IRC log of ws-addr on 2005-05-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:36:14 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:36:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:36:20 [mnot]
zakim, this will be WS_ADDRWG
19:36:20 [Zakim]
ok, mnot; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 24 minutes
19:36:26 [mnot]
Chair: Mark Nottingham
19:36:35 [mnot]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference
19:38:09 [mnot]
19:38:12 [mnot]
19:40:43 [Marsh]
Marsh has joined #ws-addr
19:55:48 [Nilo]
Nilo has joined #ws-addr
19:56:43 [mlpeel]
mlpeel has joined #ws-addr
19:58:05 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
19:58:05 [MSEder]
MSEder has joined #ws-addr
19:58:12 [Zakim]
+ +44.196.286.aaaa
19:58:59 [Zakim]
19:59:12 [RebeccaB]
RebeccaB has joined #ws-addr
19:59:32 [Zakim]
19:59:45 [MSEder]
zakim, mute me
19:59:45 [Zakim]
MSEder should now be muted
19:59:51 [Zakim]
20:00:12 [Zakim]
20:00:19 [Zakim]
20:00:20 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
20:00:28 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
20:00:33 [Zakim]
20:00:44 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
20:00:53 [Zakim]
20:01:06 [Zakim]
20:01:13 [Zakim]
20:01:13 [Marsh]
zakim, code?
20:01:14 [swinkler]
swinkler has joined #ws-addr
20:01:14 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2337 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), Marsh
20:01:22 [Zakim]
20:01:29 [Marsh]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:01:33 [Zakim]
20:01:38 [abbie]
abbie has joined #ws-addr
20:01:39 [swinkler]
Zakim, mute me
20:01:39 [Zakim]
sorry, swinkler, I do not see a party named 'swinkler'
20:01:41 [Zakim]
Marsh, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Bob_Freund (82%)
20:01:45 [prasad]
prasad has joined #ws-addr
20:01:56 [swinkler]
Zakim, Steve_Winkler is me
20:01:56 [Zakim]
+swinkler; got it
20:02:02 [swinkler]
Zakim, mute me
20:02:02 [Zakim]
swinkler should now be muted
20:02:20 [Zakim]
20:02:21 [Zakim]
20:02:23 [swinkler]
regrets for the second half of the call. I have to drop at 2.
20:02:45 [Zakim]
20:02:46 [Zakim]
20:03:00 [Zakim]
+ +
20:03:05 [Zakim]
20:03:21 [marc]
marc has joined #ws-addr
20:03:22 [Arun]
Arun has joined #ws-addr
20:03:26 [Zakim]
20:03:34 [yinleng]
yinleng has joined #ws-addr
20:03:36 [Zakim]
20:03:46 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
20:03:57 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has joined #ws-addr
20:03:58 [alewis]
alewis has joined #ws-addr
20:04:18 [Zakim]
20:05:06 [Zakim]
20:05:40 [andreas]
andreas has joined #ws-addr
20:05:45 [Zakim]
20:06:03 [Zakim]
20:06:07 [plh]
zakim, call plh-work
20:06:07 [Zakim]
ok, plh; the call is being made
20:06:09 [Zakim]
20:06:29 [Zakim]
20:06:40 [swinkler]
Zakim, unmute me
20:06:40 [Zakim]
swinkler should no longer be muted
20:07:03 [pauld]
Scribe: pauld
20:07:13 [swinkler]
Zakim, mute me
20:07:13 [Zakim]
swinkler should now be muted
20:07:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.748.aacc
20:07:39 [pauld]
Chair: Mark Nottingham
20:07:44 [Zakim]
20:08:03 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p30 is me
20:08:03 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
20:08:12 [TonyR]
zakim, mute me
20:08:12 [Zakim]
TonyR should now be muted
20:08:36 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has left #ws-addr
20:08:51 [pauld]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing
20:09:05 [pauld]
Topic: Administrivia
20:09:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.781.861.aadd
20:09:15 [swinkler]
zakim, unmute me
20:09:15 [Zakim]
swinkler should no longer be muted
20:09:24 [pauld]
register for Berlin F2F, room limited to 20
20:09:48 [pauld]
s/register/mnot: register/
