WSAWG Telcon Minutes 2002-07-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

[chrisf]

resources+ http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/06/27-minutes.html

agenda+ Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items (15.30 + 5)

agenda+ Agenda review, and AOB (15.35 + 5)

agenda+ Review & approval of 27 June, 2002 minutes [2] (15.40 + 5)

agenda+ Review action items [3] (15.45 + 5)

agenda+ Status (15.45 + 15)

agenda+ Review of Mike's proposal for D-AC004 (16.00 + 10)

agenda+ Review of Frank's proposals for new goals/csfs (16.10 + 10)

agenda+ Proposal for WS Security Workshop preceding Sept f2f (16.20 + 5)

agenda+ Proposal for D-AC018 from RTF (16.25 + 10)

agenda+ Review of WSAWG comments on SOAP1.2 specs (16.35 + 5)

agenda+ Review of unresolved items in Requirements draft [9] (16.40 + 20)

zakim, this is arch

[Zakim]

ok, chrisf

[chrisf]

zakim, who is here?

[Zakim]

On the phone I see +1.919.488.aaaa, ??P5, R_Radhika, ScottV?, Goto, ??P10, ??P11, Mark_A_Jones, ??P13, Tim_Jones, ??P15, ??P18, +1.781.993.aacc, ??P17, DOrchard, Darra_Rolls,

... ??P20, Igor_Sedukhin, +1.720.480.aadd, ??P9, ??P26, DavidB, Sharad, Joseph_Hui, ??P1, ??P3, G_Daniels, Chris_Ferris, ??P29

On IRC I see igors, dougb, TimJones, joe, Ugo, TC, ScottV, hugo, Zakim, RRSAgent, frankmcca, MarkB, chrisf, dbooth

[hugo]

it seems to work

[MarkB]

grooooovy

[dougb]

So far, we know it's not Daniel Austin or Chris on hold...

[chrisf]

zakim, agenda?

[Zakim]

I see 11 items remaining on the agenda:

1. Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items (15.30 + 5) [from chrisf]

2. Agenda review, and AOB (15.35 + 5) [from chrisf]

3. Review & approval of 27 June, 2002 minutes [2] (15.40 + 5) [from chrisf]

4. Review action items [3] (15.45 + 5) [from chrisf]

5. Status (15.45 + 15) [from chrisf]

6. Review of Mike's proposal for D-AC004 (16.00 + 10) [from chrisf]

7. Review of Frank's proposals for new goals/csfs (16.10 + 10) [from chrisf]

8. Proposal for WS Security Workshop preceding Sept f2f (16.20 + 5) [from chrisf]

9. Proposal for D-AC018 from RTF (16.25 + 10) [from chrisf]

10. Review of WSAWG comments on SOAP1.2 specs (16.35 + 5) [from chrisf]

11. Review of unresolved items in Requirements draft [9] (16.40 + 20) [from chrisf]

[igors]

topic 3.

[chrisf]

minutes approved

[igors]

CF: minutes approved

topic 4.

AI 1 is still pending

AI 2 is editorial

topic 5.

editing team report

new version of issue list was posted

[chrisf]

ACTION: Editors to include AC010.1 as decided during the f2f meeting [PENDING]

[DONE] ACTION: Anne, Hugo and Yin-Leng to review the SOAP specs by July 17

[igors]

US doc by Jul 15th

USTF report

[Daniel]

additional note from the editors report: Reqs document will publish a review version by Jul 22

intending to publish publically after review by eht end of the month

[igors]

nothing much from USTF, dicussed logistics

RTF report

porposals for updated reqs and CSFs

need definition for some glossary terms

discuss SLAs and pay proper attention to that

STF report

further discuss forming WS Security WG (to form or not to form)

discussed security use cases

proposal for WS Security workshop at F2F

covering topic 8 now

on "harvesting" now

reviewed a few including UML, etc.

will setup a telecon for further discussions (?)

topic 6.

discussing AC-0004

[chrisf]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jun/0238.html

[igors]

mike: split AC-004 into seven requirements

suresh: what's the constraint?

mike: a range of valid values...

suresh: is it behavioral constraint?

mike: no it's on content

suresh: need to be explicit on message-based architecture

[DaveO]

I have to leave at 4:30 PM ET

[igors]

argument: it's too obvious, why state?

[soliton]

morning

Where we are up to now?

[chrisf]

discussion on mikem's proposal for d-ac004

[igors]

daniel: AC004 text was taken from the charter, we should obide by

[soliton]

Thanks.

[igors]

mike: we're just addressing programming part

chris: by the end of the month we should publish all without a draft status

chris: what should we do with the split AC004?

chris: only questionable ones as draft and all others accepted?

chris: [classified subtopics of Ac004 to draft and "good to go"]

chris: adopt mike's proposal with a few tipics as draft

there were no objections

topic 7. by Frank

frank: no comments on P2P

frank: semantic composition may be covere somewhere else

[chrisf]

ACTION: Editors to incorporate MikeM's proposal for D-AC004 as accepted save the new top-level CSF, X.3 and X.4

[igors]

frank: what's the processes to continue?

chris: another chance to go over the proposals, post to the list again, get discussion, by next week collect comments, get it resolved by the group then

frank: these proposals are not just agents, they are more general

?: agents become more fundamental part of the architecture

frank: agent or not should not bother us in regards to these proposals

frank: supporting P2P is very important for an architecture

frank: enable automatic decisions by agents in regards to services

frank: fundamental point: how can services can be put together [dynamically?]

frank: ensure the architecture is tool vendor-friendly

frank: make the WS architecture simple and accessible for "average" developers

ugo: any difference between composition and orchestration

frank: orchestration is part of the story. orch. is CSF, composition is a goal

[chrisf]

ACTION: Frank to republish his goal proposal emails, solicit feedback on the list and summarize for next week's call

[igors]

ACTION: Frank will summarise and send to the list

topic 8.

chris: WSSec workshop should (may) be broarder than W3C. OASIS, etc...

