IRC log of ws-addr on 2005-02-27
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:12:36 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
- 14:12:36 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/02/27-ws-addr-irc
- 14:12:47 [bob]
- bob has joined #ws-addr
- 14:12:49 [dims|away]
- dims|away has joined #ws-addr
- 14:12:50 [Paul]
- Paul has joined #ws-addr
- 14:12:51 [dhull]
- dhull has joined #ws-addr
- 14:13:01 [plh]
- plh has joined #ws-addr
- 14:13:11 [dorchard]
- dorchard has joined #ws-addr
- 14:13:35 [TonyR]
- TonyR has joined #ws-addr
- 14:13:42 [davanum]
- davanum has joined #ws-addr
- 14:13:48 [plh]
- zakim, who's here?
- 14:13:48 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Mark_Little, MIT-Star, Mark_Peel, Prasad_Yendluri
- 14:13:49 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see davanum, TonyR, dorchard, plh, dhull, Paul, dims|away, bob, RRSAgent, GlenD, RebeccaB, mnot, jeffm, Zakim, Marsh, prasad, umit, pauld, mlpeel, hugo
- 14:14:02 [bob]
- bob has left #ws-addr
- 14:14:15 [vinoski]
- vinoski has joined #ws-addr
- 14:15:25 [bob]
- bob has joined #ws-addr
- 14:15:27 [marc]
- marc has joined #ws-addr
- 14:16:48 [stevewinkler]
- stevewinkler has joined #ws-addr
- 14:16:52 [GregT]
- GregT has joined #ws-addr
- 14:17:03 [scribe]
- markn states the goal of this f2f is to have a LC draft
- 14:17:42 [scribe]
- otherwise the w3c team/AC will have to consider a charter extension
- 14:17:56 [plh]
- plh has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0170.html
- 14:18:15 [scribe]
- mark reviews the agenda
- 14:18:28 [pauld]
- pauld has joined #ws-addr
- 14:19:14 [hugo]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0170.html
- 14:19:29 [Paco]
- Paco has joined #ws-addr
- 14:19:38 [scribe]
- glen: asynch tf prsentation will be done as part of issue 22
- 14:19:39 [dims|away]
- dims|away has joined #ws-addr
- 14:19:53 [scribe]
- hopefully tues AM
- 14:20:04 [plh]
- Topic: Action item review
- 14:21:09 [scribe]
- jmarsh fullfilled his AI on IRI, added after schema review
- 14:21:17 [plh]
- Topic: Approve Minutes
- 14:22:02 [scribe]
- - 2005-02-21: <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/02/21-ws-addr-minutes.html>
- 14:23:00 [scribe]
- RESOLUTION: approve minutes and post publicly - no objection
- 14:23:02 [plh]
- Topic: Schema publication
- 14:23:21 [scribe]
- <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr.xsd>
- 14:23:38 [scribe]
- jmarsh: about to send a slightly revieed version with some tweaks
- 14:23:55 [scribe]
- markn: how do we maintain this doc
- 14:24:33 [scribe]
- anish: someone noted that attribute extensibility is missing
- 14:24:41 [scribe]
- jmarsh: he has 5 mods
- 14:25:05 [scribe]
- glen: suggests putting up as an editor's draft and link to it from wg web page
- 14:25:29 [scribe]
- markn: its already in CVS
- 14:25:46 [scribe]
- anish: is schema normative
- 14:25:57 [swinkler]
- swinkler has joined #ws-addr
- 14:26:27 [scribe]
- ACTION: MarkN to put up schema link on wg page
- 14:26:56 [scribe]
- i032 resoluction says schema is normative
- 14:28:31 [scribe]
- jeffm: suggests making the schema take precedence in the case of ambiguity wrt prose
- 14:28:59 [scribe]
- glen: prose captures semantics, often schema has 2 errors
- 14:29:05 [scribe]
- s/2/small/
- 14:32:03 [scribe]
- more discussion back and forth -- jeffm should raise an issue of what happens if there is ambiguity
- 14:33:01 [mnot]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0195.html
- 14:34:37 [scribe]
- umit: does attr ext affect the bindings?
