Are attached. We will continue to meet at the time used today which is, briefly, Wed. 10:00 AM Central time US. Reminders to follow. --- Jim Minutes from Apr. 06 '05 Telecon Attendees --------- Toshiyuki Nakata Jim Pruyne Heiko Ludwig Karl Czajkowski Wolfgang Zeigler Agenda ------ - New Call Time of Wed. at 10:00 Central US seems good at least for those on the phone, and objectively looking at various times - Updated doc. in gridforge from Karl, should be base-line for updates. We'll discuss comments on future call and accept or reject on-line. Heiko will make changes before the end of the week. - Question on updated doc. from Karl: Question about acceptance port type (Sec. 9.3). This is explictly an initiator side port type. Do we need to call this out very clearly since we have not had initiator side port types previously. This is somewhat called out at the start of sec. 9, but adding a comment here in 9.3 would be good. This is an optional mode of operation, so the initiator can choose this if it wants and can handle the more heavy-weight operation mode. - On creation operation, should we provide some general structure for faults (e.g. pointers to failed terms). We have at least two types of fault: could not understand the input, input understood, but not able to satisfy where this one could include pointers in to the input document plus some extensibility on the cause. This would be a bit of a hint, and does not imply anything concrete, or head down the slope of negotiation. **Action: this added to the comment list by Jim, would like to see a proposal here. - New section 8. Heiko might like to see some diagram, but perhaps that's one of those "primer" issues. - Termination dropped which gives people some concern. Is WS-RF termination good enough, and the terminate operation could fail or be delayed because the agreement is not "completed" yet. Further termination could be done as extension. We could define an extension on the resource lifetime termination operation saying that we cannot terminate now because the agreement is on-going. Do we advocate in the spec. that the agreement resource SHOULD live as long as the obligations associated with the agreement? Consensus on the list is that this makes sense. - For next week's call, we'll review updated document and see if we can mark some comments as completely resolved and inserted into the document.