See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 08 December 2009
<Bob> scribenick: Li
bob: clarify last call issues can be resolved earlier
agenda agreed
RESOLUTION: minutes of 2009-12-01 approved
RESOLUTION: snapshots of 2009-11-17 approved and issues incorporated therein will be closed
bob: two options
asir: we need to look at the technical issues before making decisions
bob: need to make decision before LC
yves: changing behavior vs. changing
syntax for LC
... cannot change behavior for LC
ram: other group should give us issues to address
<scribe> ACTION: Bob to contact Frederick for issues? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]
ram: will investigate it for the next meeting
<scribe> ACTION: ram to investigate 8176 for the next meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-ws-ra-minutes.html#action02]
<dug> word doc: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Dec/att-0012/wsmex_sections_7_and_8_for_6463.doc
katy: describes the issue and proposal
asir: haven't review it yet, but
question is...
... does the proposal cover both examples
katy: wouldn't object to putting another example
asir: discuss it next week
dug: describes the issue and proposal
<dug> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/ws-mex/Dialects/ws-mex-all
dug: it's an editorial typo
<asir> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Nov/0056.html
asir: agree it's a typo but also has
non-editorial consequence
... the constraint at the table needs to be captured somehow
dug: needs proposed text to proceed
<scribe> ACTION: dug to refine proposal for 8200 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-ws-ra-minutes.html#action03]
asir and dug to clarify this issue from ashok
asir: looks ok
bob: any objection to resolving it?
RESOLUTION: Issue-8227 is resolved as proposed
bob: anybody speaking for gil?
ram: should say MUST generate and MAY transmit
dug: should make this global for all specs
<scribe> ACTION: ram to define "generate fault" for 8283 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-ws-ra-minutes.html#action04]
bob: any objection to the proposal?
RESOLUTION: Issue-8287 resolved as proposed
<dug> Filtering occurs prior to any formatting of notification messages.
<dug> Context Node: the root of the event XML.
dug: section 2.3 clarifies the issue already
ram: cwna sounds good
bob: issue cwna but needs response to reviewer
<scribe> ACTION: dug to respond to issue 8323 reviewer and cc comments list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-ws-ra-minutes.html#action05]
bob: any objection?
dug: yes
... confused about the first child element
... need to discuss with gil
dug: describes the issue
bob: any objection?
ram: why need this for enumeration?
dug: same reason for ws-e, as enum items can be empty as well
ram: it's different and will talk with dug in detail
dug: describes the issue
... and proposes option 1
ram: what is the reason for option 1?
dug: explain the reason for resource limited devices
ram: looks fine
RESOLUTION: Issue-8159 resolved with proposal 1
dug: describes the issue
ram: looks good
RESOLUTION: Issue-8161 resolved as proposed
dug: should be consistent with ws-e
RESOLUTION: Issue-8305 resolved as proposed
dug: describe the issue
ram: have question
... will do more research
dug: describes the issue
ram: fine with it
RESOLUTION: Issue-8194 resolved as proposed
dug: describes the issue
... proposed to remove the sentence
RESOLUTION: Issue-8195 resolved as proposed
dug: resolved already
dug/ram: agree in general but needs concrete text
<scribe> ACTION: gil to propose concrete text for 8292 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-ws-ra-minutes.html#action06]
dug: what are the differences between two versions of wsdl?
ram: one is a profile of wsdl 1.1
with restrictions
... it's not clear how the profile is applicable to other use
cases
asir: bp 1.1 limits wsdl to soap 1.1
and http, not other soap or transports
... not good to take a blank restriction on wsdl 1.1
wu: agree with asir, we should
support both bp 1.1 and wsdl 1.1
... suggest cwna
dug: does bp 1.1 limit binding to http only?
ram: is checking bp 1.1
tom: wsdl 1.1 schema is fixed by bp
1.1 schemas
... need to consider the diff on schemas before closing it
asir: can implementations be ws-ra
and bp compliant as well?
... there is no blocking for people to implement ws-ra and bp
1.1
bob: is there any wsdl in ws-ra that violates bp 1.1?
dug: profiling wsdl may be too
restrictive while fixing it is ok
... ok with cwna after talking with gil
<Wu> wu: ok with cwna
<asir> Asir: ok with CWNA
<scribe> ACTION: dug to take comments for cwna to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-ws-ra-minutes.html#action07]
ram: discuss it offline
wu: polling many events is ok while
polling for one may be overkill
... could suggest using getstatus instead of mc polling
dug: subscription end provides more info than getstatus
wu: subscription end polling creates a lot overhead
dug: subscription end poll is the same poll for other events
wu: endto is different from notifyto by spec, as the default of endto is "not to send"
dug: sharing EPR is an implementation
choice
... spec needs to give choices to implementations
wu: we need to coordinate endto and
notifyto
... or treat no-addressable endto as not usable
<scribe> ACTION: dug to modify proposal to address concerns for 8164 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/08-ws-ra-minutes.html#action08]
<Ram> Wordsmithing: "Likewise, the wse:EndTo element MAY choose to supportmechanisms, such as the [WS-MakeConnection] specification, to enable delivery of the SubscriptionEnd message from the Subscription Manager."
bob: adjourn 40 sec early
bye