Jonathan: I was wondering which
issues we could leave open as we take Core and SOAP binding to
... I'd like to walk into the F2F knowing which issues we need to close
Mark: we'll be discussing this later in this call then
Minutes are at http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/02/14-ws-addr-minutes.html
Mark: Umit wanted to clarify something she said
Minutes accepted with Umit's amendment
Mark: I saw that Gudge did the
... did you see the original version of the schema?
Gudge: sorry, I didn't and
started from scratch
... we will approve it next week
Jonathan is reminded of his IRI AI
Mark: we'll be meeting
Sunday-Tuesday next week
... we will go to Bob's for dinner on Sunday
Bob goes over the yummy menu (including stinky cheese)
Bob, Mark and Hugo discuss details
An email will be sent out to the WG
Mark: you will need somebody to
get in, so please be prompt
... call Philippe or myself if you're late
... we'll have a meeting with the TAG; Paul will be presenting Addressing and our issues to the TAG
Paul: I'll try to have slides
... I'd be interested in pointers from people
Mark: with regards the April F2F,
we're looking at 19-20 April
... having not heard any push back, those dates are now final
... we'll be sending admin details soon
... for June, we're still looking at Berlin on 30 May
... we're looking at co-hosting with WSDWG again
Jeff: I'd prefer the end of the week
Hugo presents Proposed: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages; http://www.w3.org/mid/20050215151434.GD13607@w3.org
Issue accepted; owner is Hugo
Friendly amendment is: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0102.html
Mark: please have a look at this this week, and we can close this next week
<mnot> new modules: http://www.w3.org/mid/20050218154320.GE10971@w3.org
Hugo presents Definition of SOAP 1.2 (and 1.1) modules; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0118.html
Mark: I'd like to make this a proposal for issue i022
Hugo presents "Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol"; http://www.w3.org/mid/20050218154335.GF10971@w3.org
Mark: do you want this to be folded under i022?
Hugo: no preference
Greg: I prefer a separate issue
Hugo is the owner of the new issue
<mnot> proposed issue: what is a logical address? http://www.w3.org/mid/421A36B2.firstname.lastname@example.org
Anish presents "What is a logical address?"; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0132.html
Mark: any problem with putting this on the issues list?
Gudge: what's the difference between logical and dereferenceable?
Jeff: what's the difference between logical and physical?
Gudge: that the address may not be the physical one
<TomRutt> I agree this is an important issue as the spec stands
<pauld> for the most part liked anish's proposal, though i'm unsure about what dereferencable really means.
Anish: I'm getting a lot of
questions about "logical address"
... we should at the minimum define it
Dave: WebArch defines what dereferenceable means, so I think it would be good to reuse the term, and I do agree that there is some confusion around this
<uyalcina> you missed me David. I know what deferenceable means. I am just trying to understand the logical address vs. a dereferanceable address
Umit: I agree there is an issue
Issue is added to the issues list; Anish is the owner
<uyalcina> there is an issue with the wording in the text with respect to what logical address means.
<pauld> just looked at the web-arch, using 'dereferencable' looks good!
Anish: I will add more references, e.g. to WebArch in my proposal
Mark: my thinking was that we
needed to close issue i004, i007
... i017 is WSDL specific
... what about i020?
Anish: I think that this is WSDL specific
Mark: i021 is WSDL specific
... i022 need to be closed
... so do i024 and i26
... i041 can wait
... i042 and i43 need to be closed
... i048 too
... all the new issues need to be closed
Jonathan: what can we do about i022?
Mark: it's unclear right now
Greg: i022 certainly has a relationship with the WSDL document
Mark: on the last call, the TF thought that we didn't need any big changes
Mark: we're missing an AI from Marc
Mark: is there a relationship with i007 with regards to the text about intermediaries?
Gudge: my understanding is that i007 is about targeting nodes, not tampering with default values and XML representations
Anish: this isn't specific to Addressing, right?
Gudge: the particularity is default values
Gudge: these are our headers
Hugo: if all specs defining headers need to do that, is there anything wrong with SOAP?
Gudge: we have default values,
which is where the issue is
... to work around this, we would need to define a C14N transform
Anish: does that only apply to forwarding intermediaries?
Mark: are people comfortable with
this? could we close i004 with this?
... I know Marc and Paco had other ideas in mind
Considering Gudge's proposal with Anish's amendment about forwarding intermediaries
Greg: do we say that it means to sign an EPR?
Gudge: no, because I couldn't get
some agreement around that with the people I talked to
... there are different feelings about what needs to be done to secure EPRs
Mark: one thing to consider is
whether this is good for us; if we need more than this, we may
be able to do something as an extension later
... let's wait for Marc and Paco to see if they want to add something to this; we'll decide on this early in the F2F
Mark: would anyone object to closing i042 with this proposal?
