Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference

22 Sep 2009


See also: IRC log


Alessio Soldano, Red Hat
Asir Vedamuthu, Microsoft Corp.
Bob Freund, Hitachi, Ltd.
David Snelling, Fujitsu, Ltd.
Doug Davis, IBM
Fred Maciel, Hitachi, Ltd.
Gilbert Pilz, Oracle Corp.
Katy Warr, IBM
Li Li, Avaya Communications
Ram Jeyaraman, Microsoft Corp.
Sreedhara Narayanaswamy, CA
Tom Rutt, Fujitsu, Ltd.
Vikas Varma, Software AG
Yves Lafon, W3C/ERCIM
Ashok Malhotra, Oracle Corp.
Bob Natale, MITRE Corp.
Jeff Mischkinsky, Oracle Corp.
Mark Little, Red Hat
Orit Levin, Microsoft Corp.
Paul Fremantle, WSO2
Paul Nolan, IBM
Prasad Yendluri, Software AG
Wu Chou, Avaya Communications
Ashok Malhotra, Oracle Corp.
Bob Freund, Hitachi, Ltd.
Li Li


<trackbot> Date: 22 September 2009

<Bob> scribe: Li Li

<Bob> scribenick: LI


agenda agreed

approval of minutes

RESOLUTION: minutes of 2009-09-15 approved

f2f next week

<Bob> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/43088/HursleyDinner/

bob: Please complete it by tomorrow
... discuss next f2f in santa clara

ram: publishe fpwd by friday?

yves: will try


AI reviews

bob: Is there anything that can't be done by the Hursley f2f?

asir: ask dug if it's possible to send out proposal this week

dug: i think so

asir: ai 94 is being worked on by me, we'll take over ai from geoff

katy: 61


<Yves> dug, mail sent (re AI on x-links)

<dug> thanks

ram: details not ready for f2f
... by the end of this week

New Issue-7678 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7698

RESOLUTION: issue-7678 opened

bob: any objection to the proposal in the issue?

ram: looks fine

<asoldano> fine to me

RESOLUTION: Issue-7678 resolved as proposed

Issue-7426 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7426

yves: iri is not used in xml namespace, as pointed out by asir

<Bob> proposal is to use IRI for everything but namespaces

bob: use iri in everything except namespace?

dug: ws-a bounced between IRI and URI
... concrete strings are URI but generic ones are IRI
... what is the pattern for us?

bob: use IRI for everything but namespace and literal strings

asir: URI is also IRI, we can do a global replacement

dug: i'm still confused
... why the exception?

<dug> The working group intends to update the value of the Web Services Eventing namespace URI each...

bob: use IRI to permit localization
... otherwise we stick to URI

dug: namespace URI -> URI, so it's not global change

asir: someone needs to make a line-by-line change

bob: we have to give either detail changes or instructions to editors

dug: i like line-by-line changes

<Yves> I can do this on friday

bob: prefer line-by-line changes

<Yves> ACTION: Yves to produce a line-by-line diff for issue 7426 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-105 - Produce a line-by-line diff for issue 7426 [on Yves Lafon - due 2009-09-29].


Issue-7478 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7478

<Bob> proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Sep/0027.html

gil: explains the proposal
... it is about negotiating durations
... it's simple and efficient

daves: subcription is cut down to yes/no
... more intelligent source can put hint in the response
... how to make response clear

ram: proposal is technical correct, but compatibility is an issue
... developers should code against failures
... subscriber should be able to negotiate in different situations
... we need to provide right guidance to developers
... this proposal doesn't help with practical issues

<asir> [Gil's voice is not clear on the phone

<Ram> Gil: Your voice quality is not audible.

