00:02:48 Question as to whether we really have a resolution for Issue 35 00:03:57 (look in minutes) 00:04:04 yes, we have a resolution 00:05:27 TOPIC: Jonathan's comparing URIs issue (issue XX) 00:06:02 proposal is to use WSDL language as boilerplate, and allow editor's discretion as to how exactly to do so 00:08:54 Web arch is more informative than something we can refer directly to 00:10:10 zakim, who is on the call? 00:10:10 On the phone I see Hugo.Haas, Mark_Peel, Hugo, Umit_Yalcinalp, MSEder (muted) 00:12:55 -MSEder 00:13:18 Relevant WSDL is section 6.2.1 00:13:37 MSEder has left #ws-addr 00:13:41 Sorry, relevant URI spec text is 6..1 00:13:47 s/6..1/6.2.1/ 00:16:29 discussion of URIs as absolute, and whether we should allow relatives at all 00:16:46 suggestion is that all comparison of URIs is char-by-char 00:18:23 Discussion of whether URIs with escaped chars are the "same" as unescaped ones 00:19:15 Jonathan: Destination is special, because it's not exclusively an identifier - we shouldn't force this to char-by-char. Other ones seem OK though. 00:19:34 Paul: This doesn't seem a universally solvable problem, so we should just do our best 00:19:44 +1 to Paul 00:20:08 Jonathan: We could suggest that URIs like action should use a limited subset of chars to reduce escaping, etc... but doesn't seem worth it 00:20:27 nope 00:20:28 Jonathan: Introduce this text, calling out Action and MessageID 00:23:14 Marc: What does considering these as just Strings do to the schema types? Had this discussion in Atom - if a framework uses URIs, it might not do char-by-char comparison.... 00:24:33 Jonathan: Seems simpler to just say how we're doing it (char-by-char) even if some people might want to put these values in URI classes with more complex comparison options 00:24:43 Paco: Why not destination? 00:25:05 Jonathan: Not often compared 00:26:59 dorchard has joined #ws-addr 00:27:43 ACTION: Jonathan to flesh out proposal for comparison of URIs, and ask whether destination should be included in the list 00:28:07 ack hugo 00:28:07 hugo, you wanted to ask about referencing IRI draft and use the comparison rule in there 00:28:45 Hugo: IRI draft is proposed standard, and it includes detailed comparison rules - should we consider reusing those? 00:29:05 mnot: we were looking at the rules in the new URI spec 00:29:24 Jonathan: Does IRI provide choices or a single way to do it? 00:29:30 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-11.txt 00:29:54 section 5. Normalization and Comparison 00:30:22 re status, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2004OctDec/0079.html 00:31:41 (discussion - leave the details to the editors) 00:31:55 continue discussion on mailing list 00:32:21 ...about which properties we should include in this set of rules 00:33:22 Mark: Any other discussion before break? 00:33:28 Jonathan: We need to get our schema together 00:33:59 ACTION: Mark to work with team to get a working draft of the schema together 00:34:06 TOPIC: Schedule 00:34:43 Mark: On the order of 12-15 open issues left 00:34:49 in section 5 "Comparison Ladder", Martin seems to offer a smorgasbord of comparison methods .. 00:37:59 Mark: Can we get new drafts out within a week or so? 00:38:02 Gudge: Yes 00:38:38 Mark: Please review drafts carefully - if there's anything major which needs tweaking now is really the time to bring it up 00:41:26 Mark: Ready to close Addr and prep for joint meeting? 