IRC log of ws-addr on 2005-06-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:36:42 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:36:42 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:36:51 [mnot]
zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
19:36:51 [Zakim]
ok, mnot; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 24 minutes
19:37:07 [mnot]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing Working Group Teleconference
19:37:10 [mnot]
Chair: Mark Nottingham
19:37:26 [mnot]
19:53:53 [mlpeel]
mlpeel has joined #ws-addr
19:56:14 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has joined #ws-addr
19:58:04 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
19:58:20 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
19:58:22 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
19:58:27 [Zakim]
19:58:53 [Zakim]
19:59:06 [prasad]
prasad has joined #ws-addr
19:59:42 [bob]
bob has joined #ws-addr
20:00:17 [Zakim]
20:00:18 [Zakim]
20:00:21 [Zakim]
20:00:22 [Zakim]
20:00:33 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p2 is me
20:00:33 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
20:00:50 [Zakim]
20:01:00 [Zakim]
20:01:05 [Zakim]
20:01:13 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-addr
20:01:16 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
20:01:32 [Zakim]
20:01:49 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
20:01:57 [Zakim]
20:02:15 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
20:02:21 [Zakim]
20:02:32 [Zakim]
20:02:33 [Zakim]
20:02:34 [Zakim]
20:02:59 [Zakim]
20:03:00 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.476.aaaa
20:03:02 [Zakim]
20:03:25 [vinoski]
vinoski has joined #ws-addr
20:03:26 [TonyR]
zakim, who is on the phone?
20:03:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Tom_Rutt, Abbie_Barbir, TonyR, MarkN, ??P4, Katy, Prasad_Yendluri, Bob_Freund, Hugo, Pete_Wenzel, Anish, [IBM], Dave_Hull, DOrchard, Steve_Vinoski, MSEder,
20:03:30 [Zakim]
... +1.408.476.aaaa, Mark_Peel
20:03:54 [GlenD]
GlenD has joined #ws-addr
20:04:11 [Zakim]
20:04:27 [Zakim]
20:05:06 [Zakim]
20:05:11 [GlenD]
zakim, P20 is me
20:05:11 [Zakim]
sorry, GlenD, I do not recognize a party named 'P20'
20:05:17 [GlenD]
zakim, ??P20 is me
20:05:17 [Zakim]
+GlenD; got it
20:07:56 [Marsh-backup]
Marsh-backup has joined #ws-addr
20:08:21 [mlpeel]
No corrections to minutes; no objections to approving minutes for June 20
20:11:22 [Zakim]
20:11:34 [mnot]
Topic: Coordination
20:12:10 [mnot]
20:12:30 [mnot]
Anish's Response:
20:15:10 [Zakim]
20:19:06 [anish]
20:20:22 [GlenD]
20:21:54 [mnot]
ack anish
20:22:56 [mnot]
ack Geln
20:22:58 [mnot]
ack Glen
20:24:02 [mnot]
ack hugo
20:24:43 [Zakim]
20:25:29 [mnot]
"The Addressing Working Group does not have additional requirements for the deliverables mentioned, but may have additional requirements for other, related deliverables in the near future. The WG believes that XMLP should commence development of the one-way MEP and binding, as the additional requirements are likely to be orthogonal to the delivery of them."
20:33:35 [mlpeel]
Discussion of whether the requirements to XMLP were clear enough and whether possible future requirements would indeed be orthogonal.
20:33:40 [mlpeel]
20:34:46 [anish]
20:35:09 [dhull]
20:35:34 [mnot]
Topic: lc90
20:35:42 [anish]
20:36:18 [mlpeel]
lc90: Paco: this is a valid way of doing things and we should close with no action.
20:36:25 [mnot]
ack dhull
20:36:50 [mlpeel]
dhull: we all agree we need a nonce to prevent replay attacks.
20:38:40 [mlpeel]
dhull and paco discussed what the spec was actually saying about using MessageId to determine uniqueness.