20:10:04 [swinkler]
zakim, mute me
20:10:14 [Zakim]
swinkler should now be muted
20:10:45 [Zakim]
20:11:14 [pauld]
mnot: minutes April 19th, April 20th approved
20:11:32 [pauld]
zakim, ??p2 is yinleng
20:11:32 [Zakim]
+yinleng; got it
20:11:47 [pauld]
Topic: Action Item Review
20:11:55 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has joined #ws-addr
20:13:38 [Zakim]
20:13:42 [Zakim]
20:14:12 [uyalcina]
uyalcina has joined #ws-addr
20:15:12 [Zakim]
20:15:50 [pauld]
Topic: Proposed New Issues
20:17:07 [mnot]
Topic: Proposed - Semantics of wsa:UsingAddressing@wsd:Required="false"
20:18:33 [Zakim]
+ +1.781.883.aaee
20:18:33 [pauld]
mnot: dhull oulines his new issue on semantics of wsa:UsingAddressing@wsdl:Required="false"
20:18:41 [pauld]
20:18:45 [Zakim]
- +1.781.861.aadd
20:18:56 [pauld]
s/mnot: dhull:/dhull: /
20:21:17 [anish]
as a side-note there is an issue (in my mind) about what the default value of wsdl20:required is
20:21:40 [uyalcina]
I have raised an issue on that one in WSDL 2.0 wg
20:21:52 [pauld]
marsh: baffled as the relevance to WSDL required='false', why do we need to define how wsdl:required works in our spec
20:22:11 [swinkler]
swinkler has joined #ws-addr
20:22:16 [swinkler]
swinkler has joined #ws-addr
20:22:34 [pauld]
dhull: advertising a service with wsdl:required changes the semantics of our spec
20:23:36 [dims]
dims has joined #ws-addr
20:23:59 [Arun]
zakim, mute me
20:23:59 [Zakim]
sorry, Arun, I do not see a party named 'Arun'
20:24:07 [Arun]
zakim, [Sun] is me
20:24:07 [Zakim]
+Arun; got it
20:24:12 [Arun]
zakim, mute me
20:24:12 [Zakim]
Arun should now be muted
20:24:30 [Zakim]
20:24:38 [dims]
zakim, mute me
20:24:38 [Zakim]
dims should now be muted
20:24:47 [TomRutt]
20:24:51 [Zakim]
20:25:12 [mnot]
ack TomR
20:25:18 [pauld]
discussion between paco and dhull regarding the scope of this issue over other bindings
20:26:18 [anish]
q+ to find out whether the issue is -- how the server knows that ws-addr is engaged. Or is it more?
20:27:37 [Zakim]
20:27:41 [mnot]
ack anish
20:27:41 [Zakim]
anish, you wanted to find out whether the issue is -- how the server knows that ws-addr is engaged. Or is it more?
20:29:55 [pauld]
tom: clarification of issue; the case we talking about is where a client isn't using addressing and doesn't send wsa:action.
20:29:57 [pauld]
paco: should be possible to tell at the xml level if wsa is engaged
20:30:00 [pauld]
anish: is the issue about how the server can detect addressing is engaged?
20:30:01 [pauld]
dhull: possible to have bindings which don't work that way (scribe having difficulty hearing)
20:31:59 [Zakim]
20:32:06 [pauld]
anish: so a strange binding that doesn't have something in the message to indicate addressing is in play may need something above current WSDL language
20:32:19 [plh]
zakim, mute me
20:32:19 [Zakim]
Plh should now be muted
20:32:34 [pauld]
mnot: concerned that the current wording of the issue doesn't capture the discussion
20:33:00 [pauld]
daveo: i'm confused
20:33:06 [pauld]
umit: what's the likelyhood of this happening?
20:34:16 [Zakim]
20:34:26 [pauld]
dhull: cites intermediary use-case
20:35:15 [pauld]
ACTION: dhull to restate the new issue regarding wsdl required='true' semantics
20:36:19 [pauld]
mnot: volunteer for owning new issue regarding namespace split across two documents
20:36:48 [pauld]
ACTION: jmarsh to promote discussion in issue i60
20:37:09 [pauld]
Topic: issue lc6 and lc35
20:38:39 [dhull]
20:39:35 [anish]
20:40:04 [pauld]
marsh: had an action to move this forward. still like my original formulation, but modified it folowing discussion related to 'endpoint conformance'. Does a conformant endpoint have to reject messages without wsa headers? Conformance only applies where wsa headers are in play.
