W3C

Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference

2 May 2005

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Abbie Barbir (Nortel Networks)
Rebecca Bergersen (IONA Technologies, Inc.)
Andreas Bjärlestam (ERICSSON)
Ugo Corda (SeeBeyond Technology Corporation)
Francisco Curbera (IBM Corporation)
Vikas Deolaliker (Sonoa Systems, Inc.)
Paul Downey (BT)
Michael Eder (Nokia)
Robert Freund (Hitachi, Ltd.)
Arun Gupta (Sun Microsystems, Inc.)
Marc Hadley (Sun Microsystems, Inc.)
David Hull (TIBCO Software, Inc.)
Yin-Leng Husband (HP)
Amelia Lewis (TIBCO Software, Inc.)
Anish Karmarkar (Oracle Corporation)
Paul Knight (Nortel Networks)
Philippe Le Hégaret (W3C)
Mark Little (Arjuna Technologies Ltd.)
Jonathan Marsh (Microsoft Corporation)
Jeff Mischkinsky (Oracle Corporation)
Nilo Mitra (ERICSSON)
David Orchard (BEA Systems, Inc.)
Mark Peel (Novell, Inc.)
Tony Rogers (Computer Associates)
Tom Rutt (Fujitsu Limited)
Davanum Srinivas (Computer Associates)
Katy Warr (IBM Corporation)
Steve Winkler (SAP AG)
Ümit Yalçınalp (SAP AG)
Prasad Yendluri (webMethods, Inc.)
Absent
Dave Chappell (Sonic Software)
Glen Daniels (Sonic Software)
Jacques Durand (Fujitsu Limited)
Yaron Goland (BEA Systems, Inc.)
Martin Gudgin (Microsoft Corporation)
Eisaku Nishiyama (Hitachi, Ltd.)
Ales Novy (Systinet Inc.)
Rich Salz (DataPower Technology, Inc.)
Jiri Tejkl (Systinet Inc.)
Steve Vinoski (IONA Technologies, Inc.)
Regrets
Hugo Haas (W3C)
Pete Wenzel (SeeBeyond Technology Corporation)
Chair
Mark Nottingham
Scribe
Paul Downey

Contents


<swinkler> regrets for the second half of the call. I have to drop at 2.

Administrivia

mnot: register for Berlin F2F, room limited to 20
... minutes April 19th, April 20th approved

Action Item Review

Proposed New Issues

Proposed - Semantics of wsa:UsingAddressing@wsd:Required="false"

mnot: dhull oulines his new issue on semantics of wsa:UsingAddressing@wsdl:Required="false"

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Apr/0061.html

s/mnot: dhull:/dhull: /

<anish> as a side-note there is an issue (in my mind) about what the default value of wsdl20:required is

<uyalcina> I have raised an issue on that one in WSDL 2.0 wg

marsh: baffled as the relevance to WSDL required='false', why do we need to define how wsdl:required works in our spec

dhull: advertising a service with wsdl:required changes the semantics of our spec

discussion between paco and dhull regarding the scope of this issue over other bindings

<Zakim> anish, you wanted to find out whether the issue is -- how the server knows that ws-addr is engaged. Or is it more?

tom: clarification of issue; the case we talking about is where a client isn't using addressing and doesn't send wsa:action.

paco: should be possible to tell at the xml level if wsa is engaged

anish: is the issue about how the server can detect addressing is engaged?

dhull: possible to have bindings which don't work that way (scribe having difficulty hearing)

anish: so a strange binding that doesn't have something in the message to indicate addressing is in play may need something above current WSDL language

mnot: concerned that the current wording of the issue doesn't capture the discussion

daveo: i'm confused

umit: what's the likelyhood of this happening?

dhull: cites intermediary use-case

<scribe> ACTION: dhull to restate the new issue regarding wsdl required='true' semantics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/02-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]

mnot: volunteer for owning new issue regarding namespace split across two documents

<scribe> ACTION: jmarsh to promote discussion in issue i60 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/02-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]

issue lc6 and lc35

marsh: had an action to move this forward. still like my original formulation, but modified it folowing discussion related to 'endpoint conformance'. Does a conformant endpoint have to reject messages without wsa headers? Conformance only applies where wsa headers are in play.

mnot: messages on the list are still very fresh and many will not have seen them, so will time limit this discussion

anish: reformulation isn't what i had in mind. An endpoint should conform to the soap binding specification which doesn't define how and when to send fault or reply messages. these are defined by WSDL MEPs and our specification

marsh: spec doesn't define what is a request-response MEP. We don't need to nail that down as it's in the domain of other specs.

anish: MEP in play belongs in the soap binding specification

umit: unclear why this is a conformance for soap or core specs, rather wsdl section.

paco: request-reply may exist regardless of there being a WSDL description

anish: not necessary rules have to be defined in WSDL

paco: specs don't mandate a reply has to be sent, just how fields are used when on is sent

marsh: that captures my intent

dhull: core and soap are bound together. reads section 3 regarding MAPs as implying a fault / reply must be sent. compliance testing would test sending a response as an assertion

marsh: spec should not define case when we don't use addressing.

