Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference

20 Dec 2004


See also: IRC log


Paul Downey (BT)
Michael Eder (Nokia)
Robert Freund (Hitachi, Ltd.)
Arun Gupta (Sun Microsystems, Inc.)
Yin-Leng Husband (HP)
Anish Karmarkar (Oracle Corporation)
Mark Little (Arjuna Technologies Ltd.)
Jonathan Marsh (Microsoft Corporation)
Jeff Mischkinsky (Oracle Corporation)
David Orchard (BEA Systems, Inc.)
Tom Rutt (Fujitsu Limited)
Rich Salz (DataPower Technology, Inc.)
Davanum Srinivas (Computer Associates)
Steve Vinoski (IONA Technologies, Inc.)
Pete Wenzel (SeeBeyond Technology Corporation)
Steve Winkler (SAP AG)
Rebecca Bergersen (IONA Technologies, Inc.)
Ugo Corda (SeeBeyond Technology Corporation)
Francisco Curbera (IBM Corporation)
Glen Daniels (Sonic Software)
Jacques Durand (Fujitsu Limited)
Marc Goodner (SAP AG)
Martin Gudgin (Microsoft Corporation)
Hugo Haas (W3C)
Marc Hadley (Sun Microsystems, Inc.)
Philippe Le Hégaret (W3C)
Eisaku Nishiyama (Hitachi, Ltd.)
Ales Novy (Systinet Inc.)
Mark Peel (Novell, Inc.)
Harris Reynolds (webMethods, Inc.)
Jiri Tejkl (Systinet Inc.)
Greg Truty (IBM Corporation)
Mark Peel (Novell, Inc.)
Mark Nottingham
Rich Salz


Approval of Minutes

minutes of dec 7th accepted with no objection

minutes of dec 13th, as corrected in email, approved

Review of action items

Actions related to issues 17, 20, 22, 33, 34 done.

Review of WS Choreography Description Language

See public-ws-chor link. They asked for review by end of January.

No volunteers to review; no one on the WG

Yin-Leng: I will review (after Mark threatens to volunteer someone:)

ACTION: Yin-Leng to review ws-chor and report by 1/13 for F2F

New and Proposed Issues

Issue 040

Mark: Where to send replies was removed from core spec. Yin-Leng pointed out that soap spec has similar language. We need owner for this issue i040.

ACTION: Arun to own i040

Issue 041

Mark to confirm Harris owns i041.

Modifying EPRs

dims: did not have time to walk with William of HP yet; leave action open

wsa:To interaction with application protocols

Mark: MBaker's posting, originally merged into i006, but email discussion leaning toward a separate issue.

Jonathan: can we avoid going down the standard "mark baker" issues here?

Paul: I can't think of use cases right now for this. This seems more like a "nice to have" than a defect that needs to be fixed now.

David: said similar to Paul, but spoke first. :) I am guessing that an HTTP-aware application could leverage things that could be in ws-addr, but aren't now. seems to require new bindings.

Anish: nothing in ws-addr *prevents* these things being done.

ACTION: Mark to say WG declines issue regarding interaction with application protocols.

Issues List

Issue 017

Anish: there are deeper issues, so my email re i017 didn't have proposed text. there are two issues, depending on resolution clarifying text might not be needed. we should provide guidelines about re-use of wsa:action wsa:action can satisfy operation-name mapping requirement; define in wsdl2.0 binding

Mark: at f2f we thought wsdl could address this, not ws-addr. change of opinion?

Anish: yes, wsa:action is useful for this

Discussion of whether or not this fulfills uniqueness requirement of operation-name mapping.

We could define a wsdl feature that says how to use ws-addr.

Anish: if not wsa:action is not unique, we cannot fulfill wsdl requirement should we allow wsa:action in wsdls to be non-unique? If so, make it explicit what the impact is.

Jonathan: description and metadata outside the wsdl must be supported.

Anish: I want to see a use-case where non-unique wsa:action makes sense If so, we need to explain the impact of this.

David: what about HTTP GET, where GET is the action? Are we going to limit how folks write wsdl?

ACTION: Anish review i017 to clarify description and sub-issues.

Mark: Let's have discussion of first sub-issue, hopefully resolve at next call.

ACTION: Anish to make strawmap proposal of operation-name manping. Due by 12/30

Issue 020

Anish: i020: what exactly is EPR trying to represent? It seems that this is similar to WSDL2.0 service/endpoint. what is relationship between wsdl's endpoint and ws-a endpoint reference uri? if EPR is a service reference, can we re-use what we have (in wsdl)

Mark: so explanatory text would close this issue?

Anish: yes. or WG decides that this "duplication" is an issue

Discussion of extensibility and constraints of wsdl 1.1, wsdl 2.0, and ws-addr eprs

For example, wsdl is design-time and ws-addr is runtime

<vinoski> this discussion is also related to issue i026

Mark: This is a central issue, let's discuss on list and at f2f

Issue 014

i014 Deferred since Paco and Hugo were not present

Issue 034

i034 Deferred.

Jonathan: Please review if message label is sufficient.

Issue 008

Mark: does wsa:attribute proposal address rich's security issues?

Rich: yes

Mark: have people reviewed the proposals?

Anish: I prefer Glen's proposal; sent email re: attribute proposal

ACTION: Rich to do security/vulnerabilty comparison of wrapper and attribute by 12/31

Mark: Please get all issues about i008 on the email list before next f2f

issue 022

David: did a first draft of two one-way MEP proposals, a SOAP request and a SOAP response SOAP request is one-way sender to reciever, and protocol-level response comes back that the SOAP application doesn't necessarily see. Note that response can start to come back while request is still going out one-way HTTP binding sends message as POST body; HTTP status codes back HTTP response body is left as an extension point wsdl in-out maps to soap request-response mep, maps to soap 1.2 http binding a goal is to have a new request-response mep that uses two http bindings underneath the new binding might need to understand some ws-addr correlation issues, but i hope not if we don't do the mep we might have interop problems because this mep brought out some issues. this might help wsdl2.0, giving feedback on how to correlate two one-way MEP's, particularly when the request and rsponse transports are different.

Must look at common scenarios, determine applicability and scope to this WG

Mark: Issue i041 is to define use cases, so that's a way to capture it. Encourage people to read David's proposal. Concerned about schedule risk.

Mark: Seasons greetings, and to all a good night.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Anish review issue 017 to clarify description and sub-issues.
[NEW] ACTION: Anish to make strawmap proposal of operation-name mapping for issue 017. Due 2004-12-30.
[NEW] ACTION: Arun to own issue 040.
[NEW] ACTION: Mark to say WG declines issue regarding interaction with application protocols.
[NEW] ACTION: Rich to do security/vulnerabilty comparison of wrapper and attribute proposals. Due 2004-12-31.
[NEW] ACTION: Yin-Leng to review ws-chor. Due 2005-01-13.

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl 1.95 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/01/03 21:46:02 $