20:40:05 [chad]
chad has joined #ws-addr
20:40:37 [pauld]
chad, question: How to resolve lc90
20:40:53 [pauld]
chad, option 1: close the issue with no action
20:41:27 [pauld]
chad, option 1: remove the paragraph from the spec
20:41:43 [pauld]
chad, option 3: proposed solution in lc issue
20:42:12 [mlpeel]
dhull doesn't like messageID + timestamp as a nonce; he would like the sentence recast to eliminate ambiguity
20:42:13 [mnot]
chad, option 2: close the issue with no action
20:42:13 [Marsh-backup]
Add "In this case, " to the start of the 2nd sentence
20:42:41 [pauld]
chad, list options
20:43:34 [mlpeel]
Proposal: add "In this case" to the start of the 2nd sentence; no objections
20:44:11 [Zakim]
- +1.408.476.aaaa
20:44:20 [mlpeel]
l68: MustUnderstand extensibility
20:45:07 [mnot]
Topic: lc68
20:45:09 [TonyR]
20:45:47 [dorchard]
q+ to ask about "understanding"
20:45:59 [mnot]
ack dorch
20:45:59 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to ask about "understanding"
20:46:53 [GlenD]
20:47:16 [anish]
20:47:45 [mlpeel]
Jonathan, after consulting internally, thinks this a big design change -- too big for the time we have
20:47:49 [mnot]
ack glend
20:50:11 [mnot]
ack anish
20:50:20 [RebeccaB]
RebeccaB has joined #ws-addr
20:50:23 [mlpeel]
GlenD: I don't think we have to go as far as Jonathan is worried we'd have to. We could leave the portion about including WSDL rather fuzzy -- but mandatory.
20:51:33 [mlpeel]
Anish: agrees this is not time-consuming and would be a good thing to put in the spec.
20:52:14 [mlpeel]
mnot: a previous issue covered this point; do we really need to re-open this?
20:52:14 [dorchard]
BEA has changed it's mind on this issue.
20:52:30 [GlenD]
+1 reopen
20:52:41 [TonyR]
happy to leave un-re-opened
20:52:48 [RebeccaB]
+1 reopen
20:52:54 [dorchard]
+1 to reopen after more discussion with my various eng teams
20:52:56 [Marsh-backup]
Stay out of the trout pond - keep it closed.
20:53:05 [dhull]
20:53:06 [mlpeel]
Poll: should we re-open the issue about adding mustUnderstand
20:53:06 [anish]
+1 reopen
20:53:08 [TomRutt]
reopen issue
20:53:11 [jeffm]
jeffm has joined #ws-addr
20:53:12 [pauld]
please, no
20:53:15 [jeffm]
20:53:16 [TomRutt]
+1 reopen
20:53:21 [vinoski]
+1 reopen
20:53:26 [jeffm]
+1 reopen
20:53:39 [Paco]
20:53:39 [pauld]
20:53:40 [bob]
20:53:41 [TonyR]
20:53:41 [mlpeel]
-1: leave it closed
20:53:41 [Marsh-backup]
20:53:49 [Katy]
20:54:30 [MSEder]
MSEder has joined #ws-addr
20:54:56 [GlenD]
Alas, this will entail moving forward with a formal objection. :(
20:54:59 [mlpeel]
mnot: we had a clear direction on this before and it's contentious, so we should leave it closed.
20:55:04 [Marsh-backup]
Gudge says "file -1 for me too"
20:55:41 [dorchard]
Isn't a usual tactic to ask whether a minority opinion will be filed?
20:56:08 [jeffm]
seems like its the contentious things that need to be discussed -- albeit in a time-boxed fashion --
20:56:53 [jeffm]
essentially this process makes it virtually impossible for the group to change its mind, even if a majority are in favor
20:57:02 [mlpeel]
Action: Jonathan will write Jacek and explain why mustUnderstand will not be added to EPRs
20:57:19 [GlenD]
Jeff, I think the objection process works, it's just a little annoying.
