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