RESOLUTION: Issue i042 closed with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0019.html
<scribe> ACTION: Editors to integrate http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0019.html
Marc hasn't done his AI
Chair will ping Marc
Hugo made a proposal for addressing the first part of the issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0117.html
Mark: do people think that targetting is a good idea?
Mark: Glen has a proposal, but
it's not detailed enough IMO
... would anyone would like to expand on this proposal?
Jonathan: I'm confused about it
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to make his proposal about i007 clearer
Mark: we have a TF looking at the
relationship between SOAP, Addressing, and WSDL
... Hugo raised 2 related issues
... what do we need to do to close i022?
Greg: I want to know what portion
goes as SOAP messages, and what portion goes as transport
messages [scribe poorly paraphrasing]
... I am wondering if we should move a portion of the SOAP document in the WSDL document
... that may mean being able to delay the decision on i022 beyond next week
Mark: you would like to have transport-specific wording in the SOAP spec?
... I have heard different things about the current SOAP binding
... I think that we need to call a specific behavior out
Anish: do you think that the binding satisfies what we need?
Anish: my interpretation was that, for SOAP 1.2, the current transport binding wasn't enough
<uyalcina> +1 to Anish, this is my understanding as well
Anish: for 1.1, because of the
WS-I interpretation, one-way is covered
... this isn't the case for 1.2
Greg: but this is for one-way, not for req-resp
Umit: the discussion was around whether the WSDWG should define a new SOAP binding
Greg: I'm hoping that we can discuss options at the F2F, and choose the bare minimum to get out of this
Mark: are you talking about LC or CR?
Greg: CR; it would be nice to have them fixed for LC [confusion around LC/CR]
Mark: do people think that we can
ship documents as LC drafts with the resolution of these
... if not, can we have this solved in other drafts?
Jonathan: I think we'll be able
to ship our LC drafts
... I'm not sure that we would even need to publish other drafts as Recs
Umit: it seems to me that we have SOAP and WSDL issues, not Addressing ones
Mark: what do we need to do to
... Greg wants to see info from the TF
... Hugo wants us to define a SOAP module
... anything else?
Mark: have people had a chance to look at Hugo's proposals?
Jonathan: I don't see anything wrong with it, but I'd like a little more time
Mark: let's talk about it next week
Mark: in the most recent proposal, I didn't see a way to differentiate referenced vs. included metadata
Rebecca: but you could put a URI in the metadata section
<TomRutt> the definer of the metadata namespace determines the semantics
Anish: I thought that the difference was service QName vs. service element
Mark: do we want to have a discussion about whether there should be a generic mechanism for doing self-Contained vs. referenced metadata?
Umit: it all depends on the element you put in there
Mark: Rebecca, would you be comfortable dropping i024 in favor of i026 which encompasses this?
<anish> i thought rebecca was interested in having the complete wsdl inlined in an EPR
Rebecca: no, we have a specific proposal
Mark: we would need a concrete proposal by next week then
Rebecca: would you like me to split the proposal i026 into 2?
Mark: if this is what you want, yes
Jonathan: what does it look like to reference metadata in your proposal?
Rebecca: we're proposing a generic metadata bucket
Umit: we're using QNames for service names, as an example
Mark: the way I understand i024, it's about providing a generic mechanism to refer to any type of metadata
<RebeccaB> Sorry - I just lost my phone connection
Anish: I remember that Rebecca wanted to have a whole WSDL in an EPR
Mark: my understanding was really about a generic mechanism
Jonathan: I'm confused; maybe we should be discussing i026 first
Umit: I think that Rebecca got it right; for i024, we're providing a generic metadata bucket; for i026, we're using it for multiple endpoints
Mark: I think it would be helpful
to have a separate proposal for i024
... otherwise it's hard to differentiate them
Mark: we have a detailed proposal
Jonathan: I have ideas for a friendly amendment; I'd like to take it up next week
Dave: the notion about putting
metadata in a metadata container doesn't make sense to me
... in order to differentiate data and metadata, we would need to have something in the spec to talk about how to use this
... we already have a pretty open extensibility model
Anish: we have wording in the
spec (section 2.3) about metadata comparison
... we already have an issue on EPR comparison
... depending on its resolution, we would need this or not
Umit: I agree with Anish, and I would tend to agree with Dave too
Mark: maybe the authors of the proposal would want to provide an updated proposal
Anish: certainly, there is a dependency on the EPR comparison issue
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/02/21-ws-addr-minutes hugo