- 14:34:41 [scribe]
- jmarsh: doesn't think so
- 14:35:14 [scribe]
- jmarsh: if you extend epr def, then beware -- not all processors will understand
- 14:35:32 [scribe]
- umit: hasn't seen a good use case
- 14:36:07 [scribe]
- jmarsh: mostly a consistency argumtent
- 14:37:10 [scribe]
- ACTION: marc h to add 1) to ed draft
- 14:39:12 [plh]
- ACTION 2=Marc Hadley to add attribute wildcards to ReferenceParamatersType and PoliciesType in the XML Schema
- 14:40:10 [scribe]
- no objection to 2)
- 14:41:31 [scribe]
- ACTION: indicate that @RelationshipType defaults to
- 14:41:31 [scribe]
- "http://www.w3.org/2005/02/addressing/reply" in
- 14:41:31 [scribe]
- the schema.
- 14:42:24 [scribe]
- 3) jmarsh not quite sure what the rationale is
- 14:42:29 [scribe]
- 4) same thing
- 14:42:40 [plh]
- ACTION 3=Marc Hadley to indicate that @RelationshipType defaults to "http://www.w3.org/2005/02/addressing/reply" in the schema.
- 14:43:09 [scribe]
- 5) pure consistency in nameing of types
- 14:44:25 [scribe]
- ACTION marc h to change style so that type names end in Type - add "Type" to AttributedURI, AttributedQName,
- 14:44:25 [scribe]
- FaultCodesOpenEnum, FaultCodes, AttributedNonNegativeInteger
- 14:44:40 [plh]
- Topic: URI/IRI
- 14:44:52 [hugo]
- s/ACTION/ACTION:/
- 14:45:55 [hugo]
- Discussing: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0171.html
- 14:45:57 [scribe]
- ACTION: marc h to change style so that type names end in Type
- 14:47:02 [scribe]
- jmarsh: the proposal details the exact changes
- 14:47:17 [scribe]
- markn: we already agreed to the general approach
- 14:48:02 [scribe]
- markn: suggests that we should accept jmarsh's changes and then tweak as necessary
- 14:49:29 [scribe]
- jmarsh: anyURI is seq of chars, when escaped appropriately (in XLink) it turns into a legal uri
- 14:49:45 [scribe]
- using % and UTF 8
- 14:50:41 [scribe]
- anish: is there a diff in the escaping mechanism in XLink and URI spec
- 14:51:09 [scribe]
- jmarsh: doesn't think there is any difference
- 14:51:57 [scribe]
- jmarsh: XLink does describe the encoding for the escape mechanism
- 14:52:49 [scribe]
- jmarsh: URI spec doesn't describe the exact encoding
- 14:53:33 [scribe]
- bob: notes the recent concern with IDN spoofing -- we might need to add some security comments
- 14:54:27 [scribe]
- plh: not sure this is a concern for SOAP - the spoofing is a human readibilty concern when IDN chars are displayed in browsers
- 14:56:50 [scribe]
- RESOLUTION: approve resolution in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0171.html removing reference to RFC 3986
- 14:57:56 [scribe]
- ACTION: marc h incorpororate http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0171.html removing reference to RFC 3986
- 15:00:28 [Marsh]
- Zakim, please make coffee :-)
- 15:00:28 [Zakim]
- I'm glad that smiley is there, Marsh
- 15:00:32 [Zakim]
- -Prasad_Yendluri
- 15:00:46 [scribe]
- break for 30 minutes: come back at 10:30 am
- 15:00:55 [Zakim]
- -Mark_Peel
- 15:29:02 [Zakim]
- +Mark_Peel
- 15:30:26 [Zakim]
- +Prasad_Yendluri
- 15:32:07 [pauld]
- pauld has joined #ws-addr
- 15:34:14 [Zakim]
- -Mark_Little
- 15:34:19 [marc]
- marc has joined #ws-addr
- 15:36:09 [dorchard]
- dorchard has joined #ws-addr
- 15:37:43 [scribe]
- back
- 15:39:09 [scribe]
- Topic: issue i004 <http://www.w3.org/mid/DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633804D931FF@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
- 15:39:30 [TonyR]
- TonyR has joined #ws-addr
- 15:40:31 [scribe]
- paco sent a friendly amendment
- 15:41:03 [scribe]
- march: we should go further and provide more details
- 15:41:17 [Zakim]
- +Tom_Rutt
- 15:42:25 [scribe]
- marc h: observes that expanding gudge's proposal to capture more details will make it simialr to what is already in there. Would like to understand what is new in gudge's proposal.