?: do we care who should be there?

chris: by invitation

?: get people's view from all angles

?: need to know what does the community think

joe: ensure there is a +1 from the group on WSSec

[soliton]

hi, joe, how long will be the workshop?

[igors]

?: ensure there is enough coverage from member companies. what is the purpose of workshop?

[joe]

+1

[chrisf]

hugo notes some process issues for a workshop, such as advance notice (6 or 8 weeks, depending on urgency)

[igors]

hugo: process: a workshop has to have clear scope and the goal. subject to 6 week notice. need a proposal and a venue very soon to hold it at F2F

chris: need a call for paper. can we ask SecTF to work on this...

chris: don't overlap with WSDWG...

ACTION: SecTF to propose workshop details, goal, logistics

topic 9.

[chrisf]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jul/0085.html

[igors]

discussing requirements details

[DaveO]

DaveO comments: Not sure what the purpose of the task force is. The W3C members have representation on the WG so I don't see the need to solicit information/priorities from W3C members.

[igors]

chris: pur reliable messaging aside for next time

suresh: updated the group on the proposal

chris: consider acceptance of the proposal withiout reliable msgng

suresh: change clients to consumers

chris: ok

discussion about relocation of services

suresh: define and outline, not create new way of doing it

?: why not use standard URI redirection, standard practice on the Web. Don't reinvent...

?: refer to exiting best practice...

[soliton]

that is how, not a requirement

[igors]

?: stick with URNs, be explicit though

[dbooth]

s/URNs/URLs/

[dougb]

URI's are the general things, subsuming both - URL's are what are really used on the web

[TC]

+1 Dave

[Daniel]

URIs, not URNs, not URLs, not URxyzs

[igors]

conclusion: URIs and so be it :)

[dougb]

igors: It was me who said "stick with URLs..."

[soliton]

agree with igors

hi, Chris, can we ask the group to pass D-AC007 here?

[dougb]

I was suggesting s/will enable/will not prevent use of existing best practices to/

[igors]

chris: current proposal is not specific about UR*

...whole big discussion on not reinventing the Web...

[Daniel]

Daniel has to go, take care all

[igors]

chris: let's leave 19.1.3 19.1.1 out

suresh: service agreement is different from the definition

dave wanted to have clarification on agreement vs desc

ACTION: incoporate RTF proposal except 19.1.3 and 19.1.1 and change <it> to "consumers"

topic 11

[dougb]

Is this right? RESOLVED: accept all of 19 proposal, except 19.1.1 (service migration) and 19.3 (reliable messaging) with s/customer/consumer/

or was it 19.1.3 as mentioned above?

[igors]

chris: let's publish req doc, accept those that don't get much discussion, another source for discussion: initial balloting results

chris: can we get champions for each of six goals?

joe: takes on security AG-0004

chris: AG-0001

noone

[soliton]

which six?

[igors]

chris: AG-0002

suresh: takes this one

chris: AG-0003

[dougb]

Chris, is the first step on this an editorial process where that team determines the existing status of these goals or is the document completely up to date?

[igors]

hugo: takes it

[soliton]

what is going on?

[dbooth]

[Meeting adjourned]

[DaveO]

I'll be joining the tf call in a few minutes..

[chrisf]

thanks

ACTION: Frank, Suresh, Hugo, Joe, Mike and Zulah to champion the six goals to identify the remaining CSF and Req'ts that are still draft, drive discussion on the mailing list and summarize consensus for the next two telcons

ACTION: Chris to republish URIs to the balloting results for the goal champions

meeting adjourned

rrsagent, please excuse us

Action Items

I see 8 open action items:

ACTION: Editors to include AC010.1 as decided during the f2f meeting [PENDING] [1]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/11-ws-arch-irc#T19-51-33

ACTION: Editors to incorporate MikeM's proposal for D-AC004 as accepted save the new top-level CSF, X.3 and X.4 [2]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/11-ws-arch-irc#T20-18-06

ACTION: Frank to republish his goal proposal emails, solicit feedback on the list and summarize for next week's call [3]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/11-ws-arch-irc#T20-28-20

ACTION: Frank will summarise and send to the list [4]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/11-ws-arch-irc#T20-28-30

ACTION: SecTF to propose workshop details, goal, logistics [5]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/11-ws-arch-irc#T20-38-02

ACTION: incoporate RTF proposal except 19.1.3 and 19.1.1 and change <it> to "consumers" [6]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/11-ws-arch-irc#T20-55-32

ACTION: Frank, Suresh, Hugo, Joe, Mike and Zulah to champion the six goals to identify the remaining CSF and Req'ts that are still draft, drive discussion on the mailing list and summarize consensus for the next two telcons [7]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/11-ws-arch-irc#T21-15-19

ACTION: Chris to republish URIs to the balloting results for the goal champions [8]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/11-ws-arch-irc#T21-15-47

Attendance