00:41:32 (assent) 00:42:34 ADJOURNED - LUNCH 00:42:42 please be back b4 1PM Melbourne time 00:43:57 -Hugo.Haas 00:43:58 -Melbourne 00:44:10 -Mark_Peel 00:44:13 -Umit_Yalcinalp 00:44:15 WS_DescWG(f2f)4:00PM has ended 00:44:17 Attendees were Hugo.Haas, Mark_Peel, MSEder, Umit_Yalcinalp, Melbourne 00:47:35 bob has left #ws-addr 00:51:57 Gudge has left #ws-addr 01:13:41 RRSAgent, where am I? 01:13:41 See http://www.w3.org/2005/01/19-ws-addr-irc#T01-13-41 01:50:37 Zakim, this will be WSDesc 01:50:38 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, hugo 01:50:40 Zakim, this will be WS_Desc 01:50:40 ok, hugo; I see WS_DescWG(f2f)4:00PM scheduled to start 290 minutes ago 01:51:47 alewis has joined #ws-addr 01:52:42 WS_DescWG(f2f)4:00PM has now started 01:52:48 +Hugo.Haas 01:53:49 +ALewis 01:55:42 Zakim, call hugo-BOS 01:55:43 ok, hugo; the call is being made 01:55:45 +Hugo 01:56:49 -Hugo 02:02:07 +Asir 02:03:46 (it's 19 F here ... -7 or so C, i guess) 02:05:54 asir has joined #ws-addr 02:06:20 +DBooth 02:06:40 pauld has changed the topic to: joint meeting with ws-addr 02:07:33 Zakim, call hugo-BOS 02:07:33 ok, hugo; the call is being made 02:07:34 +Hugo 02:07:45 -Hugo 02:07:48 Zakim, call hugo-BOS 02:07:48 ok, hugo; the call is being made 02:07:50 +Hugo 02:08:19 -Hugo 02:08:34 Zakim, call hugo-BOS 02:08:34 ok, hugo; the call is being made 02:08:36 +Hugo 02:08:36 pauld has changed the topic to: joint meeting with ws-desc 02:09:04 -Hugo 02:12:43 youenn has joined #ws-addr 02:14:34 bob has joined #ws-addr 02:14:55 Zakim, call hugo-BOS 02:14:56 ok, hugo; the call is being made 02:14:57 +Hugo 02:15:38 Scribe: jeffm 02:15:46 anish has joined #ws-addr 02:15:47 Chair: Mark Nottingham 02:15:57 Paco has joined #ws-addr 02:16:05 TomJ has joined #ws-addr 02:16:11 markn calls joint ws-addr/wsd joint meeting to order 02:16:19 marc has joined #ws-addr 02:16:42 intros 02:18:11 zakim, who's on the phone? 02:18:11 On the phone I see Hugo.Haas, ALewis, Hugo, Asir, DBooth 02:18:48 kevinl has joined #ws-addr 02:18:57 markn: shows state of issues list 02:19:15 linked from addresing home page 02:19:18 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/ 02:19:34 there are a small number of new issues that will be added 02:19:42 TomRutt has joined #ws-addr 02:19:42 12 open, closed 23, dropped 6 02:20:04 closed issue 1 and 8 -- web arch and refps -- probably 2 most contentious issues 02:20:30 goal -- go over wsdl related issues which addr has discussed and to have joint discussion 02:21:00 only have afternoon - so probably wont solve issues, but identify contact pts, assign AI's etc. 02:21:53 http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr-wsdl.html 02:22:13 mark reviews wsdl related issues 02:22:32 look at issues page and links from there 02:22:51 issue 3 02:24:20 issue 33 02:25:25 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i033 02:26:08 ttp://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i019 02:26:41 oops http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i019 02:26:41 h 02:27:28 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i034 02:27:54 chose proposal 2 -- forwarded ported wsdl 1.1 02:29:48 ack hugo 02:29:48 hugo, you wanted to explain discomfort 02:30:44 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i035 action uri for defaults 02:30:56 extended resolution for 34 to 35 02:31:03 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i038 02:31:53 how does implicit mep set up by replyto: relate to wsdl/soap. more discussion later 02:32:03 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i017 02:32:48 addr is waiting for outcome of discussion from WSD 02:32:52 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i021 02:33:25 what is granularity and use case - could be switch indicating that addr is in use, could be fine grained for each message 02:33:49 no decisions yet, paco has AI to look at what coarse grained might looked like 02:34:17 there is an outstanding issue/discussion of whether to use f&p a/o wsdl extensibiliity mechanism 02:34:46 addr