See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 16 February 2010
<trackbot> Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 16 February 2010
<scribe> SCRIBE: gpilz
RESOLUTION: agenda approved
<Dug> 8306 is a good one too
RESOLUTION: 9032 accepted as new issue
Bob: any probs with dealing with 8306?
Ram: I would prefer that issues that came after the moratorium be discussed after last call
Bob: let's tackle MOAP and 9032
RESOLUTION: minutes approved
gil: describes proposal
bob: any probs with this proposal?
<Dug> s/will/MUST/ in transfer too
doug: there is a similar sentence in
... can we change this as well?
ram: is that change in the chat room ???
<Dug> Transfer: When this operation is used to replace the entire XML representation, any OPTIONAL values (elements or attributes) not specified in the Put request message will be set to a resource-specific default value.
asir: can you pull in the exact text from WS-T that you propose to change?
RESOLUTION: 9032 resolved with proposal plus additional, corresponding change to WS-Transfer
bob: where are we on the mother of all proposals
doug: some of us had a phone call on
Fri of last week
... I sent out a slightly modified proposal for further review
... but I haven't heard back yet; Asir?
Asir: we are reviewing the latest proposal
bob: are we more right than wrong at this point?
asir: I would suggest we discuss MOAP
... maybe we will be in a position to discuss it then
bob: in that case, there is
relatively little new business
... unless people would like to tackle another issue . . .
bob: people objected to discussing issues that had previously been laid over to Last Call
doug: this issue wasn't opened up
after the moratorium
... we deferred it based on the idea that we didn't have time to discuss it
... we have time now
bob: the WG decided to defer that
issue until Last Call
... the WG needs to decide to take it back
doug: I propose we do so
ram: is there a proposal?
ram: I haven't had a chance to look
at it yet
... can I look at it and discuss it next week?
bob: right now, we're coming up to a
mid-march moratorium on publishing (something to do with the AC
... the minimum Last Call interval is 3 weeks post publication
... practically 3.5 to 4 weeks
... in order for us to maintain our schedule of having a F2F at the end of Last Call
... we need to vote/approve Last call by March 2nd
... if people agree to this, we can keep the scheduled F2F
Asir: there are a couple more Frag issues to deal with as well
bob: there is no requirement (by process) that all specs be advanced simultaneously
asir: I'm not sure that 3 weeks is
sufficient for other WGs to review
... I also recall at the F2F that we should allow 6 weeks
bob: I was hoping for 6 weeks because you get more feedback
asir: we think 6 weeks is reasonable
bob: should we leave the next F2F to be open schedule?
<asir> we agree
gil: i'm reluctant to have a F2F where there is nothing to talk about
bob: we have 2 frag issues, MOAP, and RFC 2119 on WS-Evd
<asir> If the WG could close on MOAP, then the WG could advance T, E, En and MEX
<Dug> do have interop/test stuff to talk about?
(all): continued discussion of F2F material
bob: requirements for F2F in that
time frame (last week of March) are weak w/out Last Call issues
... though we will need a F2F on testing
doug: I know there a couple big
issues that may or may not get resolved before the F2F
... but it seems silly to ignore the issues that have been deferred until Last Call, just because we put this stake in the ground
... several of these issues are relatively minor
bob: from a process point of view,
its more important to tackle the substantive issues first
... willing to tackle the minor things
tom: if they are really simple
things, its likely that reviewers will find them
... this wastes "Last Call review cycles"
asir: if we just want to tell the world there is a bug in the spec, we can always just record an issue
karty: if we have time, we might as well be resolving issues
bob: let's take a look at the issue
... MOAP has a wide-ranging impact and is substantive
<asir> suggest that we use additional cycles to resolve 8185 and 8193
<Dug> 8886, 9031 are easy
<Dug> 8900 too
<asir> disagree that 9031 is easy
bob: people should look at new issues
(8886, 8900, 9031)
... I think we should cancel the March F2F
asir: should we meet in the middle of April?
bob: if we decide on a 6 week Last Call, we should plan a F2F for the end of that 6 week period
gil: 6 (or 7) seven weeks is enough
time to plan any travel
... propose we defer any decision about next F2F until after we approve Last Call
(all): misc. discussion of next F2F
asir: April 13-15th?
... April 13-15?
RESOLTION: next F2F tentatively scheduled for April 13-15