- 15:44:26 [scribe]
- glen: the key issue is establishing trust -- and what mechanisms are used -- there are a variety
- 15:45:59 [scribe]
- paco: may want to think about how to secure the epr itself, even when it is part of a trusted/secured message, if it is passed along by itself it will lose the security context
- 15:46:58 [scribe]
- discussion of how to integrate gudge's proposal
- 15:47:45 [scribe]
- other issues: where does security info end up -- general in abstract model, and then more specifics in the soap binding
- 15:48:27 [scribe]
- jeffm: a bit vague -- lots of mays, coulds, etc.
- 15:48:54 [scribe]
- glen:not our job to bind specifics
- 15:49:35 [scribe]
- phl: expects that the WSDL will indicate specifics
- 15:51:09 [scribe]
- markn: we are building layered architecture -- this is base level
- 15:52:38 [Zakim]
- -Tom_Rutt
- 15:53:40 [scribe]
- marc h: we should say things like when you use WS-Security use it "this" way
- 15:54:03 [scribe]
- markn: ways forward -- look at text in gudge's proposal, text in doc, and rationalize them
- 15:54:39 [scribe]
- markn: when u use ws-addressing and ws-security specify how tha it is done
- 15:56:16 [scribe]
- discuss of what pieces go where
- 15:57:37 [scribe]
- marc h: as editor, need help to split the text and integrate -- no time between now and tues for me to do that work as well as incorporate all the resolutions from this meeting
- 15:58:35 [anish]
- anish has joined #ws-addr
- 15:59:36 [scribe]
- ACTION hugo to integrate the current security text with gudge's and paco's new proposed text and split between docs and make a concrete proposal with exact text/location by tues
- 16:03:29 [hugo]
- s/ACTION/ACTION:/
- 16:05:17 [mnot]
- ACTION: hugo to integrate the current security text with gudge's and
- 16:05:17 [mnot]
- +paco's new proposed text and split between docs and make a concrete proposal
- 16:05:18 [mnot]
- +with exact text/location by tues
- 16:05:39 [scribe]
- glen: we got a lot of the way there if we specify the abstract model
- 16:05:53 [scribe]
- marc h: disagrees --
- 16:06:03 [mnot]
- ACTION 6 = hugo to integrate the current security text with Gudge's and Paco's new proposed text and split between docs; make concrete proposal with exact text/location by tues
- 16:06:18 [scribe]
- marc h: need to further
- 16:06:45 [scribe]
- paul: concerned if we define the only way of doing stuff
- 16:07:05 [Paco]
- Paco has joined #ws-addr
- 16:07:35 [Zakim]
- +Mark_Little
- 16:11:13 [scribe]
- marc h: wants to do specific scenarios to provide specific requirements
- 16:12:56 [scribe]
- markn proposes a straw poll: in favor of going down this road - 5 yes, 10 no, 5 abstain
- 16:14:03 [scribe]
- umit, paul: concerns about time line
- 16:19:46 [RebeccaB]
- RebeccaB has joined #ws-addr
- 16:22:08 [scribe]
- marc h: asking to provide some security guidance to alleviate possible problems with reply-to: and top level headers
- 16:22:43 [scribe]
- paco: does that mean we could boil down the issue to more specifics
- 16:23:52 [scribe]
- marc h: my emails are about specifics e.g. how do i establish the "trust" that the proposed language talks about
- 16:24:35 [scribe]
- dave hull: not sure this issue is really a ws-addressing level issue
- 16:25:22 [scribe]
- dave hull: trying to figure out what about this issue is specific to ws-a
- 16:26:52 [scribe]
- davido: in general req/resp could go somewhere else, but we don't have any concrete way to talk about that level -- no arch doc to point at
- 16:28:06 [scribe]
- markn: does this approach mean selecting/developing scenarios and then providing the "cookbook" instructions on how to implement
- 16:30:11 [scribe]
- dhull: want to see where the boundaries would be
- 16:30:42 [GlenD]
- glen: We talk about it in the abstract, and say "it's important to think about security and trust anyone who's sending you EPRs" - I just don't want us to get so specific right now. WS-Security (and other mechanisms) layer on top or below.
