See also: IRC log
test
yesz
yes]
on mute
<scribe> chair: any additional items? None.
<scribe> chair: can we approve? Minutes approved
<scribe> chair: anish issue item 4 for Berlin
anish: can I please have a deadline?
<scribe> chair: next Monday
AI for Glen. Did it, but it hasn't turned up yet.
Gudge - not done AIs yet. Will be done by end of call.
Jonathan lc6 done AI
M Hadley done AI.
<scribe> chair: pulled out easy ones to start with.
<scribe> ACTION: write back to Jack. Jonathan to take. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/16-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
RESOLUTION: editorial - accept issue
<scribe> ACTION: katey to take lc66 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/16-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]
<prasad> +1
<scribe> ACTION: accept issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/16-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]
ok
RESOLUTION: jonathan accepted and was on call
<Marsh> I accept the resolution of issue LC74 as a satisfactory resolution of my comment :-)
<scribe> chair: is this just the semantics of wsa headers or any other headers?
paco: all headers
anish: why would we want to prevent wsa:action in a header? seems like you may want to do this.
paco: seems to require a SHOULD NOT rather than MUST NOT
general discussion: is there a really good reason for putting wsa in refparams? not sure. but if we disallow this we'd require the parsing of all refparams to check.
daveo: leave unspecified.
<scribe> chair: someone write up propsal for discussion?
glen to take this.
<mnot> ACTION: Glen to write proposal for lc77 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/16-ws-addr-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: glen to write proposal for general. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/16-ws-addr-minutes.html#action05]
RESOLUTION: editorial
RESOLUTION: accept and editorial
<Marsh> We should change: "The reply to a WS-Addressing compliant request message MUST be compliant to WS-Addressing and is constructed according to the following rules:"
chair
<scribe> chair: defer
<Marsh> To "The reply to a WS-Addressing request message is constructed according to the following rules:"
RESOLUTION: accept and editorial
RESOLUTION: accept and editorial
RESOLUTION: accept and editorial
RESOLUTION: accept and editorial to update references
anish: has to be serializable with xml 1.0, bur you don't have to use xml 1.0 - could use 1.1?
<scribe> chair: agreed. So issue is to state that as long as 1.0 can serialize it then it's fine?
anish: +1
RESOLUTION: not relevant issue. close lc96 no action.
RESOLUTION: accept and editorial
RESOLUTION: accept and editorial
RESOLUTION: close. duplicate of lc13
RESOLUTION: accept and editorial
RESOLUTION: accept and editorial
<scribe> ACTION: jonathan take it and write back to umit [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/16-ws-addr-minutes.html#action06]
<mnot> ACTION 6=Jonathan to write back to reviewer on lc106 and look into notational conventions
paco: reply not necessarily tied to response in wsdl
glossary
<plh> Web Services Glossary -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-ws-gloss-20040211/
paco: text in section 3 for this
issue
... dont' want limiting definition of request-reply
marc: current text is too subtle
paco: ha[[y to take AI to clarify
<mnot> ACTION: Paco to continue discussion of lc107 on the list. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/16-ws-addr-minutes.html#action07]
<scribe> ACTION: continue discussion on list. leave open [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/16-ws-addr-minutes.html#action08]
jonathan: interesting to add
regardless. Sizeof refparams - too large could cause denial of
service attack.
... may want to limit size.
... scarce resources - how many sockets service has open; might
be possible to send enough eprs to exhaust.
anish: why is this special?
... true for any header (xml related, not ws-addr
specific).
<scribe> chair: not exposing self, but exposing someone else?
jonathan: nope
... really is ws-addr specific. complex headers take time to
process (potentially blocking).
caveat emptor
;-)
jonathan: developer feedback. better in the spec than out?
##any too?
jonathan: will go back to security guys and check
tony: small messages may expand
while being processed
... "pass by reference"
<scribe> chair: asks jonathan to go back and check
anish: the idea of causing someone else to be the victim is intertesting
<mnot> ACTION: Jonathan to come back with more information on lc37 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/16-ws-addr-minutes.html#action09]
jonathan: non-neg integer for
retry value on fault. prefer something that does not have
arbitrary number of digits. may become implementation
dependant.
... unsigned int or long
<scribe> chair: look at lc73 too
paco: likes jonathan's proposal, which covers all reasonable scenarios.
