Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference

6 Nov 2006


See also: IRC log


Francisco Curbera (IBM Corporation)
Glen Daniels (Sonic Software)
Paul Downey (BT)
Robert Freund (Hitachi, Ltd.)
Marc Goodner (Microsoft Corporation)
Marc Hadley (Sun Microsystems, Inc.)
David Hull (TIBCO Software, Inc.)
Paul Knight (Nortel Networks)
Philippe Le Hegaret (W3C)
Gilbert Pilz (BEA Systems, Inc.)
Tony Rogers (Computer Associates)
Tom Rutt (Fujitsu Limited)
Katy Warr (IBM Corporation)
Abbie Barbir (Nortel Networks)
Andreas Bjarlestam (ERICSSON)
Dave Chappell (Sonic Software)
Vikas Deolaliker (Sonoa Systems, Inc.)
Jacques Durand (Fujitsu Limited)
Arun Gupta (Sun Microsystems, Inc.)
Yin-Leng Husband (HP)
David Illsley (IBM Corporation)
Anish Karmarkar (Oracle Corporation)
Yves Lafon (W3C)
Amelia Lewis (TIBCO Software, Inc.)
Bozhong Lin (IONA Technologies, Inc.)
Mark Little (JBoss Inc.)
Jeganathan Markandu (Nortel Networks)
Jeff Mischkinsky (Oracle Corporation)
Nilo Mitra (ERICSSON)
Eisaku Nishiyama (Hitachi, Ltd.)
David Orchard (BEA Systems, Inc.)
Alain Regnier (Ricoh Company Ltd.)
Davanum Srinivas (WSO2)
Pete Wenzel (Sun Microsystems, Inc.)
Umit Yalcinalp (SAP AG)
Prasad Yendluri (webMethods, Inc.)
Bob Freund
Marc Hadley


Resolution: Minutes of last meeting approved

bob: section 5.2.1 of SOAP binding allows for other URIs as anon. did we mean that ?
... brief discussion and will then vote of this question

marc: might be better phrased as "do we still mean it"

dhull: do we have a specific textual change to vote on

bob: will rip out 5.2.1

tom: looked for source of the text - not clear that text was explicit in discussion

editors can't recall where text originated

<pauld> it's in our spec and went through CR-PR-REC

<pauld> so nit-picking on the scribing seems a little mute

paco: what will be the gain by doing anything

marcgoodner: last sentence of 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 is the text in question

guilty == remove text allowing other anon URIs

not-guilty == keep that text

pauld: errate, version 1.1, ?

<dhull> It's not like the text has much force to begin with. Wouldn't an erratum be enough?

bob: how we do it is not relevant, will do minimum necessary

<MrGoodner> I think errata is enough

<MrGoodner> it doesn't seem to impact the wsa namespace

formal vote:

IBM - not guilty

BT - guilty

Microsoft: guilty

Sun - guilty

Tibco - not guilty

Nortel - guilty

W3C - guilty

BEA - not guilty

CA - guilty

Fujitsu - guilty

Hitachi - guilty

8 guilty, 3 not guilty

Resolution:Text indicating that other specifications may define URIs with behavior similiar to wsa:anonymous shall be removed from the rec version of the SOAP binding

<plh> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-modify

plh: the change might affect conformance

marc: agree with paco, change put other uri out-of-scope for WS-A spec but doesn't preclude it

<pauld> so the lack of a MUST means a change doesn't impact conformance, and could fall into "Corrections that do not affect conformance"

dhull: saw text as guidance, doesn't affect conformance

<plh> 2. Corrections that do not affect conformance

<plh> Editorial changes or clarifications that do not change the technical content of the specification.

<dhull> +1

bob: does WG feel change is not related to conformance

WG: assents

Resolution: Removal of language agreed in above resolution is determined to be an editorial change since it does not affect conformance

bob: part 2 deals with failure of WSDL binding to support usage promoted by text we have voted to remove
... close 33 without action ?

paco: what about the proposals

bob: do we all agree that we need to do something to compose better with policy ?

WG assents

bob: deal with cr33 on its basis and then look at proposals to better support policy

paco: don't want to close cr33 until we have dealt with policy proposals

mrg: only anon marker needs to be fixed

paco: do we have a specific proposal ?


bob review the issue text

dhull: anon=optional seems to leave the door open to using RM anon but really it just pertains to WS-A anon

<dhull> actually, it's anon=required that just pertains to WS-A anon. Optional leaves things open.

paco: markers as designed not useful, issue is not with text in soap binding

katy: have lost track of rx requirement

<dhull> A&P proposal speaks to a different issue

<dhull> RX requirement is actually already satisfied

<dhull> Doesn't think WSA anon definition is restrictive at all

katy: when soap binding came out it was possible for rx to use their anon uri but with wsdl binding we restrict that

gill: is it possible to define a policy that restricts to anon only and then expand that to allow rx anon ?

glen: yes

paco: such usage would contravene policy usage recommendations

glen: no it wouldn't

paco: yes it would


paco: going to have to ignore the marker because it is badly designed

marc: unclear which marker are badly designed - i think everyone agrees that the original formulation doesn;t work with policy but several options have been proposed - some by paco - are any of these ok in paco's opinion

paco: some are ok, disagreeing with glen proposal for rx to create an assertion that overrides the ws-a one

dhull: composability not limited to rx

<dhull> so that means we're going back to LC?

quick poll confirms that everyone agrees that current syntax is broken wrt policy

Resolution: markers are broken and need to be fixed for policy

mrg: we just need to fix it wrt ws-a anon

dhull: use case is indicating haw async response can be sent

paco: having same discussion as last week

bob: don't think ws-a has exclusive on back-channel, we need to find a way to get out of the way of future specs

dhull: need a way to say stuff like: "can use mail addresses in reply to"

<dhull> but it's useful to say "I can't do anythng *but* anon" (or "I can't do anything *but* email")

marc: going over ground we covered in Japan F2F. think we need a way to state "i can do ws-a anon" and "I can't do ws-a anon" but not have assertions that shut out others

mrg: not worried if our assertion shuts out others

dhull: think we have new information now that requires revisiting Japan decision

<dhull> +1 on relevance of policy

marc: use of policy brings level of expressiveness that a WSDL marker doesn't have, the two marker proposed are all we need to define, other specs can define others

dhull: in what way is our current markup policy unfriendly ? does policy have a "this and this but not that"

paco: second is an open issue with policy WG, first is that assertion qname should capture meaning not attribute value or content

<gpilz> +1

marc: volunteers to propose a solution

gill: volunteers to help

<bob> thanks for scribing, Marc

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/11/26 13:36:27 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127  of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/3. Corrections that MAY affect conformance, but add no new features/Corrections that do not affect conformance/
Found Scribe: marc
Found Scribe: marc
Inferring ScribeNick: marc
Default Present: Tom_Rutt, Bob_Freund, Gilbert_Pilz, Plh, Marc_Hadley, TonyR, Paul_Knight, David_Hull, Paul_Downey, [IBM], [Microsoft], Katy, GlenD, marc
Present: Tom_Rutt Bob_Freund Gilbert_Pilz Plh Marc_Hadley TonyR Paul_Knight David_Hull Paul_Downey [IBM] [Microsoft] Katy GlenD marc
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Nov/0015.html
Got date from IRC log name: 6 Nov 2006
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/11/06-ws-addr-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]