00:00:04 Arun is working on this. Postponed to later con-call. 00:00:34 Hugo will forward Arun's e-mail to the list 00:01:02 Issue 35 00:01:15 Fixed action URI for faults 00:02:03 we previously decided to extend the solution for issue 34 to cover faults aswell 00:02:12 Jonathn walks through his proposal 00:02:18 dorchard has joined #ws-addr 00:03:03 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0067.html 00:03:11 Jonathan: For WSDL 1.1 I tried to extend what we have for 'normal' messages to cover faults 00:03:58 Jonathan: It's fairly straightforward. Faults have a name attribute. Might be some edge cases if 'Fault' appears in the operation name itself. 00:04:30 Jonathan: For WSDL 2.0 it's a little harder. Faults have changed between WSDL 1.1 and 2.0 00:04:46 Jonathan: We need to decide which level we want to indicate the faults at. 00:05:14 Jonathan: Can point to types of fault and/or specific faults. 00:05:20 Jonathan: Both seem useful. 00:05:34 Marc: How does it relate to input/output messages 00:05:42 Glen: It's a type/instance relationship 00:06:03 Jonathan: For faults maybe the default action should use the fault type ( rather than the fault instance ) 00:06:57 Jonathan: Proposal describes actions for both kinds of fault reference 00:07:52 Jonathan: But it gets very nasty syntactically when refering to specific faults ( rather than fault types ) because fault names are QNames 00:09:18 Jonathan: The heart of the issue is not what the exact syntax is but whether we want the *default* value to vary per fault. 00:09:37 Jonathan: Not clear where to draw the 80/20 line 00:10:01 Marc: So don't define any defaults? 00:10:35 Jonathan: NO, we should define a default that meets the 80/20 case. But if non of the solutions meet 80/20 then we should shy away from last solution due to ugly syntax 00:11:19 Greg: Do you need to include the namespace in the last case? 00:11:26 yinleng has joined #ws-addr 00:11:36 Marc: Could define multiple faults with the same local name but different namespaces 00:11:43 Greg: Seems like a pretty rare case. 00:12:36 Greg: Could omit the escaped namespace if it's the same as the targetnamespace 00:12:50 Paco: Solution doesn't follow the same pattern as WSDL 1.1 00:13:13 Paco: Highlights that faults are handled differently in WSDL 2.0 00:15:14 MarkN: Where are we leaning? 00:15:29 Marc: Seems like the type based one is cleanest for WSDL 2.0 00:16:55 Jonathan: Should we accept the [target namespace]/[interface name]/[fault name]Fault proposal for WSDL 2.0 00:17:19 MarkN: Proposal on the table is to accept WSDL 1.1 proposal as is and accept the [target namespace]/[interface name]/[fault name]Fault proposal for WSDL 2.0 00:20:08 Scribe; We seem to now be arguing about where the 80/20 cut is 00:20:18 Gudge: My 80 is to have a fixed default for faults. 00:20:51 MarkN: Two options are a) leave as-is with fixed *default* action for faults 00:21:04 mlpeel has joined #ws-addr 00:21:12 b) use the proposal from jonathan and accept WSDL 1.1 proposal as is and accept the [target namespace]/[interface name]/[fault name]Fault proposal for WSDL 2.0 00:21:56 +1 for b 00:21:57 anish has joined #ws-addr 00:22:02 +1 for b 00:22:21 majority prefer b 00:22:34 (8 for b, 3 for a) 00:22:50 No objection to accepting b) as resolution for issue 35 00:22:54 Issue 35 is so closed 00:23:07 How closed is it? 00:23:28 It's so closed, you won't believe how closed it is ;-) 00:23:53 MarkN: Jonathan raised another issue which is that you can't use / as a delimiter in urns 00:24:46 Jonathan: Some people use URNs for targetNamespace. Default algorithm would result in an illegal URN. 00:24:48 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0068.html 00:25:23 Jonathan: We could just note it in the spec and tell people they have to provide explicit action values if they have URN based targetNamespace 00:25:57 Jonathan: Or we could re-do the algorithm using a delimiter other than / that works in both URLs and URNs 00:26:28 Jonathan: Or we could define two algorithms, one for URL based targetNamespace and one for URN based targetNamespace 00:27:04 MarkN: How far do we go? mailto has similar problems... 