did not want to take on that issue -- 02:35:00 there is contention :-) 02:35:37 end of brief review 02:36:20 jmarsh points out: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i017 might be worth discussing the potential solutions addr is considering 02:36:32 maybe after paul's presentation 02:36:45 break at 3:00 pm MEL time 02:37:12 what about issue 20? is that related to WSDL? 02:37:58 DavidO: WS-A and WSDL: MEPs, Bindings and dynamic addressing 02:39:43 pause for magicical incantations to distribute davido's presentation 02:41:23 davido talks 02:42:06 will describe about 10 diff patterns that could be used for req/resp and oneways 02:42:27 candidate wsdl mep, soap mep, and binding look like 02:43:19 on various slides 02:47:23 glen: pls crisply define "async" 02:47:36 all the diff mep in/out combos i'm going to talk about 02:48:03 davido: at some point in the invocation stack there is not a coupling in time 02:48:35 davido: typically people think of 2 diff http connections 02:49:11 tony: do u mean u can send of 3 reqs and get back 3 resps in diff order? 02:49:13 davido: y 02:49:31 davido: actually y, that is covered 02:50:05 kevin: async/req resp v1 -- uses 2 wsdl ops -- yes 02:50:51 kevin: sounds like we are getting into the process def space 02:51:06 davido: yes -- some other spec needs to specify 02:51:32 anish: is there assump that the 2 http msgs are "special" in some way, e.g. null bodies 02:51:42 davido: yes, could be 02:52:40 anish: i can have anything in the "out" -- doesn't have to be a simple ack -- the wsdl would say -- 02:56:35 +??P4 02:57:17 currently on asyn req/rsp v4 02:58:58 discussion on desireablity of having 1 wsdl in/out mapping to 2 soap req/resp meps 03:00:09 umit has joined #ws-addr 03:00:12 davido: observes that wsd wg didn't take on defining this, so someone (ws-addr wg or an individ) could undertake the work or propose it to wsd wg again 03:00:39 paco: so this means 4 soap envelopes? 03:00:51 anish: yes 03:01:38 anish: seems a weird way to do things -- wsdl in maps to 2 sep soap envelopes as does the out 03:02:02 wsdl in mep does not map to anything at this point 03:02:14 q+ 03:03:53 daveo is on the slide that says v4 03:04:45 now slide v5 03:05:09 what is the url for slides? 03:06:11 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2005Jan/0104.html 03:06:59 for v5, davido need to "define" new binding 03:08:05 another option is to have 1 wsdl in-out, 1 soap req-res mep and 2 one-way http binding 03:08:17 slide v6 03:08:18 mnot has joined #ws-addr 03:08:30 DaveO's presentatino: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2005Jan/att-0104/MEPsBindingsAddresses.ppt 03:08:43 s/presentatino/presentation/ 03:09:07 marc: do u use a soap resp mep 03:09:32 davido: you could use add feature 03:10:44 umit: r u mapping indvid message to a soap mep (at least underthe covers)? 03:11:23 davido: i think so, trying to explore what one could do staring from a wsdl in/out and whether it is worth introducing new meps/bindings 03:13:06 paco: others can define their own bindings for meps 03:14:14 anish: on whehter u can use the soap resp mep -- allows sending say 10 requests and then picking up responses later 03:14:29 slide: 2 protocol asynch req response 03:15:07 Presentation saved publicly at: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/MEPsBindingsAddresses.ppt 03:15:16 davido: shows case where the wsdl in-out uses an http binding and an smtp binding (e.g.0 03:16:37 davido: question for group -- do we new mep(s)/binding(s) 03:17:22 kevin: notes that wsdl 2.0 component model would need to be extended 03:17:25 q+ 03:18:13 ack umit 03:18:14 umit: kevin is trying to point out that we have the abstraction at the wrong level -- 03:18:54 umit: cant achieve the granularity davido is describing currently 03:19:37 glen: pulling back -- layered stack of stuff -- at each layer i have expectations about layer below 03:21:08 glen: so immmediately below the wsdl level, that layer needs to provide a certain functionality -- e.g. drop in message, and get out message in the right "place" -- that fact that other layers below will do something else to help implement that is a "detail" 03:21:49 i personally believe that where the binding and the soap mep is defined is at the wrong level. 