Minutes 2010-07-27
New draft of jms URI scheme
Agenda for the 2010-07-27 conference call
Agenda for the 2010-07-20 conference call
ACTION-190 - reviewing test cases for JMSCorrelationID
ISSUE-59 (Tests for JMSCorrelationID): Since adding Protocol-2038 assertion, we now need test cases for non-null JMSCorrelationID [SOAP-JMS Test cases]
ACTION-194 - apply resolutions to issues 41-46
ACTION-189 complete - applied resolution of ISSUE-40
ISSUE-58 (References section a big blob): No indication of which references are normative, and which are not, also, inconsistently referring to latest/specific version [SOAP-JMS Test cases]
ISSUE-57 (Unflagged assertion about JMS destination): @location attribute assertion about being a JMS Destination, but not flagged. [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
ISSUE-56 (Unflagged assertion about @transport value): @transport value assertion not flagged, should be [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
ISSUE-55 (redundant statements about one-way MEP): Section 2.7.2 restates constraints laid out in [SOAP 1.2 Part 3: One-Way MEP], and almost certainly shouldn't [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
ISSUE-54 (Unflagged SHOULD about JMSDeliveryMode): Unflagged SHOULD about JMSDeliveryMode - not normative [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
ISSUE-53 (Missing case in transition description): Section 2.6.1.3 missing description of what to do on failure [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
ISSUE-52 (bogus RFC 2119 keyword in table describing JMSReplyTo): JMSReplyTo description includes inappropriate use of "must" in section 2.6.1.1 [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
ISSUE-51 (redundant assertions about message body): Protocol 2034 & 2040 are redundant normative statements about the message body format [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
ISSUE-50 (Missing SOAP 1.1 indication): Apparently redundant statements are about different versions of SOAP [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
ISSUE-49 (unflagged xml encoding assertion): Unflagged assertion about ignoring XML encoding declaration [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
ISSUE-48 (unflagged message body assertions): Unflagged assertions about message body and content type [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
ISSUE-47 (topicReplyToName unflagged assertions): topicReplyToName has two unflagged assertions, some inappropriate. [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
Completion of Action-192
Minutes 2010-07-13
Agenda for the 2010-07-13 conference call
ISSUE-46 (replyToName spurious assertion): replyToName has "SHOULD" assertion about where the message should be sent. [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
ISSUE-45 (jndiContextParameter has unflagged RFC 2119): jndiContextParameter has unflagged RFC 2119 keywords, at least one is spurious [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
ISSUE-44 (MAY assertion re: props definition): No need to say where a property MAY appear [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
ISSUE-43 (Unflagged assertion re all props): Spurious unflagged assertion about all properties in section 2.2 [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
ISSUE-42 (Abstract needs improvement): Abstract includes RFC 2119 keyword, fails to mention WSDL [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
ACTION 186 - top to bottom review of current copy of spec
- Re: ACTION 186 - top to bottom review of current copy of spec
- Re: ACTION 186 - top to bottom review of current copy of spec
- Re: ACTION 186 - top to bottom review of current copy of spec