See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 15 June 2010
<Bob> scribe: Ashok
<scribe> scribenick: Ashok
RESOLUTION: Minutes of 2010-06-08 approved w/o
Bob: Any objections?
RESOLUTION: Soap Assertions to be published as last call
Bob: How long should last call be? It
is a very short document.
... 3 or 4 weeks
RESOLUTION: No objections to a 3 week Last Call.
Bob: Who will volunteer to write abstracts?
Doug: I'll take a stab at it
<dug> ACTION: Doug to write up some abstracts [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/15-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-166 - Write up some abstracts [on Doug Davis - due 2010-06-22].
1-Issue-9610 Eventing: Support WS-Management's heartbeat events http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9610 -wsman
TomRutt: Simplify d ... always send msg at regular intervals
WuChou: Using count may not good idea
TomRutt: Agrees with Wu
Rick: We would like to withdraw
... WS-Man would like to use it's existing mechanism
... also remove GetStatus Verify option
Doug: Proposal is worthy of consideration for a primer ... later
TomRutt: We do not need to remove what we have or not add a more general feature
Gil: Keep alive is worse than
... increases shared state by a lot
Rick: The keep-alive uses a maximum
interval. If you implement as regular heartbeat the max interval
... can be implemented by alarm clock
... no need to keep distributed state
<dug> +1 to cwna and remove
Bob: Proposal to CNA and remove ...
... remove verify
TomRutt: Lets not take away what we have ... meets a general need
Bob: Do you want option e rather than f?
Doug: Disagrees. No need for what we added. That was for WS-Man. Will cause confusion
<Bob> ok, lets pick one
<Bob> e or f
Doug: Maybe we Doug, Can add later
<MartinC> who is going to implement getstatus?
Bob: We pick f
RESOLUTION: Issue 9610 is resolved by removing the verify feature and reverting to original state
<Bob> proposal at http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=887
2-Issue-9609 Enum: Support WS-Management's optimization of Enumerations with small result sets http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9609 -wsman proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jun/0006.html and in the bug list
TomRutt: Any changes to response in existing spec?
Doug: Looks like a large premature
... prefer to make pull an explicit enumerate
Bob: This is what we agreed to
TomRutt: Then why do we need enumerate
Doug: You would have a choice on the pull
Gil: Can we change to pull-enumerate?
Bob: Let's leave issue of the name aside to the time being
<dug> I'd be willing to writeup the proposal
Bob: would this meet your needs ...
first pull alsways enumerate
... Can you write the proposal?
Li: Explains issue
Wu: make only subscribe/unsubscribe as manadtory all else optional
Doug: Should not get rid of
... Other mechanisms are not described in the spec
... defends GetStatus
... cost is negligible
Gil: Impl cost of GetStatus is
... optional features in the spec are bad
... Support GetStatus
... GetStatus is fundamental
Bob: So we agree we can drop Renew
Doug: I don't think Renew is that critical but easy to implement
<Tom_Rutt> +1 to dug on keeping renew
Bob: You want to keep the whole set
Wu: Originally Renew and GetStatus were optional
Bob: Any objection toclosing with no action
Wu: We would like only 2 operations subscribe/unsubscribe
TomRutt: Optionality is evil
<gpilz> +1 to Tom
<dug> +1 to tom
TomRutt: cost to implement is very low
objections. Issue 9781 closed with no action
... Issue 9781 closed with no action
Ram: There will a proposal soon.