dhull: sending a message to a conformant endpoint without addressing should be faulted.

marsh: core specification isn't testable on its own, only when used inanother context, such as soap

dhull: sounds like we're in agreement, solicits if anyone agrees we need more precise text. don't think normative statements belong in the core.

marsh: agreed (conformance to the core is ill defined)

daveo: agrees conformance to the core is not well defined

paco: one option is to put soap binding and core together in the same document
... conformance can only be proven if core is paired with a binding. that's a well defined statement and may allow the core to remain separate.

anish: agrees

lc26

marsh: had action to clarify fault to be returned if wsa:action header differs from http action in soap 1.1/1.2
... soap 1.1 has a required soapAction header (WS-I BP)
... proposal allows soapAction to be empty

anish: we should clarify empty means open-quotes, closed-quotes to match WS-I BP

marsh: do we have to define empty given it's possible for people to not be using the BP?

mnot: suggests using BP as an example

<uyalcina> +1 to Marc

marc: we should use this chance to nail text to match the BP

<Marsh> "The SOAPAction HTTP header is required when using the SOAP 1.1 HTTP binding. The value of the SOAPAction HTTP header MUST either be identical to the value of the wsa:Action header, or be empty. The latter case supports the ability to obscure the wsa:Action header through SOAP-level security mechanisms, without requiring otherwise unnecessary transport-level security. Failure to have an identical value, or an empty value for SOAPAction, results in the Invalid M

anish: does anyone want to be non-BP compliant (at least in this case)?

tonyR: seems like low cost to allow non-BP cases

marsh: works for me

<scribe> ACTION: approved lc26 with Jonathan's original proposal combined with his updated proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/02-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]

RESOLUTION: approved lc26 with Jonathan's original proposal combined with his updated proposal

<mnot> ... leaving out ""

lc28 and lc33

<Marsh> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/#lc28

ACTION- 3

marsh: outlines proposal
... editorial guidelines: we should use [] refps notation consistantly ; it should be clear that echoing headers is at the XML representation, not infoset level

marc: may have already done some of this in the latest editors draft

paco: fine with this

mnot: suggests editors to work on this direction and WG to review

discussion between marsh and marc regarding use and structure of notation

anish: suggest dropping use of serialized regarding infoset. prefers 'mapped'

discussion of serialising IRIs .. going off piste ..

RESOLUTION: close issue lc28 with Jonathan's proposal and adding word 'infoset' where appropriate

marsh: outlines proposal for lc36

<mnot> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/#lc36

<anish> things would be so much easier and non-convoluted if we just get rid of abstract props and keep only the infoset stuff

<uyalcina> looks good to me,

RESOLUTION: closed LC36 with Jonathan's proposal

lc34

marsh: outlines proposal for duplicate headers at the ultimate recipient

tonyr: suggests dropping term 'ultimate recipient'

marsh: we still need to target a particular node

anish: how do we determin if it's targetted at a particular node (as opposed to a role?)

marc: that's the joy of soap!
... you can't have more than one of these targetted at a node, which is stricter and not deterministic from looking at the message

anish: can have multiple 'To's if they are targetted at differnet nodes?

mnot: action item is regarding faults

marc: glen had a use-case for this

anish: recipient node has to decide which roles it is playing

umit: unconvinced why we ended up with node rather than role. why did we do this?

marsh: glen and marc convinced us!

marc: suggests only having one To header (at most) but doesn't satisfy Glen's use-case

anish: questions reason for using node rather than role

mnot: role is in the infoset [node isn't]

marc: raises case where a node is playing two roles with two To's

dhull: thinks this is put out of scope by our spec; we should just be talking about the ultimate receiver

marc: ultimate receiver [node] always plays at least two roles

umit: likes proposed solution with role rather than node

marsh: would welcome amendment, but wants to be consistant with soap

anish: discussion of Glen's (WS-Routing) use-case

dhull: thinks wording regarding targetted and ultimate receiver is correct

<mnot> http://www.w3.org/mid/7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A507609A91@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com

dhull: wants clarification regarding multiple faults and errors
... fault coming back should clarify which role being played by a node caused the error

marc: soap 1.2 has a role element

tonyr: thinks it's 'actor'

<anish> there is both a 'node' element and an 'role' element

dhull: we're trying to avoid opening discussion to cover intemediaries

<anish> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part1-20030624/#faultactorelement

<anish> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part1-20030624/#faultnodeelement

marc: thinks we've covered intemediary processing

vikas: ignoring that an intemediary may exist is the safest way of working on the Internet

<scribe> ACTION: marc to respond to Jonathan's proposal for lc34 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/02-ws-addr-minutes.html#action04]

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: approved lc26 with Jonathan's original proposal combined with his updated proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/02-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: dhull to restate the new issue regarding wsdl required='true' semantics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/02-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: jmarsh to promote discussion in issue i60 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/02-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: marc to respond to Jonathan's proposal for lc34 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/02-ws-addr-minutes.html#action04]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.122 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/05/03 19:13:31 $