20:57:23 [mlpeel]
Topic: lc20 Clarify anonymous URI
20:57:38 [jeffm]
its far too heavyweight IMO
20:57:55 [GlenD]
I can see that viewpoint too
20:58:01 [mnot]
Some transport bindings, notably SOAP/HTTP, provide a means of returning a message directly to the sender of that message, regardless of its contents. To allow for direct use of such a facility, WS-Addressing defines the URI "" to indicate that the destination is the sender: This URI MAY be used as the [address] of the [reply endpoint] and/or [fault endpoint] addressing property, but SHOULD NOT be so used if the transpor
20:58:12 [jeffm]
and it leaves it to THE DIRECTOR, not the WG
20:59:19 [mnot]
n not to provide a return facility.
20:59:53 [jeffm]
Seems like the case pro/con in an objection is made much stronger/weaker if one can say: look, in response to LC comments the WG took another look and reaffirmed its position/changed its mind
20:59:56 [Zakim]
21:01:16 [Zakim]
21:01:17 [mlpeel]
Jonathan: dhull's proposal seems to go beyond the original meaning
21:01:32 [mlpeel]
dhull: if there are other cases, we should handle them separately
21:02:14 [mlpeel]
Jonathan will do more research; issue goes back to the list.
21:02:19 [dorchard]
I gotta say that I don't think an 8 to 7 straw poll for re-opening an issue is quite strong enough to re-open. Maybe if it was 10 to 5...
21:02:28 [TomRutt]
on LC 68 : the unclarity semantics of "extensibility" of epr, lead me to want to reconsider the use of a mustUnderstand on an EPR extension
21:02:34 [mlpeel]
Topic: lc104
21:02:49 [mlpeel]
Anish didn't get to this
21:03:03 [mlpeel]
Topic: lc101; remains pending
21:03:15 [mlpeel]
Topic: lc103 and lc 107
21:04:01 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has joined #ws-addr
21:04:12 [mlpeel]
Anish doesn't think there's an issue(s) here any more; recommends closing with no action
21:04:14 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has joined #ws-addr
21:04:15 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has joined #ws-addr
21:04:20 [jeffm]
i gotta ask why people are so afraid of voting on a new proposal -- afraid the wg might change its mind ?
21:04:57 [mlpeel]
Can we close lc103 with no action? No objections
21:05:20 [mlpeel]
Topic: lc107
21:05:36 [mnot]
21:06:49 [mnot]
21:07:14 [dhull]
21:07:52 [mnot]
ack dhull
21:08:01 [mlpeel]
Marc proposed using "message" and "reply"; this would not change Anish's stance on lc103
21:08:42 [mlpeel]
dhull: "reply" seems confusing because of "ReplyTo" and "FaultTo"
21:09:09 [mlpeel]
dhull: "response" seems preferable, but explanation in text is acceptable.
21:09:21 [anish]
21:09:26 [mnot]
ack anish
21:11:05 [mlpeel]
No one objects to Marc's proposal
21:11:36 [mlpeel]
"Message" and "Reply" with a qualification of the scope of "Reply"
21:12:03 [mnot]
ACTIN: Jonathan to communication resolution of lc107 back to WSDL WG
21:12:15 [mnot]
ACTION: Jonathan to communication resolution of lc107 back to WSDL WG
21:12:19 [Zakim]
21:12:35 [abbie]
abbie has left #ws-addr
21:12:40 [mlpeel]
Topic: lc69
21:12:54 [mnot]
21:13:45 [Marsh]
Marsh has joined #ws-addr
21:17:40 [mlpeel]
Katy: runs through proposal for a "no reply" URI that can be used in replyTo EPRs
21:19:56 [mlpeel]
Katy: alternately, we might define a "not valid" EPR for use with reply, fault, or source endpoints.
21:20:59 [mlpeel]
TomRutt: is this at the sender's discretion or would it be required at all? Katy: NoReply is a runtime decision
21:22:51 [dhull]
21:23:17 [mnot]
ack dhull
21:23:26 [mlpeel]
Paco: this is just a different way of expressing things, like omitting an endpoint; it may be a good compromise proposal.
21:23:55 [TomRutt]
I wuld like to clarify that I could accept the IBM proposal if it was left to the client whether it is used or not.
