections
Issue 3:
Capitalization issue.
Issue 3: Moved to Active – no objections
Proposed solution accepted
Issue 3: Moved to Pending - Assigned to editors – no objections
Issue 18:
Issue 18: Move to Active – no objections
Proposed solution accepted
Issue 18: Move to Pending – editors assigned to change – no objections
Issue 7:
Issue 7: Moved to Active – no objections
AI: Vipul + Antoine to bring back details of changes
Issue 2:
Issue 2: Moved to Active – no objections
Proposed solution accepted
Issue 2: Moved to Pending – editors assigned to change – no objections
Issue 14
Issue 14: Moved to Active – no objections
Need to be able to easily determine the binding (soap version)
Antoine:
Do we filter on binding or have information in response?
List of bindings or bindings?
For the profile, the problem does not really exist.
Devices can be small, need to be careful of packet size
Needs more discussion to determine the correct course of action here.
Issue 21:
Define discovery proxy, what is the expectation?
Issue 21: Moved to Accepted – no objections
Maybe subsumed by a issue to be submitted later
Issue 8:
Issue 8: Moved to Active – no objections
AI: Antoine to come back with a proposal
How does this impact the way the protocol works?
Issue 5:
Issue 5: Moved to Active – no objections
Do we want to specify SOAP 1.2?
It is clear that the specs say only SOAP 1.2 is supported.
Are there are other restrictions on clients?
We have a lot of restrictions on senders, which are normally clients.
Issue 5: Moved to Pending – editors assigned to change – no objections
Have issue up to number 33 now.
Issue 33:
Issue 33: Mark as Duplicate issue – no objections
Issue 22:
Issue 22: Moved to Active – no objections
People need to look at this for a longer
How does it work in mixed mode? Only in managed mode.
AI: Vipul to bring in text for this proposal
Issue 27:
Issue 27: Moved to Active – no objections
Is this a DPWS issue or a discovery issue?
Much discussion on the value of this.
Is there a fixed port or leave it open?
AI: Alain will summarize the issue and work with others to try to gain concenus
Issue 9:
Issue 9: Moved to Active – no objections
Note: We need to update the references to rfc 3986 as well – this will be a separate issue
AI: Vipul + Antoine will come back with a proposal
Issue 1:
Issue 1: Moved to Active – no objections
Issue 1: Moved to Pending – editors assigned to change – no objections
Issue 19:
Issue 19: Moved to Active – no objections
Does DPWS reference sections – probably. They will have to be updated to.
Issue 19: Moved to Pending – editors assigned to change – no objections
Issue 32:
Can device host secure and insecure services?
Issue 32: Moved to Active – no objections
What are the ramifications or forcing it to be one way or the other?
Does it help simplify things?
People need to look at their implementations and we can discuss further.
Can we look at IP V4 vs V6 issue here as well? – need to submit an issue.
Issue 10:
Multi-home devices
Which transport address to use?
Issue 10: Moved to Active – no objections
The White Paper does describe this, but does it have to be in the Spec?
People should consider this issue.
Issue 50:
Should have UUID URN
Issue 50: Moved to Active – no objections
Should it be applied for SOAP-over-UDP and Discovery? – Yes.
Accept proposal.
Do we need a separate issue? No, it applies to both specs.
Issue 50: Moved to Pending – editors assigned to change – no objections
Issue 23:
Lack of clarity about AppSequence. Concern about text? Clarify sequence id text?
Issue 23: Moved to Active – no objections
AI: Vipul to provide clarification text around sequence id
Issue 11:
Merges concept of service and endpoint
Issue 11: Moved to Active – no objections
AI: Antoine to propose some text
Issue 4:
Issue 4: Moved to Active – no objections
Accept proposal
Issue 4: Moved to Pending – editors assigned to change – no objections
Issue 48:
Issue 48: Moved to Active – no objections
Accept proposal
Issue 48: Moved to Pending – editors assigned to change – no objections
Going back to Issue 22:
Vipul outlined a set of proposed changes for this issue.
Alain wants to the see the whole story associated with discovery proxy before answering this question.
AI: let’s get everyone on the same page on discovery proxy.
Vipul now describes discovery proxy and its interactions.
Principles:
1)Clarify server and client expectations when communicating with proxy
2)Stay away from proxy implementation details and focus on protocol & interactions
There was a strong desire for backwards compatibility and using proxies in an Adhoc environment.
AI: Vipul to write a paragraph describing this.
The TC needs this description before moving forwards with issue 22.