00:27:19 Jonathan: But hopefully we wouldn't get mailto in a targetNamespace 00:29:40 MarkN: Do we want to include URNs in our default action algorithm. 00:33:10 Yin-Leng: Do we need to consider IRIs 00:35:42 ACTION: Editors to add IRI boilerplate a la SOAP/MTOM to relevant specs 00:36:07 bob has joined #ws-addr 00:36:22 Not much interest in option a) (Just say it doesn't work for URNs) 00:37:15 People generally in favour of Jonathan's proposal c) (Adjust default algorithm to work differently for URLs/URNs) 00:38:20 Still need to add a note that if you have a URI outside of heirarchical/URNs then you must specify explicit action values 00:39:41 ACTION: Jonathan to make a proposal based around option c). Due 2005-01-23. 00:42:05 Greg: What is the action for the faults defined in Section 3? 00:42:14 Jonathan: I'll include that in my proposal. 00:42:37 Issue 25 00:46:29 When actions collide 00:47:02 Gudge: I've not started discussion of this but in the research I have done I've not noticed any cases where two (or more ) actions are needed 00:47:16 Some discussion of protocols/actions/specs 00:48:11 MarkN: Two directions. Clarify that there is exactly one action and that protocol designers need to take this into account. Or allow multiple actions and deal with complexity thereof. 00:48:45 General feeling seems to lean towards former 00:49:30 ACTION: Gudge to make a concrete proposal around clarifying there is exactly one action and protocol designers need to deal with that. 00:49:49 ACTION 11 = Gudge to make a concrete proposal around clarifying there is exactly one action and protocol designers need to deal with that. Due 2005-01-18, noon. 00:50:06 bob has left #ws-addr 00:50:17 We are in recess for lunch. Resume at 12:50 sharp. 00:51:30 -Hugo 00:51:31 -Hugo 00:51:40 -Mark_Peel 00:51:41 WS_DescWG(f2f)4:00PM has ended 00:51:43 Attendees were Mark_Peel, Melbourne, Hugo 00:51:44 TomJ has left #ws-addr 00:54:02 scribe has joined #ws-addr 01:50:58 Zakim, this is WS 01:50:58 ok, hugo; that matches WS_DescWG(f2f)4:00PM 01:50:59 +Hugo 01:51:10 Zakim, call Hugo-Bos 01:51:10 ok, hugo; the call is being made 01:51:11 +Hugo 01:51:31 -Hugo 01:51:48 -Hugo 01:51:50 WS_DescWG(f2f)4:00PM has ended 01:51:51 Attendees were Hugo 01:52:08 Zakim, this is WS 01:52:08 ok, hugo; that matches WS_DescWG(f2f)4:00PM 01:52:12 +Hugo 01:52:17 Zakim, Hugo is Hugo.Haas 01:52:17 +Hugo.Haas; got it 01:52:29 Zakim, call hugo-bos 01:52:29 ok, hugo; the call is being made 01:52:30 +Hugo 01:53:19 -Hugo 01:53:20 Zakim, call hugo-bos 01:53:20 ok, hugo; the call is being made 01:53:21 +Hugo 01:54:17 -Hugo 01:54:24 Zakim, call hugo-bos 01:54:24 ok, hugo; the call is being made 01:54:25 +Hugo 01:54:34 -Hugo 01:54:36 Zakim, call hugo-bos 01:54:36 ok, hugo; the call is being made 01:54:37 -Hugo.Haas 01:54:38 +Hugo.Haas 01:54:39 +Hugo 01:54:51 dorchard has joined #ws-addr 01:55:03 mnot has joined #ws-addr 01:55:06 zakim, who is here? 01:55:06 On the phone I see Hugo.Haas, Hugo 01:55:07 On IRC I see mnot, dorchard, scribe, anish, RRSAgent, Zakim, hugo 01:55:38 Marsh has joined #ws-addr 01:55:58 Zakim, who's on the phone 01:55:58 I don't understand 'who's on the phone', Marsh 01:56:01 Zakim, who's on the phone? 01:56:01 On the phone I see Hugo.Haas, Hugo 01:56:12 GregT has joined #ws-addr 01:57:51 Scribe: Marsh 02:00:59 Topic: i038 Message addressing properties 02:01:02 GlenD has joined #ws-addr 02:01:17 State of affairs: two parts, Marc to incorporate changes into the doc (done) 02:01:34 Paco to come up with some language to indicate the scope isn't constrained. 02:01:48 ... we've been reviewing the text. Any comments? 02:01:56 pauld has joined #ws-addr 02:01:58 s/Paco to/... Paco to/ 02:02:12 s/State of/Marc: State of/ 02:02:25 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0012.html 02:02:37 [uri to Paco's part of the proposal] 02:02:41 yinleng has joined #ws-addr 02:02:46 jeffm has joined #ws-addr 02:02:56 http://www.w3.org/mid/OFE5D7FE37.096777A5-ON85256F80.006CFB75-85256F80.00741BF8@us.ibm.com 02:03:22 Paco: Purpose is to state that the contract under which the exchange happens defines the scope. 