21:25:34 [mlpeel]
Katy: this allows a default of the anonymous URI for omitted endpoints
21:27:46 [mlpeel]
dhull: is this aimed at the request/response or the one-way case? Katy: both
21:28:48 [TomRutt]
21:29:06 [Zakim]
21:31:12 [mnot]
ack TomRutt
21:31:33 [mlpeel]
Paco: replies are not limited to the WSDL MEPs, so one-ways may come in answer to one-ways
21:31:35 [dhull]
q+ to ask what part of WSA is affected by the one-way semantics
21:32:21 [mlpeel]
TomRutt: would like to see this taken to the email list because of the lengthy discussion
21:32:30 [Zakim]
21:33:01 [mnot]
ack dhull
21:33:01 [Zakim]
dhull, you wanted to ask what part of WSA is affected by the one-way semantics
21:35:00 [mlpeel]
dhull: is this all in the context of section 3.3 or is more general? Katy: this affects the re-opened i50, so I think it affects only the section about formulating a reply.
21:35:59 [mlpeel]
Topic: lc87 and lc55
21:36:02 [mnot]
21:37:46 [mlpeel]
Jonathan: we had some concerns about a security section having SHOULDs: security are advice, not normative
21:38:04 [dhull]
SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
21:38:13 [mlpeel]
mnot: that may be true in the IETF, but it may not be the case for the W3C
21:39:18 [mlpeel]
Jonathan: otherwise we support Marc's proposed text.
21:39:30 [Marsh]
Believe SHOULD vs. should is pretty much editorial...
21:39:43 [mlpeel]
Paco: still looking for feedback.
21:40:18 [mlpeel]
mnot: if there's no feedback by the next meeting, we'll re-open i4 and approve this text.
21:40:22 [Zakim]
21:40:57 [Zakim]
21:41:19 [mlpeel]
Topic: lc76 supported faults
21:43:35 [hugo]
21:46:35 [mnot]
ACTION: David Hull to continutally refine lc76 proposal to reflect other changes; make into spec text
21:46:39 [mlpeel]
mnot: adding subcodes is not a substantial change (this in response to a concern that changing this section exposes WSA to another Last call
21:49:19 [mlpeel]
Topic: lc5, utility of [source endpoint] unclear
21:50:32 [dhull]
q+ To point out this may mesh with "return to sender" rule.
21:50:47 [mlpeel]
mnot: should we leave it in without comment, leave it with test cases, or identify it as "at risk"
21:51:09 [mnot]
ack dhull
21:51:09 [Zakim]
dhull, you wanted to point out this may mesh with "return to sender" rule.
21:53:17 [mlpeel]
mnot: marking it as a feature at risk leaves our options open; we'll revisit this after the other issues are closed.
21:54:20 [TomRutt]
21:54:51 [jeffm]
21:55:32 [mnot]
ack tomr
21:55:34 [mnot]
ack jeff
21:56:01 [Zakim]
21:56:03 [Zakim]
21:56:04 [Zakim]
21:56:04 [Zakim]
21:56:05 [Zakim]
21:56:06 [Zakim]
21:56:07 [Zakim]
21:56:07 [Zakim]
21:56:08 [Zakim]
21:56:10 [Zakim]
21:56:12 [Zakim]
21:56:14 [Zakim]
21:56:16 [Zakim]
21:56:18 [Zakim]
21:56:20 [Zakim]
21:56:20 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has left #ws-addr
21:56:22 [Zakim]
21:56:24 [Zakim]
21:56:26 [Zakim]
21:56:28 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
21:56:29 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
21:56:30 [Zakim]
Attendees were Tom_Rutt, Abbie_Barbir, MarkN, Katy, TonyR, Prasad_Yendluri, Bob_Freund, Hugo, Pete_Wenzel, Anish, [IBM], Dave_Hull, Steve_Vinoski, DOrchard, MSEder,
21:56:33 [Zakim]
... +1.408.476.aaaa, Mark_Peel, Jonathan_Marsh, Paul_Downey, GlenD, JeffM, [Microsoft]
21:56:43 [hugo]
RRSAgent, make log public
22:00:08 [vinoski]
vinoski has left #ws-addr
23:03:37 [MSEder]
MSEder has left #ws-addr
23:41:17 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr