Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference

16 Feb 2010


See also: IRC log


Alessio Soldano, Red Hat
Ashok Malhotra, Oracle Corp.
Asir Vedamuthu, Microsoft Corp.
Bob Freund, Hitachi, Ltd.
David Snelling, Fujitsu, Ltd.
Doug Davis, IBM
Gilbert Pilz, Oracle Corp.
Katy Warr, IBM
Li Li, Avaya Communications
Ram Jeyaraman, Microsoft Corp.
Sreedhara Narayanaswamy, CA
Tom Rutt, Fujitsu, Ltd.
Vikas Varma, Software AG
Yves Lafon, W3C/ERCIM
Bob Natale, MITRE Corp.
Fred Maciel, Hitachi, Ltd.
Jeff Mischkinsky, Oracle Corp.
Mark Little, Red Hat
Martin Chapman, Oracle Corp.
Paul Fremantle, WSO2
Paul Nolan, IBM
Prasad Yendluri, Software AG
Wu Chou, Avaya Communications
Fred Maciel, Hitachi, Ltd.
Martin Chapman, Oracle Corp.
Bob Freund, Hitachi, Ltd.
Gilbert Pilz, Oracle Corp.


<trackbot> Date: 16 February 2010

<trackbot> Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 16 February 2010

<scribe> SCRIBE: gpilz

agenda bashing

RESOLUTION: agenda approved

<Dug> 8306 is a good one too

new issues

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

approval of minutes from Feb 9th, 2010

RESOLUTION: minutes approved

issue 9032

<Dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Feb/0015.html

gil: describes proposal

bob: any probs with this proposal?

<Dug> s/will/MUST/ in transfer too

doug: there is a similar sentence in WS-T
... 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?

doug: (above)

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 next week
... 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 . . .

doug: 8306?

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

<Dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8306

ram: is there a proposal?

bob: yes

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 meeting)
... 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 list
... 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

asir: (agrees)

(all): misc. discussion of next F2F

asir: April 13-15th?

bob: tentatively
... April 13-15?
... acceptable?

(all): silence

RESOLTION: next F2F tentatively scheduled for April 13-15

meeting adjorned

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/02/24 14:41:54 $