02:03:23 stevewinkler has joined #ws-addr 02:03:25 marc has joined #ws-addr 02:03:30 ... Might be WSDL, might be something else. 02:03:42 ... I added some sentences to the core doc (see proposal). 02:03:57 bob has joined #ws-addr 02:04:25 TRutt has joined #ws-addr 02:04:32 ... These should capture what we talked about last time. 02:04:59 Marc: So WS-A has a different concept of request-response than SOAP, WSDL, whatever. 02:05:24 Paco: Not really, the spec is trying to recognize all the situations where a request might be returned. 02:05:38 s/Marc/Mark/ 02:06:06 Anish: How does this relate to i038? WS-A doesn't define the scope? 02:06:32 Paco: Concluded in Redmond that it's clear what the scope when you're using WSDL, but there might be other cases. 02:07:04 Gudge: WSDL might define a scope, but it's not necessaritly the limiting scope. 02:07:17 Mark: People seem comfortable. 02:07:47 Marc: My part is already in the draft. 02:07:49 Paco has joined #ws-addr 02:08:21 Mark: Anyone object to closing the issues by accepting the proposals? 02:08:39 RESOLUTION: i038 closed with accepting the proposals. 02:08:55 Editors still need to incorporate Paco's words. 02:09:32 Topic: i006: Message property optionality. 02:09:43 Mark: State of affairs: parts ii and iii have been withdrawn. 02:11:38 ... Part i remains: omission of is semantically equivalent to inclusion with the anonymous value. 02:11:56 Anish: What does it mean if the intermediary removes . Default to anonymous? 02:12:09 Marc: Yes, but there's another issue on the processing model which might cover that. 02:13:01 Mark: It's hard to infer mustUnderstand="true" by default in the SOAP processing model. 02:13:40 Glen: Better way to formulate the desire. Instead of saying it's as if the fictitious header exists, say that the property gets the value. 02:15:03 Gudge: Is there an issue with signing something that isn't there>? 02:15:40 Glen: Message integrity is a separate set of issues. 02:16:37 Straw poll on accepting the proposal: 02:16:43 Good idea: 5 02:16:53 Bad idea: 4 02:16:57 Unsure: 4 02:17:50 Mark: 3 way split, where do we go? 02:18:43 Glen: WSDL says here's the endpoint, it's my business to know who I am. Not really much need for a separate To address. 02:18:51 ... would mostly be anonymous. 02:19:16 Paco: Like having a deterministic shape of the message. 02:21:48 Steve: It is nice to see the presence of this kind of information in the message so you can infer the MEP. 02:22:02 ... You can draw some conclusions by the presence of anonymous. 02:23:13 Paul: Message might go through HTTP, and then continue beyond that realm. 02:23:26 Glen: Responsability of the gateway to make sure the continued message has what it needs. 02:23:46 Paul: No, you don't want to present the back end to the client. 02:23:56 Glen: When is it OK for the front end to close the socket? 02:24:28 Paul: I'm trying to see the problem we're trying to solve here. 02:25:00 Glen: Some stuff involves the context around the transport. Can't just take the XML and drop it in a pipe. 02:26:29 Gudge: Optimization is so tiny. Minimal soap message is 25% savings. Any real case will be less. 02:26:51 ... significantly less, I'd guess single digits or a fraction. 02:27:00 Glen: What's the harm? 02:27:16 Paul: Processing gets more complicated, to infer the default. 02:28:18 Glen: Minimal devices might be looking at ways to save any single thing. 02:28:30 Marc: Optimizing an incredibly common case, SOAP over HTTP. 02:28:48 Tony: Easy to misspell the URI too, defaulting removes potential erros. 02:28:55 s/erros/errors/ 02:31:36 Tony: Why not allow omission, or an empty element (both types of optimization) 02:31:42 Gudge: Empty string allowed? 02:31:48 Marc: By anyUri at least. 02:32:04 Glen: What are the benefits of being explicit? 02:32:49 Steve: If people are trying to draw conclusions from the presence of , we need to describe that. 02:33:04 Glen: We are in the defaulting proposal by defining what omission is equivalent. 02:33:40 Mark: Can I tell ws-a is in use by looking for ? 02:33:52 Gudge: Can't write a nice filter (e.g. XPath) if it's missing. 02:34:03 Jon: Action is always present. 