- 16:32:00 [umit]
- +1 to Glen.
- 16:34:31 [scribe]
- tony: this sounds like a "profile", should be a sep doc
- 16:36:11 [scribe]
- markn: would it be acceptable to decouple this work?
- 16:37:31 [scribe]
- markn: who would be interested in sep doc: 9 - 1 - 10
- 16:37:46 [mlpeel]
- +1 for separate doc
- 16:38:10 [scribe]
- vote change: 11 - 1 - 9
- 16:39:46 [scribe]
- markn: can we close issue 4, assuming hugo's proposal is acceptable?
- 16:40:12 [scribe]
- plh: may need a charter change
- 16:40:14 [dims]
- dims has joined #ws-addr
- 16:40:43 [scribe]
- umit: why is this the case? we already have a security "charge" in the scope
- 16:42:54 [scribe]
- hugo: it is debatable whether this is a change of scope.
- 16:43:33 [scribe]
- markn: putting aside the procedural issues for the moment, what would such a doc include?
- 16:45:10 [scribe]
- hugo: there was some support for putting this in a separate doc, and for not including this in our current 3 docs that we are trying to close at this f2f
- 16:46:14 [scribe]
- plh: Proposed Rec is the last time one can raise a formal objection
- 16:49:00 [scribe]
- we will break for lunch at 12:20
- 16:49:15 [scribe]
- Topic: issue 048 EPR comparison
- 16:49:49 [anish]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i048
- 16:52:17 [scribe]
- umits proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0128.html
- 16:52:31 [Zakim]
- -Mark_Little
- 16:53:50 [scribe]
- umit: preferred approach is to remove the section and add the words contained in her proposal (above) starting with "The following rule ...."
- 16:55:10 [scribe]
- jeffm: pls clarify what is meant by "substitutable"
- 16:56:00 [scribe]
- umit: essentially a client could use any of a set of substitutal eprs and expect the same thing to happen
- 16:57:15 [scribe]
- jmarsh: not sure how the proposed text adds anything
- 16:58:52 [scribe]
- anish: supports proposal for [2] - seems to clarify things
- 16:59:04 [scribe]
- anish: does this proposal say anything about comparison of 2 EPRs
- 17:00:21 [scribe]
- umit: comparison of EPRs is very much "in the eye of the beholder" Hence should be determined by the endpoint
- 17:01:26 [scribe]
- anish: 2 EPRs that are the same, bit for bit - they are the same
- 17:02:16 [scribe]
- anish: if there are 2 EPRS with some different data in them, they are not the same
- 17:03:53 [scribe]
- anish: we can provide guidance for extensiblity points -- e.g. the order of children in an extensibility pt is irrelevant
- 17:06:01 [scribe]
- hugo: doesn't see this proposal providing much of a clarification
- 17:06:35 [scribe]
- hugo: doesn't reslove issue 14
- 17:06:50 [scribe]
- umit: not directly aimed at issue 14
- 17:09:38 [scribe]
- paco: we should remove
- 17:11:21 [scribe]
- davido: subsitution of EPRs - there is a matrix of choices depending upon whether the comparison returns true/fals
- 17:11:51 [scribe]
- davido: at a min compar should look at the address field -
- 17:12:16 [scribe]
- davido: uri spec contains some rules on how to "normalize" uri's for purposes of comparison
- 17:13:30 [scribe]
- davido: each uri scheme can define additional rules for comparion -- e.g. http:
- 17:14:11 [scribe]
- umit: the issue is EPR comparison, not uri comparison
- 17:14:50 [mlpeel]
- +1 to umit
- 17:16:57 [umit]
- umit has joined #ws-addr
- 17:17:20 [scribe]
- paco: uri's are intended to be identifiers, after the issue 1 discussions, we decided not to go down the identifier "rathole"
- 17:21:56 [scribe]
- anish: having additional txt that says that 2 EPRs with the same address but diff metadata are/could be different would be useful
- 17:22:13 [scribe]