20:40:15 [Zakim]
20:40:33 [mnot]
ack dhull
20:41:11 [pauld]
mnot: messages on the list are still very fresh and many will not have seen them, so will time limit this discussion
20:41:33 [mnot]
ack anish
20:42:54 [pauld]
anish: reformulation isn't what i had in mind. An endpoint should conform to the soap binding specification which doesn't define how and when to send fault or reply messages. these are defined by WSDL MEPs and our specification
20:43:18 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has left #ws-addr
20:43:58 [pauld]
marsh: spec doesn't define what is a request-response MEP. We don't need to nail that down as it's in the domain of other specs.
20:44:17 [dhull]
20:44:35 [pauld]
anish: MEP in play belongs in the soap binding specification
20:45:18 [pauld]
umit: unclear why this is a conformance for soap or core specs, rather wsdl section.
20:45:48 [pauld]
paco: request-reply may exist regardless of if there is a WSDL description
20:46:24 [pauld]
s/of if there is/of there being/
20:46:42 [pauld]
anish: not necessary rules have to be defined in WSDL
20:47:19 [pauld]
paco: specs don't mandate a reply has to be sent, just how fields are used when on is sent
20:47:27 [pauld]
marsh: that captures my intent
20:49:41 [pauld]
dhull: core and soap are bound together. reads section 3 regarding MAPs as implying a fault / reply must be sent. compliance testing would test sending a response as an assertion
20:50:09 [pauld]
marsh: spec should not define case when we don't use addressing.
20:50:54 [uyalcina]
20:51:16 [pauld]
dhull: sending a message to a conformant endpoint without addressing should be faulted.
20:51:49 [pauld]
marsh: core specification isn't testable on its own, only when used inanother context, such as soap
20:53:17 [pauld]
dhull: sounds like we're in agreement, solicits if anyone agrees we need more precise text. don't think normative statements belong in the core.
20:53:29 [pauld]
marsh: agreed
20:53:58 [mnot]
ack dhull
20:54:11 [pauld]
s/agreed/agreed (conformance to the core is ill defined)/
20:54:33 [pauld]
daveo: agrees conformance to the core is not well defined
20:54:33 [mnot]
ack umit
20:54:38 [mnot]
ack uyal
20:54:52 [Zakim]
20:55:23 [Zakim]
20:55:38 [pauld]
paco: one option is to put soap binding and core together in the same document
20:56:33 [dhull]
20:56:43 [pauld]
.. conformance can only be proven if core is paired with a binding. that's a well defined statement and may allow the core to remain separate.
20:56:49 [pauld]
anish: agrees
20:57:08 [dhull]
20:57:29 [pauld]
Topic: lc26
20:59:08 [pauld]
marsh: had action to clarify fault to be returned if wsa:action header differs from http action in soap 1.1/1.2
20:59:58 [pauld]
.. soap 1.1 has a required soapAction header (WS-I BP)
21:00:47 [pauld]
.. proposal allows soapAction to be empty
21:00:58 [bob]
bob has joined #ws-addr
21:01:11 [pauld]
anish: we should clarify empty means open-quotes, closed-quotes to match WS-I BP
21:01:31 [Zakim]
21:02:13 [pauld]
marsh: do we have to define empty given it's possible for people to not be using the BP?
21:02:33 [pauld]
mnot: suggests using BP as an example
21:02:34 [Zakim]
21:02:42 [uyalcina]
+1 to Marc
21:03:10 [pauld]
marc: we should use this chance to nail text to match the BP
21:03:14 [mnot]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:03:25 [Zakim]
mnot, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: MarkN (13%), +44.196.286.aaaa (83%), Jonathan_Marsh (22%)
21:04:00 [pauld]
zakim, aaaa is mpeel
21:04:01 [Zakim]
+mpeel; got it
21:04:08 [pauld]
zakim, mute mpeel
21:04:08 [Zakim]
mpeel should now be muted
21:04:10 [Zakim]
21:04:48 [Marsh]
"The SOAPAction HTTP header is required when using the SOAP 1.1 HTTP binding. The value of the SOAPAction HTTP header MUST either be identical to the value of the wsa:Action header, or empty. The latter case supports the ability to obscure the wsa:Action header through SOAP-level security mechanisms, without requiring otherwise unnecessary transport-level security. Failure to have an identical value, or an empty value for SOAPAction, results in the Invalid M
21:05:05 [TonyR]
zakim, unmute me
21:05:05 [Zakim]
TonyR should no longer be muted
21:05:09 [TonyR]
21:05:17 [dhull]
s/or empty/or be empty/
21:06:14 [mnot]
ack TonyR
21:06:34 [pauld]
anish: does anyone want to be non-BP compliant (at least in this case)?