02:35:17 Paul: Wondering about anonymous semantics on the back channel. 02:35:30 Gudge: Defined by the binding (SOAP -> use response channel) 02:36:03 Glen: Many cases where you don't need to say where the response is going - it's implied by the transport. 02:36:36 Mark: Anybody changing their position? 02:36:55 Greg goes from undecided to against. 02:37:27 Tony: Blank might mean something different than anonymous. 02:37:40 Gudge: Then we'd define a new URI. 02:37:50 Mark: Let's do the straw poll again. 02:38:03 Good idea: 8 02:38:29 hugo, use IRC 02:38:41 Redo: 02:38:45 Good idea: 9 02:38:55 s/9/10/ 02:39:02 Bad idea: 5 02:39:21 Undecided/don't care: 1 02:40:59 Mark: Omission vs. allowing an empty value? 02:41:49 Glen: Could do both value and omitting. 02:42:00 Gudge: Empty value is gross when defaulting values from a schema. 02:42:38 Marc: What about xml:base and an empty URI? 02:42:51 Mark: People are shying away from omission of the value. 02:43:52 Glen: For those constrained scenarios it's nice not to have to process something that might not vary. 02:44:03 Mark: Anyone going to lie down in the road? 02:44:07 [nobody] 02:44:32 ACTION: Marc to revise proposal. 02:44:43 ... by end of week. 02:45:11 Mark: We'll try to close this next week unless somebody finds a need to lie in the road. 02:45:40 Topic: i017: Purpose of the action property. 02:46:12 Anish: Two subissues. 02:46:26 ... First is whether we need wsa:Action. That's been resolved. 02:46:40 ... Second is what is the relation to the Operation Name requirement. 02:47:00 ... If the Action is required to be distinct, WS-A will satisfy Operation Name requirement. 02:47:18 ... I sent two options: 02:47:28 a) make it required to be distinct. 02:47:40 b) add an extension to indicate when it's satisfied. 02:51:15 Anish: I asked for examples of when @wsa:action would not be distinct within a WSDL. 02:51:37 ... Chris Ferris gave WS-RM as an example, where the actions are specified as non-distinct. 02:51:43 ... Not clear how that relates to WSDL. 02:52:23 Paco: Operation Name Mapping requirement allows you to identify at the operation level. 02:52:39 Glen: We've been talking about making it a Message Mapping requirement. 02:54:04 Anish: WSDL 2.0 is per operation-direction (e.g. only ins for in-out operations) 02:56:14 Mark: Does anybody think it should be required to be distinct? 02:56:18 [Nobody] 02:58:12 Marsh: By inspection you can see that action values are distinct. 03:00:44 Anish: Advantage of the marker is a clear assertion that this is the way operations are distinguished. 03:03:51 Marsh: Minimal thing we'd need to do is say, when , and actions are unique (and they are by default), the Operation Name Mapping requirement is satisfied. 03:04:52 Anish: We should define a marker saying this is the case. (walks though his proposal) 03:05:11 Glen: Probably want to put it in your service, not the interface. 03:05:28 ... ref Tim E's mail. 03:05:36 http://www.w3.org/mid/41D9F5C4.6080402@oracle.com 03:13:12 [Discussion about whether WSDL requires a marker of possible ways to dispatch, or t 03:13:20 ... "the" way to dispatch. 03:14:11 Mark: Summary: Action is not required to be distinct. Rest of the issue pushed on the stack until WSDL worries the bone a bit more. 03:15:09 Topic: i007: Processing model of headers. 03:15:35 s/i007: Processing model of headers/i021: WSDL extension for addressing/ 03:15:58 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0058.html 03:17:18 Hugo walks us through his proposal. 03:17:45 Hugo: Talked a lot about syntax at last FTF. We need to talk more about what features we need to describe. 03:18:08 ... Anish and I took the message properties and tried to decide which should be described, and at what level. 03:19:42 ... [destination] is identical to the address of the endpoint. 03:21:17 ... [action] same @wsoap:action property, which is going on interface/operation. There's an issue with the granularity. 03:21:57 ... [relationship] would be nice to annotate in the WSDL. 03:22:48 ... [refProps] is a property of an endpoint, but there is a relationship to issue 20 here. 03:23:25 ... [refParams] appear to be message specific. 