Issue 24:
Issue 24: Moved to Active – no objections
AI: all: close issue 22 first.
Issue 44:
Issue 44: Mark as a duplicate
Issue 52:
Eventing Filtering Issue
Is this is a problem with the printer spec or in DPWS? TC will evaluate this.
Issue 52: Moved to Active – no objections
Issue 51:
Issue 51: Moved to Active – no objections
Could go further in improving the security section of the spec.
Is the intent to mandate a particular security model? Alain – yes
AI: Dan + Alain - to dig into issue and propose some concrete text to improve it.
Issue 12:
Issue 12: Moved to Active – no objections
AI: Antoine to provide text for a proposal
Issue 20:
Issue 20: Moved to Active – no objections
Editorial, Applies to DPWS and Discovery
Issue 20: Moved to Pending – editors assigned to change – no objections
Issue 13:
Issue 13: Moved to Active – no objections
Should we only mandate UTF-8?
UTF-8 baseline? Optional UTF-16 or get rid of it?
Dan: Preference to allow UTF-16 as option
Vipul: this is similar to the problem with supporting SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2
Mandate UTF-8 in DPS implementations? – accepted
Issue 13: Moved to Pending - editors to craft appropriate language.
Issue 54:
Issue 54: Moved to Active – no objections
What about services that use SOAP 1.1?
Perhaps it should be a SHOULD rather than a must?
Same issue for is for SOAP-over-UDP? Different problem
Issue 54: Moved to Pending - editors assigned to change to SHOULD – no objections
Issue 55:
Issue 55: Moved to Active – no objections
ServiceID should be explained / clarified.
AI: Dan to write a paragraph on usage of ServiceID
Issue 15:
Issue 15: Moved to Active – no objections
Editorial – will get to it when they implement WS-Addressing
Issue 16:
Issue 16: Moved to Active – no objections
Proposal Accepted
Issue 16: Moved to Pending - editors assigned to change– no objections
Issue 36:
Issue 36: Moved to Active – no objections
AI: Vipul – needs to bring forward the text
Issue 35:
Issue 35: Moved to Active – no objections
AI: Vipul – needs to bring forward the text
Issue 49:
Issue 49: Moved to Active – no objections
AI: Vipul – needs to bring forward the text
Issue 34:
Issue 34: Moved to Active – no objections
AI: Vipul – needs to bring forward the text
Issue 47:
Issue 47: Moved to Active – no objections
Proposal Accepted
Issue 47: Moved to Pending - editors assigned to change– no objections
We are now adjourned for the day.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
There are now 65issues that have been submitted as of the start of the meeting today.
Motion: 2nd F2F should be held Dec 2nd to 4th – no objections
Where should it be held? People are looking into options – Canon is checking
Motion: 3rd F2F should be held Feb 3rd to 5 – no objections
Audio Conferences: Is next Tuesday too early for next call? Is it better Sept 30th? – no objections
Next Teleconference is Sept 30th – at 8 am PT
Back to Issues
Issue 17:
Issue 17: Moved to Active – no objections
It could be complicated to address.
Issue is not just size but avoiding complexity
AI: Dan and Antoine to discuss and propose resolution
Issue 58:
Issue 58: Moved to Active – no objections
This may be related to the multi-home issue.
This clarifies what is there, but it may be revisited for multi-home issue.
Proposal Accepted
Issue 58: Moved to Pending - editors assigned to change– no objections
Issue 25:
How do you relate device types and service types?
Issue 25: Moved to Active – no objections
Need machine readable format to describe this.
No solution has been proposed. We will wait for a concrete proposal to solve this.
Issue 59:
Issue 59: Moved to Active – no objections
Change to WSDL not the wire
AI: Vipul to investigate if proposal is the correct way to proceed.
Issue 56:
Issue 56: Moved to Active – no objections
Related to Issue 52.
What is the cost of implementing this?
Need a discussion and presentation on what this would look like.
WS-Man does this in a simple way – maybe we could go for this subset of XPath?
We need to be careful about light weight devices.
Perhaps we could make something optional
AI: we need proposals and contributions for this
Issue 61:
Issue 61: Moved to Active – no objections
Guidelines for backwards compatibility with older versions? Can we publish such a thing?
Perhaps submit as separate issue?
Proposal Accepted
Issue 61: Moved to Pending - editors assigned to change– no objections
Issue 42:
Issue 42: Moved to Active – no objections
Requirement for long lived connections
We need to focus on interop.
No resolution.
AI: Antoine: provide a proposal. Others free to provide contributions.
