Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 30 March 2010

<Bob> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/chair-tools/scribelist.html

<Bob> scribe: Wu

Minutes of March 16 is approved.

Bob: last call WD will happen today or tomorrow depending web master.

Yves: it should happen quite soon

Bob: F2F schedule logistic information

Ram: it should come out very soon.

Bob: new issues

9266

<Dug_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Mar/att-0039/WS-Eventing-Section_9_marked_LC-dug.doc

Bob: issue 9266 is accepted w/o

Doug: it is a fairly minor edit to spec

RESOLUTION: Issue 9266 resolved with the proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Mar/att-0039/WS-Eventing-Section_9_marked_LC-dug.doc

9320

<Dug_> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9320

<Dug_> This specification does not mandate how events are serialized into

<Dug_> notification messages. Rather, within the Subscribe request message

<Dug_> a subscriber can specify a "Format" that indicates the set of rules

<Dug_> that MUST be followed when constructing notification messages.

RESOLUTION: Issue 9320 resolved as proposed

9321

<Dug_> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9321

Bob: the issue is accepted as a new issue 9321

9031

<Dug_> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9031-Davis

<Dug_> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9031

Ram: did some research on it, and I am fine with Dug's proposal

RESOLUTION: issue 9031 resolved as proposed

issue 9095

<Bob> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9095

Ram: I am fine with Dug's proposed
... comment #1 is fine

RESOLUTION: Issue 9095 resolveed with comment #1

Issue 8832: it will need more time and discuss in next meeting

Issue 8284 on WSDL version

Bob: need time frame to resolve this issue?

Ram: we are expecting in mid May to get down to this issue

Bob: how long for the WG to wait?

Ram: it is about three month.

Bob: Dependency on BP might affect our progress.

Gil: let's see what happens until what we progress

Bob: we discuss at F2F to find out which feature will be at risk
... there is plenty things to do at F2F
... There is a remaining issue 9250
... anybody needs more time to talk issue 9321
... there is a proposal for issue 9321

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9321

Gil: that does not particular bother me. If both are optional, then it is unclear.
... want to take a look of Dug's propoal

Dug: we need to address this issue from Format

<scribe> ACTION: discuss over the mailing list and progress it to resolution [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - discuss

Issue 9250

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9250

Dug: I have slight preference to put things in MEX and well comments

Ram: I am still researching this issue.
... SOAP version is part of binding

Dug: it is more for the case that wsdl is not available

Yves: if no wsdl availabe, then server decides

Ram: I need more time to make progress on this issue

<scribe> ACTION: discuss this issue in the next call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-ws-ra-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - discuss

Ram: issue 9087 is a reasonable question raised.
... we can say xml resouce with an xml representation

Bob: if you have an empty resource, what will be the return of "GET"

<Dug_> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wst.html#InvalidRepresentation

Bob: If the encoding and xml format is not acceptable, we define a fault.

<Dug_> If an implementation detects that the presented representation is invalid for the target resource, then the implementation MUST generate a wst:InvalidRepresentation fault.

<Dug_> so "is invalid" -> "is invalid or incompatible"

<Dug_> ?

Bob: resource defined in xml infoset, any thought about that?
... what is a better approach: constrain the def of resource, or we manipulate, ...

<Dug_> on the comment thing, people may just be forced to pass in the parent in some cases - not ideal but it can work.

8273

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8273

Gil: issue 8273 can touch all specs.

<Bob> propasal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Mar/0046.html

Gil: WS-E can discuss notification. You may check security at the subscription time, or check at per-notificaion basis.

Ram: I will take a look at it.

Katy: Event source integrity is important

Gil: In addition, it needs authentication, etc. as well.
... endpoint verification - event sink also needs to be protected.

<Dug_> the concept of a useful security section is mind blowing!

Bob: what is the plan?