03:23:34 ... Scoping rules would need to be defined. 03:23:34 q+ 03:25:50 Anish: We might want to indicate that a WS-A-supporting service might not use the WSDL MEP mapping. Indicate separately that WS-A support and WS-A support of the WSDL MEP mappings. 03:26:21 Paco: our current mappings derive directly into the core. 03:26:33 Anish: Is that true of WSDL 2.0? 03:27:28 Marc: If I have an out-in MEP, doesn't that allow me to know what the source, reply, or fault endpoint is? 03:28:03 ... You can potentially infer the source from the WSDL. 03:28:32 Anish: Are you assuming soap:address is the same as [destination]? 03:29:07 Marc: You could specify the source, or reply endpoint, for an output message. The service can fix those since it creates them. 03:29:56 Anish: So [messageID] is the only one that's truly runtime only? 03:29:58 Marc; Yes. 03:30:05 s/Marc;/Marc:/ 03:30:26 Mark: What about inheritance mechanism? 03:31:06 Anish: Not really closed on that. I was thinking refP's could be specified at the interface level, plus more at the service level. 03:31:26 Anish: Hugo thought somewhat differently. 03:32:15 Hugo: Was thinking it more like features and properties. A property may be changed by a more specific declarations. 03:32:46 stevewinkler has joined #ws-addr 03:33:04 ... Is the nature of properties a bag we throw things in? Or do we want to override them? 03:33:15 s/override/override or replace/ 03:33:29 Paco: What's the use case for putting a refP in WSDL? 03:34:17 ... These are like an EPR that everyone can start with, which may evolve. 03:34:43 ... These are mostly dynamic, why would we do this? Just for the initial interaction? 03:34:51 ack marc 03:34:51 q+ 03:34:54 ack hugo 03:34:55 hugo, you wanted to talk about why to put RefP's in WSDL 03:35:28 Hugo: The use case is when you require your client to send a set of headers, you need to put it in the WSDL. 03:35:52 ... The underlying question is what is the difference between a refParam and a refProp. 03:36:39 dorchard has joined #ws-addr 03:36:52 ... What's the difference between this and the AD feature? 03:38:37 Glen: AD allows you to put in headers. They are annotated with an attribute. Discourage people from using this for infrastructure-level stuff. 03:39:50 ... Both of these are ways to put in headers. 03:41:17 q? 03:42:11 ack anish 03:42:33 Marsh: Other difference is that an app must understand the namespace of the AD header. WS-A is opaque. 03:44:02 Hugo: If they are needed to interact with an endpoint, they should be in the WSDL. It would be nice to be able to say that the WSDL AD headers are really WS-A refp's. 03:44:11 I could imagine putting an EPR inside a wsdl:port 03:44:57 Paco: Slightly difference to put in fixed headers than AD provides. 03:45:01 either instead of or in additon to a soap:address element ( probably instead of ) 03:45:41 ... Two parts to refP's: they cause headers to be put in. You can infer and EPR from the WSDL. 03:46:17 ... You could make the port and an EPR much closer. 03:46:34 Glen: Some interesting stuff there. 03:47:49 ... One tricky issue: why do we need two syntaxes? If refP's are easily used as WSDL extensions, how does that relate to the meaning of refP's in WS-A? 03:49:05 Anish: [relationship]: You may want to relationship QName, but not the message id. 03:49:43 ... Schema doesn't solve all your problems for headers, it's hard to fix complex types. 03:50:37 Paco: In the simplest case, we need to say WS-A is in use, static properties map to dynamic. Next level is some fine-grained control. 03:51:18 Mark: What are the semantics of the extension? Where can it go. 03:51:36 Paco: We already know some things will map. 03:52:47 Mark: Like to get some volunteers for fleshing out the part. 03:53:50 Hugo: Relationship between and the unique action marker? Thinks they are the same. 03:54:03 Marsh: Me too, but we need to thrash that issue more in WSDL. 03:55:04 Mark: Wants a volunteer to write the proposal more thoroughly. 03:55:26 ... including where it can appear, what it means at different places. 03:55:46 ... then we can see how complex it will be to add more knobs. 03:55:55 Paco volunteers. 