Issue 66:
Issue 66: Moved to Active – no objections
Remove RelationType attribute – not required.
Proposal Accepted
Issue 66: Moved to Pending - editors assigned to change– no objections
Issue 57:
Issue 25 also covers this issue. This is a comment and additional information on Issue 25.
Issue 57: Marked as a duplicate – no objections
Issue 26:
Issue 26: Leave in review – no objections
AI: Antoine to provide information as to if it can be done within the context of DPWS
Issue 62:
Issue 62: Moved to Active – no objections
Proposal Accepted
Issue 62: Moved to Pending - editors assigned to change– no objections
Issue 28:
Issue 28: Moved to Active – no objections
Proposal to reduce to 2500 ms Accepted
Issue 28: Moved to Pending - editors assigned to change– no objections
Issue 63:
Issue 63: Moved to Active – no objections
Proposal Accepted
Issue 63: Moved to Pending - editors assigned to change– no objections
Issue 29:
Issue 29: Moved to Active – no objections
There is no solution proposed.
AI: Antoine should provide a proposal.
Issue 60:
Issue 60: Mark as duplicate of 66.
Revisit Issue 59:
Other specs use this convention
Proposal Accepted
Issue 59: Moved to Pending - editors assigned to change– no objections
Issue 64:
Issue 64: Moved to Active – no objections
Proposal Accepted
Issue 64: Moved to Pending - editors assigned to write text – no objections
AI: Dan and Antoine to look at DPWS and if there is an issue then they will submit an issue
Issue Raised by Gottfried.
Naming conventions:
His proposal, for discussion, is to use the following URI (by example for html – other formats differ in the file extension only):
- This version:
- Latest version:
After much discussion we have settled on this format.
Here are some examples:
AI: Chairs create directory structure and create RDDL doc at appropriate place.
AI: Editors to apply this naming recommendation.
Issue 30:
Issue 30: Moved to Active – no objections
AI: Everybody think about it.
Issue 65:
Issue 65: Moved to Active – no objections
Proposal Accepted
Issue 65: Moved to Pending - editors assigned to write text – no objections
Revisiting Issue 49:
Additional text required
Line 321. Discovery proxy is an optional component of the network and may not always be available.
AI: Editors make this change.
Issue 31:
Should BP 2.0 be in scope? It supports SOAP 1.2.
Issue 31: Moved to Accept – no objections
Issue 31: Moved to Deferred – no objections
BP 2.0 is not yet available. We need to wait to see what happens here.
Issue 38:
Issue 38: Moved to Accept – no objections
A clarification makes sense.
We need to get language.
Answer to this depends on answer to Issue 37
Issue 37:
Issue 37: Moved to Accept – no objections
Show an example of using the extensibility point to show scopes. Maybe in the white paper?
AI: Dan + Antoine work on resolution.
Anyone interested in editing the White Paper? Is it the same as a Pimer?
The TC agreed to an editorial team for the white paper consisting of Francois, Alain, Ram and Toby.
Chair: When do we want interop?
Could we do interop at second F2F?
Need CD1 about a month to 6 weeks before.
Can we get first CD by mid October?
Yes – Aim would be to get CD1 cut by mid October
Do we have all the key issues on the table? It would seem so yes.
The major one is the “managed cluster” – 5 issues.
Which issues need to get into CD1?
Only one issue will cause a change request/response.
AI: All submitters - identify issues that require potential changes to implementation.
AI: All companies – identify issues that are important to CD1.
CD ballot is a full majority ballot.
Plan is to have CD ballot on call on Oct 14th.
Finish tech issues by Oct 7th.
Editor’s draft would be useful as soon as possible to cover issues we have already resolved.
If we have interop at December meeting that would become an issue for the host.
Should we have interop and TC F2F co-located?
Who would prefer same week? Most people…
Who would prefer a different week?
AI: Chair - Need to pose Interop/F2F question via emailto other members of TC
About 6-7 companies interested in interop in December?
Schneider, Windows, Canon, Ricoh, SAG maybe, FX maybe, .NET
There may be external parties coming to interop?
There are issues to having external parties involved. It is normally only TC members. IPR issues.
Potential Hosts of second F2F need to consider it might be a 4 day event.
Will also need extra room for interop.
Issue 39:
Issue 39: Moved to Accept – no objections
Does spec allow recursive hosting of services? Kind of.
UPnP allows infinite levels.
Keep at potentially recursive but advise people not to use it?
AI: Antoine + Dan to discuss this and propose a clarification
Issue 40:
Issue 40: Moved to Accept – no objections