19:47:49 RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr 19:47:50 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/09/12-ws-addr-irc 19:47:59 zakim, this will be ws_addrwg 19:47:59 ok, mnot; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 13 minutes 19:48:15 Meeting: Web Services Addressing Working Group Teleconference 19:48:18 Chair: Mark Nottingham 19:48:31 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/B36675CE-269D-4C32-A739-CD7440BEACC5@bea.com 19:53:30 Nilo has joined #ws-addr 19:54:15 Marsh has joined #ws-addr 19:56:39 WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started 19:56:46 + +1.408.687.aaaa 19:56:57 +Vikas_Deolaliker 19:57:42 mlpeel has joined #ws-addr 19:57:57 Arun has joined #ws-addr 19:58:10 +Steve_Vinoski 19:58:15 TonyR has joined #ws-addr 19:58:27 +[Sun] 19:58:29 zakim, [Sun] is me 19:58:29 +Arun; got it 19:58:34 +Rebecca 19:59:02 +Jonathan_Marsh 19:59:09 vikas has joined #ws-addr 19:59:18 RebeccaB has joined #ws-addr 19:59:18 +DOrchard 19:59:20 +??P14 19:59:34 zakim, ??p14 is me 19:59:34 +TonyR; got it 19:59:36 +Nilo_Mitra 20:00:03 +MarkN 20:00:29 +Mark_Little 20:00:35 Pete has joined #ws-addr 20:00:36 +MSEder 20:00:46 pauld has joined #ws-addr 20:00:58 ZAKIM, mute mseder 20:00:58 MSEder should now be muted 20:01:01 ZAKIM, unmute mseder 20:01:01 MSEder should no longer be muted 20:01:05 stevewinkler has joined #ws-addr 20:01:10 +Andreas_Bjarlestam 20:01:20 +Mark_Peel 20:01:23 +Pete_Wenzel 20:01:30 +swinkler 20:01:40 MSEder has joined #ws-addr 20:01:41 zakim, swinkler is me 20:01:41 +stevewinkler; got it 20:02:02 zakim, who is on the phone? 20:02:02 On the phone I see +1.408.687.aaaa, Vikas_Deolaliker, Steve_Vinoski, Arun, Rebecca, Jonathan_Marsh, DOrchard, TonyR, Nilo_Mitra, MarkN, Mark_Little, MSEder, Andreas_Bjarlestam 20:02:05 ... (muted), Mark_Peel, Pete_Wenzel, stevewinkler 20:02:08 zakim, mute me 20:02:08 MSEder should now be muted 20:02:25 Katy has joined #ws-addr 20:02:29 andreas has joined #ws-addr 20:03:46 +David_Hull 20:03:50 anish has joined #ws-addr 20:03:55 +Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr 20:03:57 zakim, aaaa is GPilz 20:03:57 +GPilz; got it 20:04:03 +Prasad_Yendluri 20:04:26 +Marc_Hadley 20:04:43 prasad has joined #ws-addr 20:04:48 +Anish 20:04:58 marc has joined #ws-addr 20:05:21 dorchard has joined #ws-addr 20:05:28 +[MIT528] 20:05:38 GlenD has joined #ws-addr 20:05:56 Zakim, [MIT528] really is Hugo 20:05:56 I don't understand '[MIT528] really is Hugo', hugo 20:05:59 +GlenD 20:06:03 uyalcina has joined #ws-addr 20:06:09 Zakim, [MIT528] is really Hugo 20:06:09 +Hugo; got it 20:06:11 Scribe: Marsh 20:06:26 Meeting: WS-Addressing telcon 20:06:31 Chair: Mark 20:06:39 +Paul_Knight 20:06:43 Topic: Agenda review 20:06:52 +Umit_Yalcinalp 20:06:57 vinoski has joined #ws-addr 20:07:23 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Sep/0009.html 20:07:36 no changes or other business 20:07:48 Topic: Minutes approval 29 August. 20:07:56 PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr 20:08:00 RESOLUTION: Minutes approved as sne 20:08:05 s/sne/sent/ 20:08:13 Topic: AI review 20:08:27 2005-07-25: Paul Downey to generate list of features, their 20:08:27 requirement level and applicability for discussion 20:08:34 : DROPPED 20:08:49 Arun's material appears sufficient. 20:09:02 DHull review: DONE 20:09:12 MarcG review: DONE 20:09:16 Katy: PENDING 20:09:23 Marsh AI: DONE 20:09:35 pauld has joined #ws-addr 20:09:41 +??P37 20:09:48 +Abbie_Barbir 20:09:49 ... 20:09:54 All done but Katy's... 20:10:03 Topic: Namespace change policy 20:10:14 abbie has joined #ws-addr 20:10:17 Mark: Hugo suggested it would be good to write down a policy 20:10:31 Hugo: I wrote a doc. 20:10:40 +pauld 20:10:50 Draft I did: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/08/29-ns-policy.html 20:11:29 Hugo: For each draft we have set a new namespace, with the form w3.org/year/month/identifier 20:11:37 gpilz has joined #ws-addr 20:11:44 ... we have been updating the namespace each publication. 