03:56:31 ACTION: Paco to create concrete proposal for a marker. 03:56:42 --- break --- 03:57:35 -Hugo.Haas 03:57:36 -Hugo 03:57:37 WS_DescWG(f2f)4:00PM has ended 03:57:38 Attendees were Hugo.Haas, Hugo 03:57:49 Zakim, this will be WS_Desc 03:57:50 ok, hugo; I see WS_DescWG(f2f)4:00PM scheduled to start 417 minutes ago 04:15:27 WS_DescWG(f2f)4:00PM has now started 04:15:34 +Hugo.Haas 04:15:42 Zakim, call hugo-bos 04:15:42 ok, hugo; the call is being made 04:15:43 +Hugo 04:16:30 -Hugo 04:16:33 Zakim, call hugo-bos 04:16:33 ok, hugo; the call is being made 04:16:51 Zakim, call hugo-bos 04:16:51 ok, hugo; the call is being made 04:17:53 +Hugo.a 04:25:01 Topic: i022: relationship to the SOAP binding framework 04:25:34 Mark: Had a discussion before holidays. We need to think more about the use cases & requirements. i041 spun off. 04:26:15 .. Any new info? 04:29:00 GregT has joined #ws-addr 04:29:02 Greg's mail is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0072.html 04:31:09 DaveO goes through his presentation 04:31:28 relationship between MEPs, bindings and addresses 04:35:08 steve has joined #ws-addr 04:40:58 Anish: How does this work in WSDL 2.0 today? How do people map a WSDL in-only MEP to SOAP? 04:41:07 DaveO: I think they hack it. 04:43:28 +1 for Gudge's comment 04:44:53 Some discussion of the various ways of doing 'async request-response' 04:48:07 DaveO: I prefer the v3 version 04:48:12 Gudge: Me too 04:50:10 Anish: We could use a WSDL in-out, a SOAP 1.2 Request/Response MEP and a new binding 04:50:19 Anish: We don't need a new SOAP 1.2 MEP 04:53:08 Some discussion of whether it's runtime or design time ( without or with WSDL) 04:54:24 Marc: But WSDL describes B's POV 04:54:40 Marc: So what has the address of A got to do with it? 04:59:02 Jeff: Is this like saying we'll bind WSDL in-out into several different interaction patterns 04:59:33 DaveO: Yes 05:03:06 Tony: WSDL in-out is defined as the case where the 'out' message goes back to the whoever sent the 'in' message 05:11:27 Anish: Seems like whatever we decide, we need to define a new SOAP HTTP binding 05:11:57 Anish: Next step is to decide how we describe it 05:12:17 Paul: What's the difference between a MEP and a binding 05:12:18 ? 05:12:36 Paul: We are chartered with not producing any MEPs 05:12:43 MarkN: We can't define new WSDL MEPs 05:12:51 MarkN: But can define new SOAP MEPs 05:13:22 Paul: We want to address a common use-case. It should jus drop out of WSDL easily, and it doesn't which points out a problem in WSDL 05:14:06 Tony: Depends on whether you're making the async visible at the WSDL level. If you make WSDL sync but the underlying protocol(s) is/are async 05:14:48 ... 05:15:17 MarkN: We will talk about the interaction between WSDL/SOAP bindings in our joint meeting 05:15:42 Tony: WSDL should provide machinery for doing async processing 05:16:16 Jeff: Some people only care about SOAP. Other people care about WSDL too. 05:17:01 Jeff: Charter language is arbitrary. Can't close our eyes and say that WSDL is not important 05:17:15 MarkN: Discussion is currently about how to use WS-Addressing with SOAP bindings. 05:17:46 Anish: Without creating new WSDL MEPs we can still describe these interaction patterns 05:17:58 Anish: And we can represent them in WSDL 05:18:22 Jeff: I think the mistake is allowing you to do WSDL in-out in a whole load of different ways 05:19:34 Anish: It's not just WSDL 2.0 we need to care about. We also need to deal with SOAP 1.1 and WSDL 1.1 05:20:15 Paco: Not sure I agree with Jeff about the async binding of in-out. But I do agree that the WSDL part is a crucial part of the discussion 05:20:59 Paco: The notion that we can figure out the SOAP MEPs and not worry about the WSDL isjust wrong 05:27:10 Greg: Figure out the HTTP messages. Then do the SOAP binding, then the MEP, then the WSDL 05:27:48 Marc: What are the WS-Desc WG going to do WRT exiting CR and testing the one-way MEPs 05:27:54 DaveO: I could write up some sample messages... 05:28:04 Greg: Yes please! 05:29:06 -Hugo.a 05:29:35 +Hugo.a 05:29:48 Glen: Can we have the joint meeting from noon to 5pm 05:29:50 -Hugo.a 05:30:04