WS-Resource Access WG distributed meeting

17 Mar 2009


See also: IRC log


Ashok Malhotra, Oracle Corp.
Asir Vedamuthu, Microsoft Corp.
Bob Freund, Hitachi, Ltd.
David Snelling, Fujitsu, Ltd.
Doug Davis, IBM
Geoff Bullen, Microsoft Corp.
Gilbert Pilz, Oracle Corp.
Katy Warr, IBM
Li Li, Avaya Communications
Mark Little, Red Hat
Sumeet Vij, Software AG
Tom Rutt, Fujitsu, Ltd.
Vikas Varma, Software AG
Wu Chou, Avaya Communications
Bob Natale, MITRE Corp.
Fred Maciel, Hitachi, Ltd.
Jeff Mischkinsky, Oracle Corp.
Prasad Yendluri, Software AG
Ram Jeyaraman, Microsoft Corp.
Ranga Reddy Makireddy, CA
Sreedhara Narayanaswamy, CA
Yves Lafon, W3C/ERCIM
Yves Lafon, W3C/ERCIM
Bob Freund, Hitachi, Ltd.
Sumeet Vij


<Bob> scribe: Sumeet Vij

<Bob> scribenick: Sumeet


RESOLUTION: minutes of f2f last week approved without objection

New Issues

Bob: Any objections to accepting new issues and assigning them to their reporters?

RESOLUTION: All new issues are accepted and will be assigned to their reporters w/o

Issues with Proposals

Issue-6666 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6666

Tom: asked Doug to clarify AbstractProperties

<dug> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wsrt.html#get

<gpilz> this also resolves 6681

RESOLUTION: 6666 resolved with the proposal contained in the description w/o

Gill: Issue 6681 might be resolved with the Resolution to 6666

Issue-6681 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6681

<Bob> Use InfoPath style notation

<dug> +1

<Bob> as in Issue-6666

<dug> [Body]/wse:Subscribe/wse:EndTo

<Bob> Geoff: This looks like an issue with the "*"

<dug> that's my understanding as well

<Bob> ... the idea is to expand all of the *'s with what they should be

<asir> what does [Body] mean? Infoset or XML Element?

<dug> its an abstract proprety

Asir: Wants clarification on the square brackets

<dug> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wsrt.html#conven

<Bob> Use pseudo-InfoPath style notation as in Issue-6666

<Bob> expand all of the *'s with what they should be

RESOLUTION: Issue 6681 resolved by using pseudo-InfoPath style notation as in Issue-6666 w/o

Issue 6431 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6431

<Bob> proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Mar/0081.html

Li: added clarifications for issue 6431

Geoff: Need more time to go over the proposal
... Wants clarification about Pause and Resume

<Bob> Geoff: Is queuing part of transport or is it part of eventing?

<Geoff> not sure we should add optional features to base spec

<Geoff> is it not something that should be in a higher level spec

<Wu> Wu: pause/resume is to control event delivery, not about queue

<Geoff> we are talking about composing with other specs, this seems to be another example of that

Ashok: Policy might be required to determine whether the endpoint supports it or not

<dug> +1 to that! (bob's comment)

Gill: Pause/Resume pertains more to queuing

<gpilz> pause/resume has two parts (a) an optimization of cancel/subscribe and (b) the idea that you have access to the Notifications that were transmitted inbetween the Pause/Resume

<gpilz> (b) starts to wander into queuing

<gpilz> (a) is premature

<gpilz> one could easily extend Subscribe/SubscribeResponse to indicate that additional Pause/Resume operations were in effect

<svij> Bob: Are folks proposing to close with no action?

<svij> Geoff: General sentiment is that the base level spec should be kept simple

<Bob> scribenick: svij

Wu: Pause/Resume as an option

<asir> :-)

<gpilz> +1 to Doug

<Bob> Dug: Folks questioned as to need for functionality at this time or considered it a premature optimisation

Doug: Whether this functionality is required, maybe this could be added later in a compasable fashion

<dug> its not about multiple specs, rather its more of a statement about whether this function is needed at this time

<Geoff> +1 to Bob about hating optionality

<Wu> We are fine with pause/resume as optional feature or put into Appendix to clearly indicate it.

<dug> LOL we should remove all xs:any's :-)

<Geoff> that is extensibility...

<Geoff> vey different

<Geoff> very

<asir> Different nation

<Wu> pause/resume has its critical applications, e.g. presence services, location servies, etc.

Bob: Straw poll on adding pause/resume functionality

Wu: In favor

<Ashok> We could mark it vNext

<gpilz> let's try to just answer the question that the Chair asked

<dug> There is a "LATER" field in bugzilla

Microsoft: Not in favor of adding this functionality to the base spec

Nobody else in favor of adding this now

<Geoff> if wu wants to work on a part 2 we are OK with that

Wu: Sees advantage in Pause/Resume functionality

<Geoff> we do not believe that at any time it implied that functionality like p/r would be in the base Eventing spec

<gpilz> if some organizations really need this, they should join this WG and make their opinions known

<Geoff> it was always envisaged that it would be part of a higher level spec

Bob: Asked whether this is a premature decision

Geoff: Is there a consensus on whether we need a Higher level specification

Bob: New Specifications should not be taken lightly
... What would be our definition of "later" mean? Effectively pushing the feature to "time indefinite"
... Suggests we should close with no action if the feature is not to apear in this spec
... We should take a vote on whether will "close with no action"

Asir: Bugzilla supports certain keywords like "futureConsideration"

<asir> it is "futureConsideration"

MSFT: abstain

<gpilz> Oracle: yes

Fujitsu: Yes

IBM: abstain

Avaya: No

SoftwareAG: abstain

<marklittle> Red Hat: Yes

RESOLUTION: Issue-6431 Closed with no action 4-Yes 1-No 3-Abstentions

Bob: I have marked the issue with futureConsideration

Issue 6687 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6687

RESOLUTION: Resolve Issue-6687 with proposal contained in Bugzilla w/o

Issue-6594 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6594

<Bob> proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0154.html

<asir> 6594 is only about Transfer

<Bob> Geoff: * adds the posibility of nothing + means there is at least one

<DaveS> +1

<Bob> ACTION: Dug to describe the text the covers the empty case in issue-6594 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Describe the text the covers the empty case in issue-6594 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-03-24].

<Geoff> we want to be clear that acceptance of a way forwards on this issue does not mean we accept transfer wrappers

Issue-6403 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6403

Geoff: Implications of policy implicitly defining WSDL

<asir> Tom ... i think we just started discussing here

<dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6403

<asir> there is a nested policy assertion

Tom: Raised a query about sub-assertions based on experience with WS-Addressing

dug: Enumeration operations are optional

Bob: Please check IRC now and make corrections/comments
... Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Dug to describe the text the covers the empty case in issue-6594 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.134 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/03/18 16:22:00 $