- anish: e.g. order of ref params is not relevant
- 17:22:33 [scribe]
- steve: concerned hugo wants to keep section 2.3 as is
- 17:23:02 [scribe]
- discussion to be continued after lunch
- 17:24:24 [Zakim]
- -Prasad_Yendluri
- 17:24:28 [scribe]
- lunch break -- we will resume 1:45 (we hope)
- 17:24:51 [Zakim]
- -Mark_Peel
- 18:12:54 [mlpeel]
- mlpeel has joined #ws-addr
- 18:42:18 [Zakim]
- +Prasad_Yendluri
- 18:42:49 [Zakim]
- -Prasad_Yendluri
- 18:42:53 [Zakim]
- +Mark_Peel
- 18:49:16 [Zakim]
- +Prasad_Yendluri
- 18:58:51 [Zakim]
- -Prasad_Yendluri
- 19:16:18 [Zakim]
- +Prasad_Yendluri
- 19:16:39 [Zakim]
- -Prasad_Yendluri
- 19:22:51 [marc]
- marc has joined #ws-addr
- 19:27:37 [Marsh]
- Marsh has joined #ws-addr
- 19:32:52 [TonyR]
- TonyR has joined #ws-addr
- 19:33:17 [hugo]
- Scribe: Rebecca
- 19:33:23 [hugo]
- ScribeNick: RebeccaB
- 19:33:42 [mnot]
- mnot has joined #ws-addr
- 19:34:42 [pauld]
- pauld has joined #ws-addr
- 19:34:48 [TomRutt]
- TomRutt has joined #ws-addr
- 19:36:18 [RebeccaB]
- Poll on identity comparison: 1. remove section 2.3; 2: remove 2.3 + Umit clarifications; 3: Remove 2.3 + optional endpoint comparison function; 4: status quo
- 19:38:16 [RebeccaB]
- Umit: clarification in http:/lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0128.html "Proposal for (2)"
- 19:39:53 [swinkler]
- swinkler has joined #ws-addr
- 19:41:00 [RebeccaB]
- Discussion over wording of Umit's clarification
- 19:44:21 [RebeccaB]
- dhull: can't make assumptions about interchangability; we're not making any guarantees
- 19:46:16 [RebeccaB]
- GlenD: if get EPRs from different APIs, even if they are sytactically the same they may not have same semantics
- 19:49:37 [RebeccaB]
- discussion of role of context in identity relationship
- 19:49:47 [mlpeel]
- Variation on proposal 3: EPR minter adds an optional UUID element to its EPRs
- 19:50:07 [mlpeel]
- If a byte-by-byte comparison of UUIDs matches, the EPRs are identical
- 19:51:12 [RebeccaB]
- dhull: can't compare EPRs
- 19:54:30 [umit]
- What I/me i am amazed some people remember APL
- 19:54:34 [RebeccaB]
- Poll on identity comparison: 1. remove section 2.3 (out of scope?); \2: remove 2.3 + add Umit clarifications; 3: Remove 2.3 + add optional endpoint comparison operation; 4: status quo
- 19:56:07 [RebeccaB]
- dorchard: we should provide multiple useful comparison functions
- 19:58:18 [RebeccaB]
- dorchard: fifth option: Explore the space; Provide potentially multiple comparison functions
- 19:58:56 [RebeccaB]
- dorchard: agnostic as to whether 2.3 is included
- 20:01:20 [RebeccaB]
- hugo: people use 2.3 to interpret metadata's viability
- 20:02:10 [RebeccaB]
- viability = whether data has expired or not]
- 20:04:20 [jeffm]
- jeffm has joined #ws-addr
- 20:05:03 [RebeccaB]
- dims: comparison operator needed for monitoring apps
- 20:06:52 [RebeccaB]
- marc_H: Burying head in state if we pretend EPR is opaque
- 20:06:58 [RebeccaB]
- head in sand
- 20:08:55 [RebeccaB]
- dhull: first: syntactic equality useful comparison; second: two EPRs pointing to same thing?; third: semantic equality
- 20:09:48 [RebeccaB]
- dhull: if we talk about comparison from this point of view the discussion may be clearer
- 20:10:44 [umit]
- I think syntactic equality does not get us very far, as metadata may be stale, the extensions may appear in different order
- 20:11:44 [RebeccaB]
- dorchard: URI spec has definitions in place to clarify such differences
- 20:15:19 [RebeccaB]
- Anish: context builds up in course of interactions that allow one to interpret EPRs as they arrive in interactions. We can give guidelines or comparison functions for dealing with such occurences.
