See also: IRC log
<mnot> Scribe: Tony Rogers
<hugo> ScribeNick: TonyR
corrrections to the minutes
[paco] removing references to identification as well as removing Reference Properties
<plh> Paco: in addition to removing ref props, we agreed to remove indications that ref props were used for identification.
<Paco> Issue 1 closed with the removal of refprops.
<Paco> ... and removal of all references ot the use of EPRs as identifiers
Chair: clarify minutes by removing identifiers
MarkH: clarify identification, not remove
Glen: removing from throughout spec
Chair: removing comparison section was left for a while
Paco: asked during vote whether to remove
Chair: removing all reference to identifiers was covered
Chair: do we change the minutes?
Chair: little dispute about direction - just do we change the minutes?
MarcH: doesn't have reservations, but doesn't recall it that way
Chair: change approved
Minutes approved without dissent - 17, 18, 19 January
Minutes of 24th January - request to postpone approval until next week
Action Items - going through list
<Gudge> ACTION: jmarsh to make a specific proposal for text to be added to the spec regarding IRIs
Chair: reaching Last Call within the month lies within our charter. Failing that means that we are outside charter and must go to AC.
<Marsh> March -1 through 1 :-)
Chair: schedule an April FtF about mid-April, then a June FtF.
Chair: looking for an April FtF host - preferably on West Coast
Chair: have a host in Berlin for June.
Chair: TAG have raised an issue and asking us for more detail
Chair: will someone take on the issue and prepare a response for the TAG
<MSEder> Steve Maine's blog http://hyperthink.net/blog/
<Gudge> first item: http://hyperthink.net/blog/PermaLink,guid,8c9c4e73-24d0-4f9b-b28b-a7f6a858d721.aspx
<Gudge> second item: http://hyperthink.net/blog/PermaLink,guid,7de8743c-29e0-46a9-ba8f-ee86c4198813.aspx
<Gudge> my first post on the issue: http://pluralsight.com/blogs/mgudgin/archive/2005/01/25/5438.aspx
Chair: looking for a brief discussion to aid the TAG
<Gudge> my second post: http://pluralsight.com/blogs/mgudgin/archive/2005/01/26/5454.aspx
<Gudge> ACTION: Jonathan to flesh out discussion of EndpointRefs47 TAG issue
<Gudge> Mark Baker's first post: http://www.markbaker.ca/2002/09/Blog/2005/01/25#2005-01-maine-tag
<Gudge> Mark Baker's second post: http://www.markbaker.ca/2002/09/Blog/2005/01/25#2005-01-gudge-tag
Editors have produced drafts
<scribe> ACTION: editors to revise to incorporate resolution of Issue 1
Chair: either release next week, or leave until Tech Plenary
MarcH: on I047
Marc: listing which URIs must be absolute - there are a few questionable ones
Jonathan: is this just a
... should we require that they be serialised as absolute URIs?
Chair: do we record this in the Core, or in the SOAP binding?
Philippe: does this exclude fragment identifier? absolute URI means no fragment id
<scribe> ACTION: Marc to construct a proposal to resolve issue 47, specifying where in the document
Chair: do we remove section 2.3?
Paco: result of removing reference properties surprised people
<plh> Paco: as a result of issue 1 resolution, there is less need for section 2.3. we could add a bit on how people are going to attach metadata to EPR. so the proposal is to strike section 2.3.
<plh> Marc: is there anything that you were disgreeing with 2.3?
Paco: result of removing RefProps
is that same address means same metadata, and that's the
... the example of an enterprise gateway
... different EPRs with different metadata, but with the same address
The discussion is about the inference that same address -> same metadata
Chair: looks like we cannot move on issue 48 quickly
Marc: proposal in response to this issue
Marc: WS Context addresses this better
Resolution: Drop this issue with no action
Topic Issue 17
Anish: depending on discussion in
... WSDL WG dropped action from required to best practice
Jonathan: good place for cross-reference between WSDL and WS-Addressing specs
<scribe> ACTION: Anish to adjust Issue 17 proposal in light of outcome in WSDL WG
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to make proposal for Issue 17b
Chair: assigned to David Orchard, but he is not available for 2 weeks - will someone else step up?
Jonathan: I'll take a pass at this
<Gudge> ACTION: Jonathan to make a proposal for issue 42
Gudge: 3 approaches
... 1. remove 2.3
... 2. add text describing how to compare using exc canonicalisation
... 3. have the text from 2., but add "try not to use QNames"
<mnot> Gudge's proposal: http://www.w3.org/mid/DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633804A02932@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
Chair: this is inter-dependent with resolution of Issue 48
Chair: discuss this on the list, put this on agenda for next week.
Philippe: refer to binding as well
Marc: let protocol binding specify how to use the EPR
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to restate resolution to issue 44 in a day or two
Jonathan: posted a cleaned-up version of the proposal
Yin-Leng: concern if destination is comparable using char-by-char
Jonathan: worried about precluding some use-cases
Chair: close with Jonathan's proposal minus the two enhancements?
Resolution: Issue 46 closed with Jonathan's proposal, minus the enhancement
<plh> Mark: proposed resolution for issues 24 and 26.
<plh> [Steve presents the proposals]
Chair: people need time to evaluate these proposals
Chair: develop proposal into full spec replacement text
Topic Issue 41
Hugo: test suite can be a recommendation, but that makes it harder to change
[general agreement to keep test suite outside the spec]
<scribe> ACTION: Bob to reissue template with modifications
<scribe> ACTION: Paul to test the test suite when reissued
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to make mailing list for test cases discussion
Chair: WRT issue 046; should go into the abstract properties part of the core; editors have license to put it elsewhere if necessary