See also: IRC log
<bob> meeting: WS-Addressing Teleconference
<bob> chair: Bob Freund
<scribe> Scribe: anish
Agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Jan/0009.html
<scribe> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Jan/0009.html
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/6/12/11-ws-addr-minutes.html
Minutes approved.
<scribe> Chair: bob
Paul Knight to respond to commenter: Paul not on the call
Tony Rogers to post a new editors’ draft – Done
Anish: what is the status of embedded policies in EPRs
Bob: they decided not the engage on that
Tom: epr has a metadata section and no one has addressed how to embed policy assertion
Philippe: do we have more information to give them?
Bob: don't know how they decided on not dealing with this issue
<plh> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4129
Philippe: looks like that issue in ws-policy wg is reopened
<TRutt_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Nov/0078.html
Philippe: we might want to
express interest in this issue to ensure that we are inthe
loop
... any recommendation that we would like to give them?
paco: my view is that we can't take over every metadata
plh: now that we are doing a metadata document but we could certainly do this
paco: not in favor of doing this
tom: why don't we ask them to do this
bob: somebody has to do this or it is going to show up in ws-i
plh: some people argue that it is the job of the metadata exchange
anish: little different from metadata exchange
paco: but it is part of metadata
anish: seems like the syntax is within our purview
paco: policy in a EPR opens a lot
of questions
... some assertions are message specific
... more of a policy thing rather than ws-addr thing
bob: agree with paco
tom: not our job to do that
anish: do we need to point out that we thing it is their job
bob: we can just say that we are
interested in the outcome of issue 4129
... is that a reasonable approach?
... any other point that we would like to provide feedback
on?
... we'll provide that feedback
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr-wsdl.html
Tony: changes raised more questions than expected
<scribe> ... new version is up as an editors draft
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: big changes:
delection of section 3.2 and added new section 3.2. New section
is David's text.
... with the modification of
s/AddresingRequired/Addressing/
<bob> ACTION: bob to sent a LC review response to WS-Policy wrt bugzilla 4129 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/08-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: 1st note is
about policy attachment option
... using prefix wsaw, should this be called something else
like wsam
plh: i though we decided to use /metadata instead of /wsdl for the namespace, including for UsingAddressing
<gpilz> +1
Tony: the old UsingAddressing is
a policy assertion as well. The new one is a policy assertion
only
... new NS prefix will be 'wsam'
... most of 3.2 is a list of example
... will need minor revision to change the prefix
... David, would you tell if there are any errors?
David: will read it and let you know
<bob> ACTION: david will review sec 3.2 examples in a day or two [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/08-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]
<bob> ACTION: bob to sent a LC review response to WS-Policy wrt bugzilla 4129 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/08-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]
<discussion of editorial issues between plh and tony. details not captured>
<plh> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-20061117/#Policy_Intersection
<Zakim> plh, you wanted to follow up on empty nested policy
plh: on the issue of empty nested policy, i don't think it is required to have the empty nested policy for the intersection to work
David: the policy framework section 4.3.2 has a Note. That note makes me think that it needs an empty wsp:Policy element
bob: would you like to provide that as an input to the ws-poilcy WG as an LC comment
Marc: i agree with David. I got some quick confirmation from some folks. I believe that it is right.
Bob: I would suggest going to the policy wg if the describe is not clear
plh: i believe david is right
Bob: the note to ws-policy wg is not required then
<plh> [[ Note: if the schema outline for an assertion type requires a nested policy expression but the assertion does not further qualify one or more aspects of the behavior indicated by the assertion type (i.e., no assertions are needed in the nested policy expression), the assertion MUST include an empty <wsp:Policy/> ]]
<plh> from http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-20061117/#Policy_Assertion_Nesting
Tony: the next Q is related to
the bibliography. I have put in ws-policy framework and primer
as normative.
... the docs are working draft
anish: does primer need to be normative rather than informative?
tony: don't have a problem with
that
... if the other 2 docs (framework and attachments) are
normative, is that a problem?
plh: we can't be a rec until policy is PR
marc: but we are going back to LC so they are ahead
bob: but now we need their implementation to advance
Katy: we need to specify the wsp prefix in the table
tony: good point. will add that.
Marc: we still need to note the subject-level of the assertion
plh: my email covers that
bob: are folks in agreement with that?
no disagreement
<plh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Jan/0013.html
plh: one thing to note is that in my note i recommend staying silent.
tony: makes sense
<plh> s/one thing to note is that in my note i recommend staying silent./one thing to note is that i recommend staying silent for other attachment points./.
Tony: on action, i changed the reference. reference to explicit association and reference to rules for the default.