03:21:59 It should be at the individual message 03:22:54 q+ 03:23:08 discussion about how to layer these abstractions 03:23:27 glen it is possible to solve this by defaulting 03:23:40 we have defaults for binding already 03:23:49 q+ 03:24:09 q+ 03:24:10 ack umit 03:25:38 ack anish 03:26:55 anish: there are more combos once u look at cross product of meps and protocols 03:28:34 q+ 03:28:40 q+ to mention LC101. 03:30:14 q+ 03:30:25 anish: if u look at all these combos, and remove "weird" ones we need at a minimum a new soap/http binding 03:30:36 a soap oneway mep 03:30:40 we need a one way MEP period 03:31:45 ack scribe 03:34:30 q+ pauld 03:35:22 ack kevinl 03:35:59 kevin: agree we need new mep and change in wsdl constructs 03:36:07 q+ 03:36:07 q+ DaveO 03:36:16 ack Marsh 03:36:16 Marsh, you wanted to mention LC101. 03:36:27 q- DaveO 03:36:39 jeffm: we should adopt a simple model a la ws-i callback scenarios -- a)linked oneway and b)linked req/resp 03:37:15 jmarsh: observes that xmlp hasn't defined the fundamental mep that we need 03:38:30 jeffm: could we use the framework defined by xmlp? 03:38:33 jmarsh: yes 03:39:28 umit: we are already defining extendsions in part 2, why couldnt we do it there 03:39:52 anish: this seems to be so fundamental that it would be better if xmlp had or will do it 03:40:11 discussion about which is the right group to take on the work 03:40:49 ack umit 03:42:32 ack pauld 03:42:36 q+ 03:42:37 q+ to try to summarize concrete actions we could pursue? 03:43:21 q? 03:43:26 +1 to moving this work to xmlp; suggestion, to request xmlp wg to work on this new SOAP mep and its binding 03:43:29 ack dorchard 03:43:41 paul: what is important is interop and making sure vendors implement the same thing -- so that choices are not necessarily the best solution 03:44:18 the whole wsdl is full of extensibility points = choices 03:44:35 it depends on what we define and standardise 03:44:37 davido:which scenarios to support, which meps/bindings we need to use/invent, and then figure out which groups should do the work 03:45:53 davido:i.e. we need to do more work to define the reqs 03:46:24 ack marc 03:46:37 marc: pushback on jeffm assertion that async/sync at mep level needs to be exposed to the user 03:47:24 marc: dont think there's a big diff between sync http resp/req or asynch smtp call 03:49:51 dbooth has joined #ws-addr 03:49:58 to be clear, i think there is a difference but that its not necessary to expose the difference in all cases. e.g. a sync layer on top of an async exchange is entirely possible and vice versa 03:50:54 q+ 03:51:49 ack marsh 03:51:49 Marsh, you wanted to try to summarize concrete actions we could pursue? 