Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference

17 Nov 2009


See also: IRC log


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


<trackbot> Date: 17 November 2009

<Bob> scribenick: Vikas

Dug: Request to defer 6463.

<scribe> AGENDA: Accepted within the working group

RESOLUTION: The minutes from 2009-11-05/06 meeting has been approved without objection.

Upcoming meetings.

Bob: Meeting of 11/24 and 12/22 is canceled without objection
... Meeting of 12/29 is also canceled without objection.

New Issue Moratorium

Bob: Clarify, if an issue shows up after 11/13, will look at it after LC.

New Issues



<dug> what about just pointing to: http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurity/SecurityChallenges-1.0-errata-2006-08-14.html

Bob: Any objection to make it LC issue?

<DaveS> Dave S Joins the phone call.

Dug/Gil: agrees to make it LC issue.

Bob: 8273 is placed in LC issue.

Issue-8280 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8280

<dug> s/MUST understand/MUST support/

RESOLUTION: 8280 resolved as proposed

Issue-8284 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8284

Bob: Any objection to make 8284 as possibly substantive issue. (yes, not opened for now, need time to consider)

Issue-8181 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8181

Bob: Any objection to accept 8181 as new issue

Asir: Asking for more details before accepting it

<asir> Yeah, but what if members don't understand the issue

Tom: The confusion highlighted in the issue need to be clarified...and looks a valid issue.

Bob: 8181 accepted and is placed in current issue category

Issue-8182 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8182

<asir> Recommend that issue openers provide justification rather than creating placeholders

Bob: 8182 accepted and is placed in current issue category

Issue-8185 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8185

Bob: 8185 accepted as LC issue without objection

Issue-8192 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8192

Bob: 8192 accepted as current issue without objection


Bob: 8191 is accepted without objection.

Issue-8193 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8193

Bob: 8193 accepted as LC issue without objection

Issue-8194 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8194

Bob: 8194 accepted as current issue

Issue-8195 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8195

<Yves> scribenick Vikas1

<Bob> scribenick: Vikas1

Asir: Asking for more substantive description on the issue.

<asir2> XML Schema, XQuery and XSLT uses XPath

<asir2> they have not bumped into these issues

Bob: 8195 accepted as current issue

Issue-8231 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8231

Bob: 8231 closed as duplicate of 8194

Issue-8257 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8257

Bob: 8257 accepted as LC issue

Issue-8258 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8258

Bob: 8258 accepted as LC issue

Issue-8164 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8164

Dug: Editorial which requires some discussion, suggest it as a current issue.

Bob: 8164 accepted as current issue

Issue-8165 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8165

Bob: 8165 accepted as LC issue

Issue-8176 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8176

Dug: suggest pre-LC

Bob: 8176 not opened (need time to consider)

Issue-8271 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8271

Gil: Suggest it as a current issue, which requires some discusison.

Wu: Suggest it as LC

<asir2> should we document that this issue is limited to fixing RFC terms?

<dug> we can't make this determination until we see the proposal

<dug> I wasn't done

<asir2> What I am hearing is that the issue description is incomplete and is a place holder for future issues

<asir2> 2119 scan sounds good

<asir2> Did Bob invent the phrase '2119 scan'?

Bob: 8271 accepted as current issue

<scribe> scribenick: Vikas1

Issue-8274 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8274

RESOLUTION: Issue-8274 Closed with no action

Issue-8275 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8275

Gil: LC

Dug: substantive

Bob: 8275 accepted as current issue

Issue-8276 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8276

RESOLUTION: 8276 resolved with current proposal

Issue-8277 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8277

RESOLUTION: 8277 resolved with current proposal

Issue-8281 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8281

Bob: 8281 accepted as current issue

Issue-8283 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8283

Bob: 8283 accepted as current issue

Issue-8285 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8285

Issue-8286 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8286

Bob: 8286 accepted as current issue

Issue-8287 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

Bob: accepted as LC issue

Issue-8288 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8288

Bob: 8288 accepted as current issue

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/12/03 14:38:11 $