20:12:01 ... We haven't agreed on how to change this from now on. 20:12:03 +Abbie_Barbir.a 20:12:11 -Abbie_Barbir 20:12:17 +[IBM] 20:12:32 Paco has joined #ws-addr 20:12:34 ... Before we reach CR, we replace the namespace each time. When we reach CR, we only update if there is a significant change is made. 20:12:41 ... WHat is a significant change? 20:12:53 ... Up to the WG in each case. 20:13:16 Chorus: Seems sensible. 20:13:42 Mark: Philippe said it might be good to document this at the end of the NS URI. 20:13:59 Hugo: Only problem is that the policy is only visible when dereferencing the namespace URI. 20:14:08 ... We should also put it in the status section of the doc. 20:14:19 ... I'm very flexible. 20:14:31 ... Good to see when people read the draft. 20:14:45 +J.Mischkinsky 20:14:52 Mark: Can we get a paragraph to paste into the spec and the RDDL? 20:15:38 Hugo: Do you want to include the appropriate section from my doc? 20:15:45 Mark: Yes, not too heavyweight. 20:15:59 -David_Hull 20:16:10 Nilo: CR says the URI only changes with significant changes. Hugo's proposal says the opposite. 20:16:20 ... Seems we need to remove the "NOT 20:16:36 s/NOT/NOT"s/ 20:16:48 From Section 2.2: After a document has been published as a Candidate Recommendation, the namespace IRIs will be updated only if changes are made to the document are not significant and do not impact the implementation of the specification. 20:17:01 +1 to Nilo 20:17:25 Hugo: Ah, I see! To many negatives... 20:17:44 ... needs to be fixed. "are significant and impact ..." 20:18:19 +David_Hull 20:18:22 Mark: After we get to CR, we will attempt to keep the URI the same. 20:18:27 ...OK? 20:18:46 ACTION: Editors to incorporate this into the document and the RDDL. 20:18:56 uyalcina has joined #ws-addr 20:19:01 After a document has been published as a Candidate Recommendation, the namespace IRIs will be updated only if changes made to the document are significant and impact the implementation of the specification. 20:19:04 Mark: Only 2.2 applies to the CR docs, section 2.1 applies to the WSDL doc. 20:19:15 [general agreement] 20:19:40 Topic: WSDL 2.0 review 20:20:00 +Bob_Freund 20:20:00 Mark: We have 3 of 4 AIs done. Let's walk through them. 20:20:34 anyone know what the address of this server is? 20:20:51 http://www.w3.org/mid/7997F38251504E43B38435DAF917887F40C6B7@ausyms23.ca.com 20:20:53 Mark: Tony's review on the Primer 20:21:09 I meant the direct IRC address 20:21:33 Tony: saw a number of typos. 20:21:45 ACTION 1=Editors to incorporate ns update policy into drafts 20:21:54 ... We aren't included in the references. 20:23:06 ... Section 5.3 discusses endpoint references to describe the URL where the service lives. 20:23:19 ... Could be "endpoint URL" or an "endpointer" 20:23:40 ... A different term than "endpoint reference" would reduce confusion. 20:24:27 Umit: THere is a definition of endpoint reference in 5.3. 20:24:36 DaveH: Confusing. 20:24:52 bob has joined #ws-addr 20:24:53 WSDL has an endpoint and ws-addr has an endpoint and they are quite different 20:25:32 Umit: If there is a different term, would that solve the problem? 20:25:33 RebeccaB has joined #ws-addr 20:25:38 Glen: Just the term, I believe. 20:25:52 DaveH: Partly the term, partly two parallel universes. 20:26:12 ... One where you refer with a URI, one with an EPR. Took a couple of readings to figure out what was going on. 20:27:18 Glen: the third universe is the syntactical constructs, they may contain policy etc. 20:27:30 ... the "endpoint" construct in WSDL. 20:28:04 Tony: 5.3 comes right after 5.2 which makes reference to WS-A, already given people a defn of endpoint reference there (implicitly). 20:28:16 ... Different term would avoid confusion. 20:28:57 Umit: Definitions in Core and 5.3, and 5.2 introducing concepts in wrong order (possibly). 20:29:09 Mark: Happy to send to WSDL? 20:29:18 [apparently so] 20:29:20 Gil has joined #ws-addr 20:29:25 s/send/send Tony's comments/ 20:29:42 Mark: Dave's comments 20:29:42 gpilz has left #ws-addr 20:29:43 David Hull's comments on the Core: http://www.w3.org/mid/4323BB97.3030801@tibco.com 20:29:51 zakim, who is on the phone? 