21:06:55 [pauld]
tonyR: seems like low cost to allow non-BP cases
21:06:59 [pauld]
marsh: works for me
21:07:09 [TonyR]
zakim, mute me please
21:07:09 [Zakim]
TonyR should now be muted
21:08:00 [pauld]
ACTION: approved lc26 with Jonathan's original proposal combined with his updated proposal
21:08:33 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: approved lc26 with Jonathan's original proposal combined with his updated proposal
21:08:43 [mnot]
... leaving out ""
21:09:11 [pauld]
Topic: lc28 and lc33
21:09:17 [mlpeel]
mlpeel has joined #ws-addr
21:09:46 [Marsh]
21:10:57 [pauld]
marsh: outlines proposal
21:13:43 [pauld]
marsh: editorial guidelines: we should use [] refps notation consistantly ; it should be clear that echoing headers is at the XML representation, not infoset level
21:14:08 [pauld]
marc: may have already done some of this in the latest editors draft
21:14:50 [pauld]
paco: fine with this
21:14:53 [dhull]
21:15:25 [mnot]
ack dhull
21:15:57 [pauld]
mnot: suggests editors to work on this direction and WG to review
21:16:48 [anish]
21:17:54 [mnot]
ack anish
21:19:53 [dhull]
21:20:13 [pauld]
discussion between marsh and marc regarding use and structure of notation
21:21:03 [pauld]
anish: suggest dropping use of serialized regarding infoset. prefers 'mapped'
21:21:21 [mnot]
ack dhull
21:22:23 [bjarlestam]
bjarlestam has joined #ws-addr
21:24:10 [pauld]
discussion of serialising IRIs .. going off piste ..
21:26:05 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close issue lc28 with Jonathan's proposal and adding word 'infoset' where appropriate
21:26:54 [pauld]
marsh: outlines proposal for lc33
21:28:16 [dhull]
21:28:51 [mnot]
21:28:54 [anish]
things would be so much easier and non-convoluted if we just get rid of abstract props and keep only the infoset stuff
21:29:21 [mnot]
ack dhull
21:30:26 [uyalcina]
looks good to me,
21:30:56 [pauld]
21:31:06 [mnot]
zakim, who is here?
21:31:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see mpeel (muted), MSEder (muted), Rebecca_Bergersen, Nilo_Mitra, Dave_Hull, anish, Jonathan_Marsh, Prasad_Yendluri, Ugo_Corda, Tom_Rutt, + (muted),
21:31:09 [Zakim]
... Arun (muted), Mark_Peel, [IBM], Marc, ALewis (muted), DOrchard, Plh (muted), pauld, +1.408.748.aacc, TonyR (muted), Umit_Yalcinalp, +1.781.883.aaee, Bob_Freund, JeffM, MarkN
21:31:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bjarlestam, mlpeel, bob, dims, uyalcina, alewis, Paco, yinleng, Arun, marc, prasad, abbie, TonyR, dhull, anish, RebeccaB, MSEder, Nilo, Marsh, RRSAgent, Zakim, mnot,
21:31:16 [Zakim]
... plh, pauld
21:31:20 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: closed LC36 with Jonathan's proposal
21:32:24 [MSEder]
zakim, unmute me
21:32:24 [Zakim]
MSEder should no longer be muted
21:34:21 [MSEder]
zakim, mute me
21:34:21 [Zakim]
MSEder should now be muted
21:34:21 [pauld]
Topic: lc33
21:34:31 [Zakim]
21:34:58 [pauld]
s/Topic: lc33/Topic: lc34/
21:36:14 [TonyR]
zakim, unmute me
21:36:14 [Zakim]
TonyR should no longer be muted
21:36:58 [pauld]
marsh: outlines proposal for duplicate headers at the ultimate recipient
21:37:20 [pauld]
tonyr: suggests dropping term 'ultimate recipient'
21:37:37 [pauld]
marsh: we still need to target a particular node
21:38:07 [pauld]
anish: how do we determin if it's targetted at a particular node (as opposed to a role?)
21:38:18 [pauld]
marc: that's the joy of soap!
