W3C

Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference

28 Jul 2009

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
+1.908.696.aaaa, +1.571.262.aabb, Bob_Freund, +91.98.49.99.aacc, [Microsoft], +984999aadd, +25625660aaee, Wu_Chou, Ashok_Malhotra, Dug, +1.408.642.aaff, Mark_Little, Tom_Rutt, +1.408.642.aagg, +984999aahh, +1.408.642.aaii
Regrets
Chair
Bob Freund
Scribe
Sreedhara Narayanaswamy

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 28 July 2009

<Bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jul/0060.html

<Bob> Scribe: Sreedhara Narayanaswamy

<Bob> scribenick: Sreed

Bob: Agenda accepted

RESOLUTION: Minutes of 2009-07-21 accepted w/o

Action Items

<Bob> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/tracker/actions/open

F2F preparation

Bob: Issue 6917 was the result of an external comment
... We need to address this issue and at least reach a directional agreement pretty soon
... Discussion of 6917 will be scheduled for the F2F

Li: Let's discuss the agenda of publication at the F2F

Bob: How are we doing on the frag proposal?

Geoff: Working on it will send it over the week

Bob: Need by Thursday for folks to see it before the meeting
... Any other items for the F2F?

New Issue-7127 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7127

Tom Rutt: Notification defintion discussing about the mechanism would be required

Tom Rutt: Proposed solution require Notification defintion which is the application content of the defintion, need discussion on this

RESOLUTON: Accepting New issue 7127 & Tom Rutt will be taking the ownership

gpilz: 6401 reference parameters information trying to work which is specific - the way description

Issue-6692 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6692

Geoff: Joint proposal - discussion IBM & Microsoft had which is based on the last F2F
... push mode is not currently specified in the spec, delivery element is still exists - original spec when push mode is undefined. Wording changes push/make connections which will be handled 6432

Dug: Notifications can be delivered

gpliz: It is not clear what asynchronous means

Bob: Asynchronous is a difficult term without a description of what it is asynchronous with respect to

<dug> I can live w/o "async" - same end result

<Bob> proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jul/att-0057/wseventing-6692-10.doc

Bob: Any objection to accepting the proposal?

<dug> here are the sentences in the spec that use "asynchronous"

<dug> "This specification defines only an asynchronous method of delivery for notifications from the event source to event sink. "

<dug> "The absence of any extensions to the wse:Delivery or wse:NotifyTo elements indicates that notifications should be asynchronously sent as SOAP messages to the endpoint described in lines (21-28). "

<dug> "When present this element indicates that notifications MUST be asynchronously sent to the EndpointReference identified by this element."

<dug> This specification defines only one method of delivery for notifications from the event source to event sink.

<dug> ??

<dug> This specification a method of delivery for notifications from the event source to the event sink.

<dug> This specification defines a method of delivery for notifications from the event source to the event sink.

<gpilz> This specification defines a method for delivering notifications from the event source to the event sink.

li: define is reference to the event - async some kind of i/p

<gpilz> This specification defines a method for transmitting notifications from the event source to the event sink.

<dug> maybe we should delete this sentence??

<dug> :-)

<Wu> This specification defines a subscribe/notify method ...

Bob: Wu what text you propose?

<dug> "This specification defines a method for transmitting notifications from the event source to the event sink through the inclusion of the wse:NotifyTo EPR."

<Wu> This specification defines a subscribe/notify method for transmitting notifications from the event source to the event sink.

<dug> "This specification defines a method for transmitting notifications from the event source to the event sink through the use of the wse:NotifyTo element."

dug: how we actually do it

<Geoff> +1 for doug

<Bob> "This specification defines a method for transmitting notifications from the event source to the event sink through the use of the wse:NotifyTo element."

<Bob> no objections

Bob: any objections to striking the word "asynchronous" in the other two sentences?

<Bob> no objections to the removal of asynchronously in the other two places

<asir> Vow!!

<asir> Certainly progress!

RESOLUTION: Resolve Issue-6692 as proposed in bugzilla with the amendments related to asynchronous above

<Bob> AI: chair to add modifications to bugzilla reflecting the three agreements above

Bob: Folks who are concerned about 6692-a b or c, which are place-holders for certain concerns, should open new issues to address them.

Issue-6432 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6432

Bob: new proposal is in the bugzilla

<gpilz> +1

Wu: suggest wording changes

<Ram> Proposal for 6432: "When the wse:NotifyTo element is used within the Delivery element it specifies the endpoint to which Notifications are sent. For delivery to addressable endpoints this is sufficient. However, for non-addressable endpoints some additional mechanisms are needed. A subscriber can choose to leverage the WS-MakeConnection] specification to enable delivery of Notifications to non-addressable endpoints."

Bob: Ram are you suggesting specific changes to the text in the proposal?
... Wu Are you supporting Ram's text?
... we might have to discuss and resolve this at the F2F

<Ram> Bob says: There needs to be two implementations for optional features. If not, those features will need to be marked at risk.

Asir: might not to test anything at all

Bob: We can discuss this next week

<Bob> N.B. both Oracle and IBM mentioned that they would be able to demonstrate implementations of eventing composed with MC during CR

Issue-6724 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6724

<li> geoff: where is the link to the proposal?

Geoff: Information with the subscription currently in the spec. Complexity of having two models how we can differentiate it.

Geoff

<dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jul/0079.html

dug: might be re-inventing transfer in this

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/08/05 13:44:04 $