+1
<bob> +1
+1 for unsigned long
<dhull> unsigned long, but would take unsigned int
XP can be slow sometimes ;-)
<bob> anything longer than a fortnight is ok
<dhull> +1
RESOLUTION: accept lc 38 and use unsigned long.
+1
<bob> I favor the never expected to be successful
marc: lc73 - if value omitted retry is never expected to be successful.
42
<bob> no
RESOLUTION: lc73 marc's suggestion accepted.
<scribe> ACTION: marc to write back. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/16-ws-addr-minutes.html#action10]
sorry
OK
<scribe> chair: thoughts? is this a problem?
milo: only one and always addressed to ultimate receiver?
<scribe> chair: clearly not 1 for wsa:action
<Marsh> Is the proposal to replace (mandatory) with (1..1)? Seems reasonable.
couldn't hear
<katy> sorry - poor phone
+1
<katy> I think nthat my point ha sjust been made one
<katy> well
general: is mandatory 1..1 or 1..* ?
<katy> How do other specs define mandatory?
ws-context uses mandatory to mean 1..1
glen: when you receive msg, you pull out all elements targetted at you and you will only get 1 addressing property. doesn't mean there may not be another one in the header targetted at someone else.
tonyr: mandatory means "at least one", with no statement referring to maximum
<pauld> wonders if we're revisiting issue#9 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i009
tonyr: dont; overload mandatory
<Marsh> Proposal: Change (mandatory) to (1..1)
<scribe> chair: remove mandatory?
tonyr: no, happy to keep mandatory but qualify it with other word(s)
<Marsh> Assuming (x..y) is short for minOccurs=x, maxOccurs=y, which it seems to be.
<dhull> +1 .. 1
mandatory and limited to 1?
<plh> (1..?)
<anish> the correct set notation I think would be [1, 1]. I *think* [] implies inclusive and () implies exclusive
"We are also chartered to refine the WS-Addressing member submission which restricts the cardinality of message informational headers such as destination, source, reply, fault, action and message id to be at most one instance per message."
<scribe> chair: put 1..1 in draft?
<dhull> +1 .. * to formal notation
<scribe> chair: additional text for mapping to abstract bag of properties?
<scribe> chair: we can write back saying 1..1 is what is meant instead of mandatory?
<bob> +1
<katy> +1
<scribe> chair: any objections? none.
<pauld> recalls reading something about having multiple EPRs in the IBM Basic B2B Profile, but can no longer find it: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/specification/ws-b2b/
<bob> -1
<TomRutt> Is there a fault for the receiver to return if they do not understand metadata?
<scribe> chair: everyone comfortable to say nothing about metadata? OK
chair; is this a case of mislabeling?
<scribe> chair: any objection to asking the editors to look at this?
<bob> dwr
marc: table with prop. name, description, where it goes in soap 1.1/1.2
thanks
<marc> ACTION: marc to write arun re lc57 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/16-ws-addr-minutes.html#action11]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.126 of Date: 2005/05/16 16:49:48 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/966/96/ Succeeded: s/gudge/marc/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: mlittle Inferring Scribes: mlittle Default Present: Bob_Freund, MarkN, Plh, Mark_Little, Nilo_Mitra, Ugo_Corda, Jonathan_Marsh, Paul_Knight, +1.408.748.aaaa, Abbie_Barbir, [Microsoft], Tom_Rutt, Mark_Peel, Arun, Marc_Hadley, Paco:Francisco_Curbera, pauld, MSEder, swinkler, Dave_Orchard, Prasad_Yendluri, JeffM, katy, anish, GlenD, TonyR, ALewis, yinleng Present: Bob_Freund MarkN Plh Mark_Little Nilo_Mitra Ugo_Corda Jonathan_Marsh Paul_Knight +1.408.748.aaaa Abbie_Barbir [Microsoft] Tom_Rutt Mark_Peel Arun Marc_Hadley Paco:Francisco_Curbera pauld MSEder swinkler Dave_Orchard Prasad_Yendluri JeffM katy anish GlenD TonyR ALewis yinleng Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/024e7814e640892aa6016a0429eca459@bea.com Got date from IRC log name: 16 May 2005 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2005/05/16-ws-addr-minutes.html People with action items: accept back continue glen jonathan katey marc paco write WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]