21:39:14 [pauld]
marc: you can't have more than one of these targetted at a node, which is stricter and not deterministic from looking at the message
21:39:48 [Zakim]
21:39:57 [pauld]
anish: can have multiple 'To's if they are targetted at differnet nodes?
21:40:07 [pauld]
mnot: action item is regarding faults
21:40:39 [pauld]
marc: glen had a use-case for this
21:41:33 [pauld]
anish: recipient node has to decide which roles it is playing
21:42:06 [pauld]
umit: unconvinced why we ended up with node rather than role. why did we do this?
21:42:14 [pauld]
marsh: glen and marc convinced us!
21:42:58 [pauld]
marc: suggests only having one To header (at most) but doesn't satisfy Glen's use-case
21:43:39 [pauld]
anish: questions reason for using node rather than role
21:44:55 [pauld]
mnot: role is in the infoset [node isn't]
21:45:18 [dhull]
21:45:37 [pauld]
marc: raises case where a node is playing two roles with two To's
21:46:48 [mnot]
ack dhull
21:47:27 [pauld]
dhull: thinks this is put out of scope by our spec; we should just be talking about the ultimate receiver
21:48:01 [pauld]
marc: ultimate receiver [node] always plays at least two roles
21:48:52 [pauld]
umit: likes proposed solution with role rather than node
21:50:05 [pauld]
marsh: would welcome amendment, but wants to be consistant with soap
21:50:24 [dhull]
21:50:34 [pauld]
anish: discussion of Glen's (WS-Routing) use-case
21:50:55 [mnot]
ack dhull
21:51:36 [pauld]
dhull: thinks wording regarding targetted and ultimate receiver is correct
21:51:52 [mnot]
21:52:17 [pauld]
.. wants clarification regarding multiple faults and errors
21:54:51 [pauld]
.. fault coming back should clarify which role being played by a node caused the error
21:55:07 [pauld]
marc: soap 1.2 has a role element
21:55:37 [Zakim]
21:55:43 [pauld]
tonyr: thinks it's 'actor'
21:56:12 [anish]
this is both a 'node' element and an 'role' element
21:56:19 [anish]
s/this is/there is/
21:57:04 [anish]
21:57:14 [anish]
21:57:32 [pauld]
marc: thinks we've covered intemediary processing
21:59:15 [pauld]
vikas: ignoring that an intemediary may exist is the safest way of working on the Internet
22:00:49 [Zakim]
22:00:51 [Zakim]
22:00:52 [Zakim]
22:00:53 [Zakim]
22:00:55 [Zakim]
22:00:56 [Zakim]
22:00:57 [Zakim]
- +1.408.748.aacc
22:00:58 [pauld]
ACTION: marc to respond to Jonathan's proposal for lc34
22:00:58 [Zakim]
22:00:59 [Zakim]
22:00:59 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr
22:01:00 [Zakim]
22:01:01 [Zakim]
- +1.781.883.aaee
22:01:03 [Zakim]
22:01:05 [Zakim]
22:01:06 [Zakim]
22:01:08 [Zakim]
- +
22:01:09 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
22:01:10 [Zakim]
22:01:12 [Zakim]
22:01:14 [Zakim]
22:01:15 [mnot]
rrsagent, make logs public
22:01:16 [Zakim]
22:01:18 [Zakim]
22:01:20 [Zakim]
22:01:21 [mnot]
rrsagent, please generate minutes
22:01:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mnot
22:01:32 [Zakim]
22:01:33 [Zakim]
22:01:34 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
22:01:35 [Zakim]
Attendees were +44.196.286.aaaa, MarkN, MSEder, Rebecca_Bergersen, Bob_Freund, Nilo_Mitra, Dave_Hull, anish, Jonathan_Marsh, swinkler, Prasad_Yendluri, Ugo_Corda, Tom_Rutt,
22:01:39 [Zakim]
... Abbie_Barbir, +, Mark_Peel, [IBM], Marc, Mark_Little, ALewis, DOrchard, Plh, pauld, +1.408.748.aacc, TonyR, +1.781.861.aadd, yinleng, Umit_Yalcinalp,
22:01:41 [Zakim]
... +1.781.883.aaee, Arun, dims, JeffM, mpeel
22:02:56 [pauld]
s/mnot: dhull /
22:03:03 [pauld]
s/mnot: dhull /dhull: /
22:26:10 [yinleng]
yinleng has left #ws-addr
22:39:58 [MSEder]
MSEder has left #ws-addr