See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 05 July 2011
<scribe> SCRIBE: gpilz
RESOLUTION: Agenda agreed
RESOLUTION: minutes approved
<trackbot> Sorry... adding notes to ISSUE-13016 failed, please let sysreq know about it
Gil: looks like a typo
Bob: issue accepted
Doug: it's already been fixed
Bob: any objection to just fixing this?
RESOLUTION: Doug's proposal accepted
<trackbot> Sorry... adding notes to ISSUE-13148 failed, please let sysreq know about it
Doug: Proposal is to just add 'REQUIRED'
RESOLUTION: proposal for Issue-13148 is accepted as proposed
<trackbot> Sorry... adding notes to ISSUE-13151 failed, please let sysreq know about it
Bob: any objections to opening this
... is the text in the spec correct?
Doug: yes the text is correct
RESOLUTION: Issue-13151 resolved as proposed
Bob: mismatch between namespace in WSDL and the URI of the location of the WSDL
Tom: Do we have a RDDL file for this stuff?
Doug: We do
Tom: It seems this person just needs to be educated (on the difference between the URI and the @targetNamespace)
(confusing dicsussion on possible changes to the RDDL file)
Doug: when you click on the namespace link, you get an HTML page that describes the namespace
Yves: the link to the WSDL is wrong -
we have that in the ED copy as well
... I can do the change
Doug: I don't mind doing it, but I need to know what the correct thing is
Yves: dated WSDL reference is wrogn
Doug: assuming we approve the docs,
the dated links all get updated again
... perhaps we could just tell this person that things are out of synch now but will come back into synch on the next publishing event
<Dug> birthing activity! ouch!
Bob: who is going to take care of this?
Bob: we need to respond back to
... who would like to do that?
... "we shall correct the RDDL file location at . . . when we publish our PR"
... Yves can you take care of this?
Bob: wondering why faults are not
declared in the portType's of the WSDLs (mex, eventing, etc.)
... we don't normally do this sort of thing
Doug: and we won't
Bob: something along the lines of "it has not been the custom to define faults in the portTypes of infrastructure specs like . . ."
Tom: is he talking about event notifications?
Bob: no, he's referring to the XSDs
Tom: we don't define any faults in our spec WSDLs?
Gil: if you define faults in your
WSDL they don't appear on the wire the way we say the should
... infrastructure faults versus application faults
Tom: we have a different mapping for our faults than that defined in WSDL
Gil: yes - no WS-* has ever used WSDL-defined faults for error handling
Bob: anyone to volunteer
Gil: I will
Bob: should I create pro-forma issues to track these
Yves: that would be best
Bob: look like we have met our
criteria for 2 interoperable implementations for each
... the exceptions are the metadata specifications (SOAP assertion and EventDescriptions)
... these don't have any direct, on-the wire tests associated with them
<Dug> 8 WS-SOAP Assertions & WS-Event Descriptions While this working group will not explicitly test the use of WS-Policy, this test scenario allows for the inclusion of the WS-SA and WS-EVD policy assertions to appear in the WSDL of the Tracker Service. In doing this the scenario is verifying that the assertions can successfully be included as part of the WSDL/Policy of a service.
Bob: have folks had a chance to take a look at the latest scenario doc?
Bob: is that adequate?
... is there anyone who finds it inadequate
(pause while Ram is updated on progress of meeting)
Bob: seems like we need to change the docs before we go to PR
Doug: will be done within the hour
Bob: seems unfair to ask people to
vote based on documents that they have never seen
... better to let everyone review the docs as they will appear for PR
... we've passed all of our exit criteria
... is everyone able to make a meeting on July 12th?
... and is that enough time?
Ram: a few questions?
... there hasn't been any substantive changes since the CR
... people may quibble with things like getting the machine readable artifacts to match with the text of the spec
... but does any member believe there have been substantive changes?
Ram: so all changes have been editorial?
Ram: assuming that is the case, if the candidate PR drafts are available - i think i may be able to be ready as early as the 12th
Bob: on most of the specs there have been no changes
Doug: i've been doing some spec
... a couple of typos in eventing and enumeration
Ram: when you send out the drafts, will you send out a diff-marked version relative to the PRs?
Yves: yes I can do that
Bob: we want to diff between the CR
and the proposed PR drafts
... those will be valuable when we do the progression anouncement
... Doug, once you have the materials ready - let Yves know
Doug: they are ready now
<Yves> I'll produce them tomorrow morning
Ram: I need roughly 3 days for
... should have them by next Tuesday
Bob: Yves, today or tomorrow would be
... then we can make the decision next week
... and get to the PR progression before August
Yves: have the diffs ready by my morning (your night)
Bob: Yves - how is this going?
Yves: I will slap Phillipe
Bob: does this need to be nailed down before we do PR
Yves: we do
Bob: tell Phillipe that we would prefer if we didn't end up waiting on the MIME type assignment