- 20:15:55 [RebeccaB]
- GlenD: why is it good to have to add additional info on top of everything else?
- 20:16:44 [RebeccaB]
- Paco: such operations domain specific
- 20:19:28 [RebeccaB]
- jeffm: want server-side comparison function
- 20:20:17 [RebeccaB]
- dhull, markN: this is implementation of option #3
- 20:23:00 [RebeccaB]
- Poll on identity comparison: 1. remove section 2.3 (out of scope?); 2: remove 2.3 + add Umit clarifications; 3: Remove 2.3 + add EPR server-side endpoint comparison operation; 4: status quo; 5: Explore the space; potentially provide multiple client-side comparison functions
- 20:24:42 [RebeccaB]
- preference for #1: 14
- 20:25:26 [RebeccaB]
- Live with #1: 16
- 20:25:29 [mlpeel]
- Can live with #1
- 20:26:26 [RebeccaB]
- live with #2:
- 20:26:33 [RebeccaB]
- prefer #2 : 0
- 20:27:08 [RebeccaB]
- live with #2: 14
- 20:27:36 [mlpeel]
- I prefer #3
- 20:27:56 [RebeccaB]
- Prefer #3: 3
- 20:28:08 [RebeccaB]
- live with #3: 12
- 20:28:20 [RebeccaB]
- perfer #4: 2
- 20:28:33 [RebeccaB]
- live with #2: 6
- 20:29:04 [RebeccaB]
- s/#2/#4
- 20:29:22 [RebeccaB]
- live with #5: 17
- 20:29:28 [RebeccaB]
- prefer #5: 4
- 20:29:57 [RebeccaB]
- Live with #1: 17 (didn't get mpeel's vote)
- 20:30:23 [mlpeel]
- I can live with #1
- 20:30:56 [RebeccaB]
- markN: clear preference for #1
- 20:32:47 [RebeccaB]
- discussion on whether it's necessary to explicitly say it's out of scope
- 20:34:08 [RebeccaB]
- consensus: not necessary to state
- 20:38:30 [RebeccaB]
- Anish: dropping 2.3 means re-opening issue 1 because 2.3 was used to distinguish EPRs when refprops no longer existed
- 20:39:04 [RebeccaB]
- GlenD: anything can be used to disctinguish
- 20:41:41 [RebeccaB]
- Marc_H: Anish address + props identified endpoint; we removed props; now address + params identify endpoint
- 20:45:38 [RebeccaB]
- Actually poll was "Poll on EPR comparison", not "Poll on identity comparison" since we had declared that EPR doesn't deal with identity
- 20:46:37 [RebeccaB]
- "Identity" word came from text of 2.3
- 20:49:24 [pauld_]
- pauld_ has joined #ws-addr
- 20:50:38 [RebeccaB]
- TomRutt: nothing tells you about comparison equality if refparam is different - ; response: nothing prevents app from making that judgement
- 20:53:51 [RebeccaB]
- MarkN wants agreement to go forward with item 1
- 21:04:18 [RebeccaB]
- MarkN: worried about objections to putting text in spec saying we don't have comparison function
- 21:05:26 [bob]
- Siince this specification provides no concept of identity,
- 21:05:58 [bob]
- this specification cannot provide any mechanism to determine equality or lack of equality of eprs
- 21:06:39 [dhull]
- s/lack of equality/inequality/
- 21:07:54 [GlenD]
- This does not mean that such mechanisms are forbidden - they would simply be designed for use within particular contexts.
