WS-Addressing WG Teleconference

 

 

Approve Meeting minutes from last week

RESOLUTION: approved

New Issues - comment from Ashok concerning examples

Bob:those examples were contained in email to ws-policy group

... and we have not heard back from then yet

Bob: WS-policy co-chairs hoping to get response back by end of next ws-policy call or two

<dhull> +1 on not going to LC until we hear back from WSP

Date to go to last call

<anish> waiting seems appropriate

Bob:Is group happy to wait until we have received response to ws-policy prior to going to LC?

RESOLUTION: Agreed, we will wait for wsp response prior to LC

LC 136

<anish> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/Overview.html#lc136

DavidH: We already discussed what kind of response endpoints are valid, would be nice to also say 'these sort of addresses are ok or not'
... we agreed not to design for this at the moment
... but I would like to be confident that we can extend to cater for this at a later date

Anish: Is this something that one could do via the extensibility point on the anonymous/nonanonymous response assertions
... do we have this extensibility for this case, would attribute extensibility be enough

DavidH: If we have nonAnonymous and someone could add 'mailTo only' that would be what we want

Tom: These elements were designed for exactly this for the makeConnection protocol
... rather than extensibility elements, do an 'wsp:All' composing wsaddressingNonAnon with makeConnection

<gpilz> +1 Tom

Tom: no need to use attribute and element extensibility - just have mailTo as its own highlevel assertion

DavidH: But makeConnection composes if that's the only thing that I can do
... what if I know that from one source my server can cope with http&mailTO and http&java - intersection should be java

Tom: You can do this already with wsp vocab

DavidH: Not convinced that the intersection worked in this case

Gil: Most of DaveH's comments are critiques of wsp - should not be burden of this group to take on these issues

DaveO: Given wsp current status, going to LC of the document anytime in next couple of weeks would be premature
... very fundamental issues like absence is negation - tricky stuff not goiing to be completed in next week or so
... may just be a case of proving that the composability with makeconnection and intersection performs as required
... encouraging group to do the work at this stage to check that the extensibility points can by used to do what wsa required

Bob:At the very minimum prove that use case for CR 33 is solved

DaveO: should prove that the assertions do what we expected them to

Bob:+1 lots of work been done already on this but we should all critique and check we are happy with this

DavidH: From project management point of view - we cannot do anything until wsp gets its story straight
... I would like to be absolutely sure that the vocab allows to define what addresses are allowed for future

Tom: Investigated these intersections and they are difficult. I would like to understand DavidH's concerns
... perhaps David and I could have private email exchange to try to work through these issues without cc-ing the whole group

Bob:Would be good to write up and share the results of this discussion with the group for us all to understand/critique

DavidH: happy to work with Tom on this

DaveO: ws-a is inherently dependent on wsp current issues. advocate holding on until wsp complete

DaveOthe addressing policy assertions seem simple, however it concerns me that ws addressing is having a dificult time meeting their requirements with ws policy. It concerns me that this has been so time consuming,

Bob:some of the ws policy terms are not used in the familiar manner, If the policy spec could be made less obscure it would help people use it.

DavidH: Question is what we could do now prior to wsp resolution

Bob:We can look into this issue and take assumption that alternative G is the right one

... and work on how to resolve this issue with this assumption
... Agree with DavidH we should get this recorded somewhere

<David_Illsley> (aside) I believe our current schema prevents future parameters or nested assertions of the wsam:NonAnonymousResponses assertion

<anish> david, i'm begining to think the same thing

<scribe> ACTION: DavidH and Tom to work together to produce thought exercise on composability to cover LC 136 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/30-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]

<anish> ... and i wonder if ws-policy framework is structured to encourage that

<Zakim> anish, you wanted to ask a question about assertion extensibility and negation to the policy experts

<scribe> ACTION: (cont) Target date middle of next week for meeting in fortnight [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/30-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]

Anish: Assuming that absence=negation, does this mean that policy assertions are not meant to be extensible,
... works with makeconnection maybe not others

Tom: there is distinction between top level assertions and nested assertions
... because nested assertions are applied within a context
... whereas top level ones are in global context

Bob:DavidH's issue remains open

Interop

Bob:Hopes for interop in May appear dashed

... would like an idea of who can participate on the future

Ram: Feel positive that MS could participate but not committed plan
... do we have test scenarios that we can use for testing?

David: May be able to salvage some of the work that we did last summer for this but haven't had time to look over it in detail
... IBM still also abls to commit to some kind of interop when spec returns to LC

Ram: In order to do an interop, the WG has to approve a set of test scenarios

Bob:Yes, we need to start looking at this now - need participation

Ram: Happy to be part of task force
... would be useful to have some focus on future calls to discuss this

Bob:We did have separate calls for testing before or we could just use the regular calls

<scribe> ACTION: David and Ram to refresh group on statud of test cases and what needs to be developed in 2 week's time [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/30-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]

Bob:I don't expect a meeting next Monday

Bob:AOB?

Bob:Assume that we will cancel next Monday but keep on calendar just in case

... we have published editors' draft of new spec, please take good look at it to check resolutions incorporated

<bob> Katy, thanks for scribing

np