03:52:40 rssagent, where am i? 03:53:06 rrsagent, where am i? 03:53:06 See http://www.w3.org/2005/01/19-ws-addr-irc#T03-53-06 03:55:13 rrsagent, make log member 03:55:23 davido: wsdl group should think about relationshipt between wsdl meps and soap meps 03:56:00 jmarsh: ;right now wsdl spec says this binding can be used with these wsdl meps 03:56:09 davido: we need to scope out the work 03:57:28 Weird. Log not showing up in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/19-ws-addr-irc 03:57:37 jmarsh: 2 design cneters: figure out how to do the one or two scnarios a la jeff; figure out the right set of knobs at the various layers 03:58:04 jmarsh: we should consider and balance importance of these 2 design centers 03:58:46 we are breaking for 20 minutes until 3:20 pm oz time 03:58:53 youenn has joined #ws-addr 04:00:25 -??P4 04:03:22 http://www.number8atcrown.com.au/ 04:03:35 rrsagent, bye 04:03:35 I see 5 open action items: 04:03:35 ACTION: Marc to characterize the issues regarding XML base and the addressing headers - start discussion [1] 04:03:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/18-ws-addr-irc#T22-17-43 04:03:35 ACTION: Anish to identify which parts of the specifications give an impression that EPRs are more abstract than they actually are [2] 04:03:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/18-ws-addr-irc#T23-41-46 04:03:35 ACTION: Marc to make a concrete proposal for issue 15 (redirection/EPR updating). Due 2005-01-26 [3] 04:03:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/18-ws-addr-irc#T23-43-18 04:03:35 ACTION: Jonathan to flesh out proposal for comparison of URIs, and ask whether destination should be included in the list [4] 04:03:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/19-ws-addr-irc#T00-27-43 04:03:35 ACTION: Mark to work with team to get a working draft of the schema together [5] 04:03:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/19-ws-addr-irc#T00-33-59 04:04:08 RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr 04:04:08 is logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/01/19-ws-addr-irc 04:04:20 rrsagent, make log member 04:05:10 now it seems to be working 04:06:02 I think excusing it and re-inviting it seems to have made the log show up. 04:06:15 yes, he woke up 04:15:49 TomJ has joined #ws-addr 04:19:21 -Hugo 04:23:07 TomRutt has left #ws-addr 04:25:38 Zakim, call hugo-bos 04:25:38 ok, hugo; the call is being made 04:25:40 +Hugo 04:28:16 markn: discussion on what activities we should undertake to move forward 04:28:33 jmarsh: 2 design centers: 04:28:59 jmarsh: 1. provide 1 or 2 ways people can use asynch and provide support for wsdl one way mep 04:29:23 jmarsh: 2. provide lots of knobs -- sounds appealing but worries from a schedule perspective 04:30:10 jmarsh: logistic issues -- who does it, possibly diff ipr policies 04:31:05 jeffm: pushback on providing lots of knobs -- hurts interop -- is it really necessary 04:31:26 marc has joined #ws-addr 04:31:34 paco: who is the target user of the "knobs" 04:32:29 Paco has joined #ws-addr 04:32:45 anish: current wsdl binding framework doesnt give u enough granularity -- this is issue 101 04:33:40 jmarsh: how many points of composition are there between layers 04:34:23 davido: we dont yet have a good enough feel for what all the options are 04:34:41 davido: eg. provide flexibility at bindings but not at meps 04:34:43 fnak, fnak, fnak 04:36:10 bob has joined #ws-addr 04:36:41 anish: compare all the diff scenarios david laid out and decide if which ones are the most important 04:37:47 glen: form a TF to do this sort of work 04:38:09 davidO: asks who would participate -- 4 or 5 hands go up 04:38:33 jmarsh: how do we make this TF successful 04:45:22 Option #1: wsdl in-out cannot be done using asynch. 04:45:23 davido: how to specifcy asynchronya)do correlated wsdl inout (a CB wsdl pattern) rather than "swizzling" b) allow a wsdl in/out to be done asynch "underneath the covers" b1-allow flex of meps in/out can go to multiple soap meps 04:45:45 Option #2: wsd in-out can be done asynch 04:45:46 pauld has joined #ws-addr 04:46:08 Option #2a: flexible allocation of wsdl meps to soap meps 04:46:24 Option #2b: mandatory allocation of wsdl meps to soap meps. 04:47:55 what i was trying to say was that the difference between #2a and #2b is not very relevant from a practicle point of view as long as we have the "right" bindings 04:48:56 anish, you may see different options.... 