See also: IRC log
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
IBM - not guilty
BT - 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: 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.
bob: does WG feel change is not related to conformance
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
... 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 ?
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 ?
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
marc: volunteers to propose a solution
gill: volunteers to help
<bob> thanks for scribing, Marc