See also: IRC log
Bob issued revised agenda. No objections
Agreed to move Cindy McMally discussion earlier
No objection to accept June 4 minutes
Resolution: June 4 minutes accepted.
<monica> change from: In order to indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, an additional policy alternative should be provided which does not contain this assertion. This may be done in WS-Policy compact form by adding the attribute |wsp:Optional="true"| to the |wsam:Addressing| assertion.
<monica> change to: The optional assertion mechanism wsp:Optional, the compact authoring style defined by WS-Policy Framework, is used to specify that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use for the |wsam:Addressing| assertion (See WS-Policy Framework v1.5 [link]).
Philipe: the existing text is preferable.
Dave I: can we keep the first sentence, then add the ref to optional in second sentence
Monica: I think that is good suggestion
Tom: I agree with Dave I, we need a sentence that states that an alternative without can be provided, and that optional is one way to do this.
Agreed to table final resolution
Cindy McNally (cr41, lc141) http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/Overview.html#lc141
Bob F: if we do not give acceptable disposition, this will turn up as a new formal objection
David I: we have no tests for that
Anish: If we make changes along lines of her suggestion do we have to go back to last call? what are delays?
Philipe: I do not think the namespace will change. We are touching mapping behavior. If we agree to make change, we should ask WSDL WG would be happy with change. If Cindy is happy we can suggest progression.
Tony R: I do not think this is a major change
Anish: If we would have received this earlier, we might have accepted it.
Philipe: the original request was in December.
Anish: the rationale and
suggested resolution look good, and this is only for wsdl 2.0.
Impact will be quite low.
... If no delay we should accept
Bob F: no negative, unless it impacts schedule.
Philipe: I do not expect problems from wsdl working group.
Bob F: I propose we tell her we accept her resolution, subject to wsdl working group.
Ram: this does not affect wsdl 1.1/
Bob F: it only affects fault of wsdl 2
<plh> 4.4.4 Default Action Pattern for WSDL 1.1
Dave I: section 4.4 has a bug. in Wsdl 1.1 example
<anish> CR with no formal objection would be a "Good Thing"
Bob F: can we accept Cindy resolution and also inform wsdl 2.0 group so it will not affect our timeline
No objection to proposal
<David_Illsley> [operation name] is the name of the operation (/definition/portType/operation@name).
RESOLUTION LC141 resolved by proposal from Cindy
Philipe: Dave I proposal does not change pattern but it affects description
LC144 editorial comment to 4.4
Resolution: Proposal from Dave I to resolve LC144
Philipe 4.4.2 should be similar to 4.4.4
<monica> In order to indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, the compact authoring style for an optional policy assertion provided by WS-Policy v1.5 [link], is used. The wsp:Optional attribute, as a syntactic shortcut, can be used with the |wsam:Addressing| assertion. This indicates two policy alternatives â€“ one that contains the policy assertion and another which does not.
Tom: I would prefer that we keep
the first sentence. then add Monica text
... Keep the first sentence in the existing text, and change "is" to "may be" in monica first sentence
<monica> In order to indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, an additiona policy alternative should be provided which does not contain this policy assertion. To indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, the compact authoring style for an optional policy assertion provided by WS-Policy v1.5 [link], may be used. The wsp:Optional attribute, as a syntactic short, can be used with the |wsam:Addres
+1 to Monical proposal
No objection to accept Monica proposal to resolve LC143
RESOLTION: LC143 resolved by Monica proposal above
Bob F: 2.1 and 2.2 are marked at risc. We have test plan for 2..1 but none for 2.2,
Anish: we do not have to decide now about 2.2.
Bob F: we know of no plans for 2.2, so it looks clear that 2.2 will not make it.
Dave I: 2.1 does not reqire explicit semantic processing, so all we can test was proff that the processor can accept eprs with this xml.
Dave I: extacting info form EPR is mandatory test, actual processing to understand can be additional test.
Bob F: what is state of implemetation of 2.1 processors
Dave I: we can have 2 interop implementations in proper time.
Bob F: how to present aggregate results of test plans etc.
Dave I: I do not have tome to do this now
Bob: can someone consolidate the earlier test results with the newer results, archiving all tests for test suite for wsmd doc, as done for core and binding specs.
Rama: I can help to do this.
Bob F: we need this before next call,
Rama: not likely
Dave I: we have time after next monday for completion od 2.1 testing, so next week is not acceptable.
Bob F: two weeks from today is more appropriate.
Bob F: July 2 is the target.
Bob F: is June 29 acceptable.
<David_Illsley> Rama: I'm happy to consult on what was done previously, I just don't have the time to do the collation at the moment
Tom: can be not have a meeting next week.
<Rama> that would be helpful
Bob F: asuming no new news on 2.2, we will not have a meeting next week. Only if we have something by thurs of this week, will we schedule meeting for next week.
Philipe: we can incorporate new text from Cindy directly into a PR>
Bob F: Do we agree that July 2 is deadline for removal of at risk text?
Jeff M: we should evaluate when time comes.
Bob F: June 29 is the deadline for the implementaton to keep at risk feature.
Philipe: I see a reason for an additional step as new CR.
Tony: where is monica proposal
Tony R: I now see where it goes.
Phillipe: how soon can we have new changes
Philipe: is everone acceptable to make that a new CR text?
<bob> Are there any objectiond to plh's proposal?
PHilipe: we could send new CR request to director with the new text. The CR would still end on 29th. On July 2 we decide whether to move to PR.
<bob> that is the proprosal
Philipe: the draft for PR would be available on July 15.
<bob> code is not valid
<plh> Bob, try * 0 ?
<bob> i am and am holding.
<bob> I will try the ud number
Ram: Why do we have to go thru extra CR step?
Bob F: if we do not go thru CR, and folks to not agree to drop 2.2, we would have less than two implementations.
Ram: we can still have CR results on July 2?
Bob F: yes we could still ask for PR on July 2.
Agreed to produce CR by 21st.
Next Call July 2.
<bob> tom, thanks for scribing