20:29:51 On the phone I see GPilz, Vikas_Deolaliker, Steve_Vinoski, Arun, Rebecca, Jonathan_Marsh, DOrchard, TonyR, Nilo_Mitra, MarkN, Mark_Little, MSEder (muted), Andreas_Bjarlestam 20:29:55 ... (muted), Mark_Peel, Pete_Wenzel, stevewinkler, Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr, Prasad_Yendluri, Marc_Hadley, Anish, Hugo, GlenD, Paul_Knight, Umit_Yalcinalp, ??P37, pauld, Abbie_Barbir.a, 20:29:58 ... [IBM], J.Mischkinsky, David_Hull, Bob_Freund 20:30:21 [postponed temporarily] 20:30:31 Mark: Marc Goodner's comments: 20:30:40 ... typos 20:30:57 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Sep/0011.html 20:31:41 ... points out some relevant sections of the spec, but don't appear to be issues. 20:32:05 WSDL Adjuncts Section 2.2: 20:32:06 WSDL patterns specify propagation of faults, not their generation. Nodes which generate a fault MUST attempt to propagate the faults in accordance with the governing ruleset, but it is understood that any delivery of a network message is best effort, not guaranteed. The rulesets establish the direction of the fault message and the fault recipient, they do not provide reliability or other delivery guarantees. When a fault is generated, the generating node MUST atte 20:32:24 the fault, and MUST do so in the direction and to the recipient specified by the ruleset. However, extensions or binding extensions MAY modify these rulesets. For example, WS-Addressing [WSA 1.0 Core] defines a "FaultTo" address for messages, which is used in lieu of the recipient nominated by the ruleset. 20:33:19 Mark: That seems fine. 20:33:35 http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-adjuncts-20050803/#soap-operation-decl 20:33:48 ... SOAP Action Feature doesn't mention WSA Action - oversight? 20:34:14 ... thoughts? 20:34:18 Marsh: What would WSDL say? 20:34:29 Mark: Might say "there are other specs out there..." 20:35:13 yinleng has joined #ws-addr 20:35:15 ... Let's defer these till next week. 20:35:27 ... when Katy's got her review done. 20:35:36 abbie has left #ws-addr 20:35:44 ... And forward the typos. 20:35:44 -Abbie_Barbir.a 20:36:20 DaveH: Except for 3.3, most of the COre is too generic to be of concern to us. 20:36:50 ... In 3.3, wsdlx:interface and wsdlx:binding are defined. 20:37:17 ... Need to clarify endpoint references as applied to URIs. 20:37:50 ... By tagging it the semantics of "this is a reference to an endpoint" are applied. 20:38:25 q+ 20:38:35 ... It's nice, e.g. WSN, to say that an EPR is a particular type. 20:38:53 Marsh: Interesting it wasn't clear to you that you can use these for wsa:EPRs. 20:39:07 DaveH: Wasn't clear - should make it more explicit. 20:39:18 ... Nice to hang it off an element declaration instead of just a type. 20:39:35 ... Seems lighter weight than deriving a new type. 20:39:58 ... Don't think anything would preclude that design. The examples in the primer tend towards extending a type nor an element. 20:40:36 ... A use case was what is in the data vs. a schema. 20:40:46 ... Could include wsdlx:interface in an EPR. 20:40:55 ... Is that what WSDL wanted? 20:41:43 Umit: Is there a problem in the Core (3.3), it says that that are AIIs in wsdlx, and a comment about how these can be used together, and how they are applied to xs:anyURI. 20:42:10 ... No restriction against using them with wsa:EPRs. Are you saying there should be used on wsa:EPRs? and an example? 20:42:53 DaveH: Says these annotate anyURIs or restrictions thereof, which sounds exclusive. 20:43:16 Umit: That wasn't the intent. Add more text making it clear it can be used on EPRs too? 20:43:51 Dave: "xs:anyURI" -> "xs:anyURI and wsa:EPR" or just drop xs:anyURI and talk about elements. 20:44:01 ... even adding "such as" would have helped. 20:45:23 Marsh: Intention was to provide description level constructs to complement wsa:Metadata/wsaw:ServiceName, etc. 20:45:41 -J.Mischkinsky 20:45:41 Dave: Was the intention to allow on element decls as well as types? 20:45:46 Marsh/Umit: Don't remember. 20:46:18 Dave: Other than this, core looks good. 20:46:20 Summary: 20:46:41 1) Clarify wsdlx: can apply to EPRs, not just xs:anyURI. 20:46:56 2) Can wsdlx: be applied to element decls, not just types? 