<asoldano> the same here unfortunately

gil: in system integration, event sink needs to count on event source
... [not audible]

daves: incompatibilty 1: failure to provde feedback

incompatibilty 2: provide feedback in failure
...3: complicated protocol and policy
... gil's is in the middle ground
... optional framework for policy later on?

ram: need to deal with device comp. issue
... feedback from users on back comp. issues
... is not back comp. issue, rather to avoid mistakes by developers

bob: specific changes?

ram: i sent some response today, event source should decide duration,
... i can live with subscriber having an option to indicate hint

dug: there are cases subscriber can indicate a hint or not a hint
... can we have both, instead of just one?

<dug> bob I'd like to respond to what he just said

<gpilz> go ahead

ram: you are optimizing protocol to avoid unsubscribe
... what is broken?

gil: yield to dug

dug: lightweight situation can create/delete subscription at will,

but other situation this is expensive

scribe: so we need to indicate "i really want"

gil: device and enterprise people are talking across..
... we need to support both cases

daves: gil's proposal covers ram's concern by not puting duration in request

<gpilz> A Subscriber MAY indicate that it is willing to accept a Subscription with any expiration time by omitting this element from the Subscribe request.

ram: we're making leap of faith...

<gpilz> (the above is a part of the description of the optional /wse:Expirese element)

<DaveS> Ohh!?

<DaveS> Ooops I sat on the keyboard.

<dug> LOL

ram: flexiblity is needed to interop
... let's talk more usecases in the f2f
... i'd like to know what is your use cases...
... we shouldn't loose interop between device and enterprise worlds
... what's wrong with current spec?

<Bob> Asir, I hear hin well

<dug> there's also no guarantee that Renew will be accepted later on

gil: hint doesn't provide value to sink, if the time is cut off

<asir> we have difficulty hearing there is a lot of background noise

<DaveS> Dave agrees with Gil. A hint is the same as providing no duration at all.

gil: [in audible mostly]

dug: 2 issue with current spec: 1 cost of unsubscribe, 2 no guarantee on renew

<gpilz> katy what number do you use to dial into W3C?

dug: why isn't your requirement not supported by proposal

ram: i have the same question to dug
... current spec is not burdening event source.
... current spec works in many different environments

dug: which use cases are not supported?

ram: i'm lost at what you try to solve

dug: what use case not supported

ram: not about technical content of proposal
... but on what's goal of the proposal

bob: how would you modify it?

ram: i'll take another stab at it

bob: it's about deployment, correct?
... which line should be modified?

ram: though technically sound, but it doesn't help me

bob: what part cause you problem?

ram: client having two options is a problem
... having two parties making decision is difficult to code
... i'm having problem with duality

daves: proposal puts both subscriber and source in the driver seats

<dug> bob - ram can go first to answer dave

<dug> it might make my question moot

ram: giving dualities is a problem for developers
... cause developers to misuse API instead of coding with interactions

dug: all elements in subscribe are optional
... why this one expiry is different from the others?
... while all others can fault when not satisfied

ram: but there is negotiation between subscriber and source

bob: why is it different from unsupported filter

ram: others are black and white, this one is not

dug: please explain why they are different

ram: something negotiable whereas other are not
... current spec is flexible and interop

gil: where can we go, if nothing can be modified?

bob: strong objection?

ram: need more time

bob: it's long enough

asir: we should not close it now

bob: i asked many different ways

asir: we need to work with oracle

bob: what's wrong?
... we're not progressing

<DaveS> I really would like specfics before allowing more time.

<dug> I agree with Bob - I'm still confused as to what's wrong with the proposal

ram: let's spend time in f2f

<DaveS> What is broken and I am happy to see more time.

bob: let's focus on specifics
... objection or acceptance

ram: will work on it

bob: action to ram to work on the proposal for issue-7478

<scribe> ACTION: ram to work on proposal for the issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-ws-ra-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-106 - Work on proposal for the issue [on Ram Jeyaraman - due 2009-09-29].

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: ram to work on proposal for the issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-ws-ra-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Yves to produce a line-by-line diff for issue 7426 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/09/30 13:41:35 $