04:49:59 jmarsh: maybe this is an outline of decision tree for a TF 04:50:53 rrsagent, draft minutes 04:51:08 daveo -- perhaps. I think we need the right soap meps available to us, but the 1st thing we need to do is figure out what we want out of wsdl meps and bindings and then look at the soap meps 04:52:31 zakim, who is on the phone? 04:52:31 On the phone I see Hugo.Haas, ALewis (muted), Hugo, Asir, DBooth 04:52:59 kevin: wants to describe some simple use cases 04:54:07 Meeting: WS Addressing F2F 04:54:37 jmarsh: TF would define the diff options for supporting asynchrony 04:55:04 jmarsh: e.g. fleshing out decision tree, bring back a few options to the WGs 04:56:03 s/please be back b4 1PM Melbourne time/Topic: Joint Meeting with WS Description WG 04:56:14 jmarsh: timeline -- techplenary might be a place to hold a joint meeting 04:58:24 jmarsh: possibility of carving out time on tues afternoon for a joint meeting 04:59:25 charter: Determine interaction patterns of interest (ie one-way, asynch). Recommend design(s) for patterns of interest. 05:00:51 rrsagent, draft minutes 05:05:41 ACTION: markn jmarsh pick a time 05:05:51 discussion on logistics of forming a TF 05:05:56 picking times 05:06:28 looks like 4 pm eastern friday beginning 28 january EST 05:11:39 presentation: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/att-0113/wsdl-extesnibility.pdf 05:11:43 consensus is noon Pacific on Weds starting 26 Jan 2005 05:12:00 ACTION: hugo to start an email list and schedule zakim 05:12:35 name of TF is Asynch TF 05:13:50 Topic: WSDL Extensibility 05:13:54 next agenda item: WSDL Extensibility -- pauld presentation url above 05:17:32 on slide labelled "Choice" 05:18:43 kevin: asks if referring to wsi bp version of wsdl 1.1? 05:19:00 paul: can't really reference that 05:20:36 glen: notes that f&p has been back ported into an approved OASIS standard - WS-R 05:24:07 mnot has joined #ws-addr 05:24:47 TomJ has joined #ws-addr 05:27:16 q? 05:31:52 ack umit 05:32:19 zakim, who is here? 05:32:19 On the phone I see Hugo.Haas, ALewis (muted), Hugo, Asir, DBooth 05:32:19 ack hugo 05:32:20 On IRC I see TomJ, mnot, pauld, bob, Paco, marc, RRSAgent, youenn, dbooth, anish, asir, alewis, dorchard, yinleng, Marsh, GregT, scribe, GlenD, Zakim, hugo 05:37:24 kevinl has joined #ws-addr 05:37:41 exit 05:40:20 q? 05:40:38 xml:id is my fav spec of the past couple of years .. 05:47:11 q+ 05:49:08 -ALewis 05:49:36 hugo described this issue here: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/4/dec-f2fminutes. 05:50:16 sorry that's the minutes of the discussion 05:51:07 maybe you're looking for this: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0058.html 05:51:19 bob has left #ws-addr 05:51:30 end of ws-addr meeting 05:52:31 yinleng has left #ws-addr 05:53:49 9:00 am in o 05:53:51 in oz 05:53:56 thanks Jeff 05:54:04 de nada 05:54:39 Zakim, who's on the phone? 05:54:39 On the phone I see Hugo.Haas, Hugo, Asir, DBooth 05:54:43 TomJ has left #ws-addr 05:55:10 rrsagent, draft minutes 05:55:47 -Hugo.Haas 05:55:50 -Hugo 05:55:51 -Asir 05:55:52 -DBooth 05:55:53 WS_DescWG(f2f)4:00PM has ended 05:55:55 Attendees were Hugo.Haas, ALewis, Hugo, Asir, DBooth 05:56:22 RRSAgent, bye 05:56:22 I see 2 open action items: 05:56:22 ACTION: markn jmarsh pick a time [1] 05:56:22 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/19-ws-addr-irc#T05-05-41 05:56:22 ACTION: hugo to start an email list and schedule zakim [2] 05:56:22 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/19-ws-addr-irc#T05-12-00