Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference

19 Mar 2007


See also: IRC log


Francisco Curbera (IBM Corporation)
Robert Freund (Hitachi, Ltd.)
Marc Goodner (Microsoft Corporation)
David Hull (TIBCO Software, Inc.)
Yin-Leng Husband (HP)
Anish Karmarkar (Oracle Corporation)
Paul Knight (Nortel Networks)
Philippe Le Hégaret (W3C)
Mark Little (JBoss Inc.)
Gilbert Pilz (BEA Systems, Inc.)
Tony Rogers (Computer Associates)
Tom Rutt (Fujitsu Limited)
Abbie Barbir (Nortel Networks)
Andreas Bjärlestam (ERICSSON)
Dave Chappell (Sonic Software)
Glen Daniels (Sonic Software)
Vikas Deolaliker (Sonoa Systems, Inc.)
Paul Downey (BT)
Jacques Durand (Fujitsu Limited)
David Illsley (IBM Corporation)
Yves Lafon (W3C)
Amelia Lewis (TIBCO Software, Inc.)
Bozhong Lin (IONA Technologies, 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)
Katy Warr (IBM Corporation)
Ümit Yalçınalp (SAP AG)
Prasad Yendluri (webMethods, Inc.)
Monica Martin (Sun Microsystems)
Bob Freund
Tom Rutt



Resolution: New issue concerning version of policy namespace accepted

Minutes from last meeting

Resolution: Minutes of last meeting accepted

LC2 Issue 1 ws policy comments

Proposals for E, with New proposal F.

Proposal E: Parameters

Proposal F: This new alternative F takes the approach of nested support

> assertions, however

> non presence of a nested policy assertion now implies that the

> associated response mode is not supported.

<bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/att-0038/WSAddrPolicyEdits-alternativeF.pdf

Gil: my concern is with nonAnonymous assertion. Non presense of non anonmous means non anymous supported. Due to wide open definition of non anonymous

<Zakim> anish, you wanted to ask about composibility with rm assertion

The policy expression can compose with ws make connection, by also asserting nonAnonymous support

Anish: rm is optional, use anon back channel. Need two alternatives, anon another non anon as well as rm

We can do examples for all of these cases.

Composition with RX should be shown to everyone's happyness.

Gil: Reply to anon, fault to is non anonymous. These assertions cover responses as a Bob: can we enumerate use cases for an email discussion.

<MrGoodner> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0043.html

Marc G: we have been talking about another alternative with nested assertions, (alternative G). This mail is differnent says addressing without nested policy says only ws addressing is supported. It retains required language, but they cannot be used on same alternative.

Tom: what is difference between new G and the old alternative A?

Bob: I did not see your mail Marc.

General agreement on use of nested policy.

Gil: Client can look at parameters to determine if it can interact with a server

<monica> Need to also ensure we understand how this is handled in the default intersection algorithm. Consider how such assumptions may have an influence with other composable specifications. Particularly if you wish to leverage what  is defined in WS-Policy.

Paco: I agree with that.

Tom: we need to understand the requirements before we can decide on parameters of nested policy assertions.

<anish> i don't understand the schema ns issue. i.e., why is it an issue?

Marc G: we worked on this new proposal G, since we find value in doing the intersection matching.

<gpilz> anish - because then we are likely to argue about what version of WS-Policy we reference

Gil: if we used nested parameters we wuld not need the wsp namespace in our schema.

Anish: this metadata spec in w3c has w3c restrictions. anyway.

Marc G: I agree with anish. and the fix to the new issue is to change to CR reference.

Bob: can we agree that alternative e is unacceptable, since intersection mechanism.

No objection:

Bob: can Marc explain the differences.

MarcG: G stays with requirements semantics. F has empty addressing meaing no responses, G empty means addressing is fully supported. for mixed mode F has both, for G use unqualivied addressing assertion.

MarcG: both compose with make connectib

Tony: what about no responses?

MarcG: G does not allow saying no responses. But none is allowed in both

Tom: how important is use case for no responses supported?

Bob: is more time required for us to decide between the alternatives?

general agreement to discuss both over email.

Bob: Is one week ok for next meeting?
... April 2 for next meeting?

Agreed, next meeting April 2.

<plh> regrets for next meeting

New issue on namespace

Marc: it is a simple bug fix.

Bob: does everyone agree to resolve by plugging in the new namespace from CR version of WS Policy.

Resolution: New issue resolved by fixing to CR version of WS Policy.

Agreed to have use case discussion for proposals F or G on email.

<monica> http://www.w3.org/ns/ws-policy

Bob: Policy interop in May in Ottawa. IBM can test metadata interop but we need at least one other company.
... Other companies should come forward, so we can meet our interop requirement of 2.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/04/03 15:20:14 $