<bob> tony's first mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Jan/0000.html
<plh> "The inclusion of wsaw:Action without inclusion of wsaw:UsingAddressing has no normative intent and is only informational."
tony: we probably need UsingAddressing or the presence of addressing policy assertion
plh: worried about saying
'presence'
... can be optional
tony: will have to think about this.
anish: we could talk in terms of policy alternative
<scribe> ACTION: tony to propose words to resolve this [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/08-ws-addr-minutes.html#action04]
<bob> ACTION: Tony to tinker up some words which will confuse everyone [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/08-ws-addr-minutes.html#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: 3 to [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/08-ws-addr-minutes.html#action06]
ACTION 3-
ACTION 3=
ACTION 5=
<plh> ACTION 3=Tony to tinker up section 4.4.1 to include the policy assertions as well
<bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Jan/0002.html
Tony: the next email that i sent
concerns CR33
... i went ahead and did (a) but not (b). Did include (c), and
(d)
... one Q is 'we are still using UsingAddressing?'
bob: that is another issue
Tony: next email is about CR38.
which we have already dealt with.
... then there are DavidHull's point
plh: they are editorial, we can do this on the ML
bob: there was some sympathy
about shortening, breaking up of sentences.
... we'll continue the editorial discussion on the ML
... noticed that there is no change to the issues list
tony: there have been changes.
bob: did not see any changes
tony: the remaining CR issue on
ed issues: 34 (moot now), 33 (we just resolved), 32 (is about
'none' uri -- still not done), 38 (we settled today)
... so the only remaining is 36.
... is that an erratum
bob: no, as an edition
... as a PER then then a 2nd edition
tony: will finish the metadata doc by friday
katy: minor thing -- in the
conformance section do we need something about conformance to
the assertion
... section 6
tony: will do that using my editorial powers
anish: if we have changed the NS, then we don't need this
tony: if people want to indicate addressing in wsdl then they won't have anything any more
katy: the disadvantage of having this would be that we would have to specify how it interacts with the assertion
tony: agree that it should be cut
bob: anyone in favor of retaining it?
noone favors it
no objections to removing it.
decision: UsingAddressing will be removed
<bob> resolution: usingaddressing shall be cut
Announcement of new public working draft 2007-01-16
LC start 2007-01-30
LC end 2007-02-20
LC issue resolution estimate – 4 weeks ~ 2007-02-26
CR start <Policy dependency?> ~2007-02-27
CR end start plus four weeks ~2007-03-20
<bob> Proposed:
<bob> Announcement of new public working draft 2007-01-16
<bob> LC start 2007-01-30
<bob> LC end 2007-02-20
<bob> LC issue resolution estimate – 4 weeks ~ 2007-02-26
CR Issue resolution estimate – 2 weeks
PR start 2006-03-27
<bob> CR start <Policy dependency?> ~2007-02-27
<bob> CR end start plus four weeks ~2007-03-20
<bob> CR Issue resolution estimate – 2 weeks
<bob> PR start 2006-03-27
bob: do we need to announce what
we have as a new WD
... prior to the begining of the LC period
... I was suggesting that we make a public draft available as
early as next week
... i would like to get the completed document and review it
and hopefully can be within a small delta of the public
draft
plh: the LC announcement can be at the same time as the public WD
<plh> [[ After republication as a Working Draft, the next forward step available to the Working Group is a Last Call announcement. The Last Call announcement MAY occur at the same time as the publication of the Working Draft. ]] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#return-to-wg
bob: start of LC end of this
month
... and minimum LC is 3 weeks
... it is a SHOULD
plh: i would suggest asking all the WG if they would be able to review them in the time frame given
bob: will start spreading the word
plh: send email to wsdl and policy wg regd this
bob: will do that
plh: can skip the TAG
tony: CG meeting would also be a good place to bring this up
bob: assuming 3 week minimum and
assuming that we'll get some comments: 4 weeks of comment
resolution.
... CR start time may be policy dependent
... guessing around 27th feb
... may impact their spec as we have changed our assertion
David: only their primer would be affected
bob: testing resources needed
during end of feb - end of march
... what we have now is going to be easier to test
tom: do we need a f2f
bob: may be good to schedule
one
... david, do u think a 4 week schedule is appropriate?
david: we do have a lot of the design/test, but dependents on how long policy implementation takes
bob: this puts PR at march 27 (with some assumptions)
plh: that is optimistic
... policy wg is starting their CR in march and ending in
july
bob: so this could be delayed
because of policy implementations
... any other business?
none
Meeting adjourned. Next meeting, next week
<bob> thanka