- 21:08:00 [TonyR]
- Non-normatively, note that it is possible to provide a comparison function that is applicable within a limited scope.
- 21:08:31 [dorchard]
- I like the title: W3C Recommendation WS-Addressing WS-JustSayNoToIdentifiers
- 21:08:38 [dhull]
- "this specicifaction does not provide any mechanism to determine equality or inequality of EPRs, nor does it specify the consequences of equality or inequality.
- 21:09:03 [Paco]
- Paco has joined #ws-addr
- 21:11:27 [RebeccaB]
- Vote on removal of section 2.3, replacing it with Bob's text: "Since this specification provides no concept of identity, 01this specifaction does not provide any mechanism to determine equality or inequality of EPRs, nor does it specify the consequences of equality or inequality. Note that it is possible to provide a comparison function that is applicable within a limited scope"
- 21:13:18 [RebeccaB]
- GlenD: want to add illustrative examples
- 21:13:21 [bob]
- the reason is A 2-adic predicate, say Ixy, asserting that its two arguments are identical. Customarily symbolized by "=" and written in infix notation, "x=y". While all systems of polyadic predicate logic can express identity as easily as any other 2-adic relation, a system is said to be "with identity" iff it also contains axioms, axiom schemata, and/or rules of inference determining how "=" is to be used. Note that an axiom like "(x)(x=x)" or "(x)Ixx" is not logic
- 21:14:05 [RebeccaB]
- ACTION: Glen provides examples
- 21:14:22 [RebeccaB]
- (assuming vote passes)
- 21:19:01 [RebeccaB]
- 13 yes, 3 no, 1 abstain
- 21:19:11 [RebeccaB]
- issue closed
- 21:19:36 [RebeccaB]
- no one states that they will issue formal objection
- 21:32:12 [RebeccaB]
- Any objections to closing issue 43 using proposal 1
- 21:32:35 [RebeccaB]
- proposal 1 is remove section comparing EPRs
- 21:33:04 [RebeccaB]
- RESOLUTION: issue 43 dropped with no action:
- 21:33:34 [RebeccaB]
- issue 26
- 21:34:11 [RebeccaB]
- amended proposal from Microsoft
- 21:34:30 [RebeccaB]
- Quick walk-through of proposal
- 21:35:03 [RebeccaB]
- Amended proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0190.html
- 21:35:39 [RebeccaB]
- vinoski: issue 24 & 26 addressed together
- 21:36:39 [RebeccaB]
- vinoski: creates Metadata element, moves properties into Metadata
- 21:37:30 [Marsh]
- Marsh has joined #ws-addr
- 21:37:52 [RebeccaB]
- GlenD: single address associated with multiple endpoint qnames?
- 21:38:55 [plh]
- plh has joined #ws-addr
- 21:40:27 [RebeccaB]
- Paco: WSDL provide alternatives to the one address
- 21:41:25 [RebeccaB]
- TomRutt: likes it that can allow proprietary policies
- 21:43:03 [RebeccaB]
- GlenD: what is EPR if not metadata + a couple of other things (address, etc.) ; EPR itself might be considered metadata
- 21:43:36 [RebeccaB]
- MarkN: functional difference between metadata and rest? What is value of having data in a separate bucket?
- 21:45:03 [RebeccaB]
- Paco: difference btwn general purpose extension and metadata?
- 21:45:44 [RebeccaB]
- dorchard: why put in metadata & allow extensibility and if there's no functional difference, that no value add
- 21:45:57 [RebeccaB]
- s/that/than
- 21:46:32 [RebeccaB]
- paco: sumaarize: why need container as opposed to not saying anything and figuring it out
- 21:48:06 [RebeccaB]
- GlenD: does metadata have processing model associated with it?
- 21:48:31 [Jonathan]
- Jonathan has joined #ws-addr
- 21:48:38 [umit]
- q+
- 21:49:22 [RebeccaB]
- Paco: it's a syntax question
- 21:50:04 [RebeccaB]
- vinoski: dorchard's issue is a syntax question?
- 21:50:20 [Paco]
- Paco has joined #ws-addr
- 21:50:23 [RebeccaB]
- dorchard: don't want it to be categorized as such
- 21:50:42 [RebeccaB]
- dorchard: real question is "what is its value?"
- 21:51:20 [RebeccaB]
- dorchard: if not see something in spec that differentiates, then no value add
- 21:52:41 [RebeccaB]
- vinoski: 2 optional elts in spec to begin with: interfacename, servicename - why not group them together in optional metadata section? Simplification since all optional elts combined
- 21:53:37 [RebeccaB]
- Jonathan: useful for human consumption; Things extending EPR, things talking about endpoint
- 21:55:39 [RebeccaB]
- Umit: may reuse metadata definition in other places
- 21:56:18 [RebeccaB]
- Dorchard: reusability never a big concern in WSDL
- 21:57:44 [RebeccaB]
- Marc_H: metadata bucket gives us something to hang text off in spec to talk about metadata
- 21:59:52 [RebeccaB]
- GlenD: WS-Policy has mustUnderstand but this metadata bucket doesn't
- 22:01:06 [RebeccaB]
- GlenD: if I see policy thing in bucket, can I ignore it or does it imply that I need to follow that policy?
- 22:01:37 [RebeccaB]
- Jonathan: the WSDL says
- 22:01:44 [bob]
- bob has left #ws-addr
- 22:02:00 [RebeccaB]
- GlenD: then I can ignore if I don't understand
- 22:02:09 [bob]
- bob has joined #ws-addr
- 22:02:55 [RebeccaB]
- MarkN: can proposers live with collapsing this to top level and getting rid of bucket?
- 22:03:16 [RebeccaB]
- MarkN: if it does make it into spec, can people live with that?
- 22:04:22 [RebeccaB]
- vinoski continues walk-through
- 22:04:59 [RebeccaB]
- vionoski: 2.2 example now using metadata element'
- 22:06:20 [RebeccaB]
- vinoski: moving service element into metadata + examples
- 22:07:25 [RebeccaB]
- MarkN: three aspects of proposal: 1) move metadata into bucket (remove policies); 2) put WSDL-related metadata in WSDL binding doc; 3) add service
- 22:08:20 [RebeccaB]
- Jonathan: Problem is how to solve multi-reference problem
- 22:09:36 [RebeccaB]
- GlenD: do I have to include everything that was in original WSDL or can I edit it down?
- 22:11:06 [RebeccaB]
- Jonathan: agree that must address how to merge what's in EPR with what's in WSDL
- 22:11:53 [RebeccaB]
- Jonathan: our biggest concern is how to reuse service element outside of context
- 22:12:08 [RebeccaB]
- Jonathan: walks through amndment
- 22:12:28 [RebeccaB]
- Jonathan: keep wrapper and import
- 22:13:07 [RebeccaB]
- Jonathan: keep description wrapper and import keeps consistency
- 22:13:29 [RebeccaB]
- jonathan: examples show real meat
- 22:13:52 [RebeccaB]
- jonathan: issue - what spec does it go into (WSDL, Core)?
- 22:14:22 [RebeccaB]
- Jonathan: issue - how imprtant is it that service and import name match WSDL
- 22:15:15 [RebeccaB]
- Hugo: wording in metadata pre-issue 14 dealing with cache are relevant
- 22:15:56 [RebeccaB]
- MarkN: let's talk about it tonight and tomorrow morning and move forward
- 22:16:16 [umit]
- umit has left #ws-addr
- 22:16:16 [bob]
- bob has left #ws-addr
- 22:16:17 [RebeccaB]
- close for today
- 22:16:32 [RebeccaB]
- tomorrow: 9"00 in agenda for plenary
- 22:16:44 [Zakim]
- -Mark_Peel
- 22:17:26 [Zakim]
- -MIT-Star
- 22:17:27 [Zakim]
- WS_AddrWG(TP)9:00AM has ended
- 22:17:29 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Mark_Little, MIT-Star, Mark_Peel, Prasad_Yendluri, Tom_Rutt