20:47:31 ACTION: DaveH to revise his comments on WSDL 2.0 3.3, by 9/19 20:47:54 stevewinkler has joined #ws-addr 20:48:18 Topic: i061 20:48:19 http://www.w3.org/mid/7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A508D098E9@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com 20:48:28 Topic: i061 i061 - Action without UsingAddressing 20:51:42 +1 20:51:47 q+ to ask a question on wsdl:required=false case 20:53:06 ack uyal 20:53:10 Marsh: Goes through his posting. 20:53:15 ack marc 20:53:15 marc, you wanted to ask a question on wsdl:required=false case 20:53:19 Arun: We should add some of this to the spec. 20:53:21 q+ 20:54:06 Marc: wsdl:required="false" allows a service to send headers without receiving them from the client. 20:54:20 ... That seems bad. 20:54:46 ... You could send me a message with a messageID, expecting a relatesTo, but you won't get it, which is bad. 20:55:22 dhull has joined #ws-addr 20:56:06 Marsh: We could define that behavior - separate issue. 20:56:46 ack anish 20:57:06 Umit: Bottom line: wsas:Action can't force behavior without wsa:UsingAddressing. 20:57:39 "la la la" - can't hear anything 20:59:32 Anish: you say a client MAY engage wsaw:Action when wsdl:required="false", but not pick and choose the rest of the WS-A features. 20:59:53 ... WHen the client uses WS-A it must engage it fully as we spec. 21:00:11 -Mark_Little 21:00:31 s/"la la la" - can't hear anything// 21:02:41 -DOrchard 21:02:58 Marsh: Useful to clarify that. 21:03:41 get the video! 21:03:41 Summary: 21:04:04 1) in case 2, if wsa headers are sent, they must be responded to by the service. 21:04:57 2) in case 2, client either chooses to honor Addressing, or not to include any wsa headers (whole enchilada) 21:05:29 3) in case 3, wsaw:Action is informational. 21:05:36 Clarify these three items. 21:05:38 [numbered bullets are additions to 3' proposal in Jonathan's e-mail] 21:05:55 Paco: 21:06:08 "informational/advisory" should say "no normative intent". 21:08:05 Marsh: you can't ignore it in all cases (out of band may make use of it). 21:08:40 Mark: Everyone comfortable with this? 21:08:44 [seem so] 21:09:00 ... Can we send this off to the editors? 21:09:21 Marc: Would like some text. 21:09:40 ACTION: Paco to come up with wording to implement i061 based on the above discussion. 21:10:15 Topic: i056 Determining the value of destination from WSDL. 21:10:42 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Apr/0062 21:11:16 Mark: Marc's link is the proposal on the table. 21:11:49 ... everyone comfortable at this point? 21:12:05 Umit: looks reasonable, except for one thing. 21:12:46 ... "if there is no wsa:EndpointReference..." what does it mean that there is an anonymous URI for the destination? 21:13:05 Marc: IIRC, the anonymous means "do what the transport says". 21:13:11 q+ 21:13:18 ... we define HTTP response. 21:13:30 Umit: For destination what does that mean? 21:13:48 ... for SOAP/HTTP. 21:13:55 Every binding has its own "understanding" of what is anonymous URI 21:14:18 Marc: Conclude it's bad WSDL at that point. 21:14:32 Umit: Maybe the fourth rule shouldn't apply then. 21:14:47 Mark: Are there other bindings where that would have utility? 21:15:20 Umit: Unless there were a catalog or config file to map anonymous. 21:15:24 ... Not very interoperable. 21:15:32 Marsh: What's the alternative? 21:15:35 ack anish 21:15:56 Anish: If you wanted to support a way to have this defined elsewhere, we should call it "undefined". 21:16:26 ... IF a binding could define what anonymous means it would be useful, but I can't think of such a binding. 21:17:11 ... Maybe a separate issue: we require a destination to be anonymous, which is delegated to the binding. In the SOAP binding we define what it means for replyTO and faultTo, but not destination. 21:17:49 Mark: We could change the fourth bullet to say "it's undefined", or define what anonymous means for destination. 21:18:21 Umit: We need to define anonymous for [destination] in any case. 21:19:29 Anish: If wsa:To is missing destination is anonymous already. Is #4 adding anything? 21:19:50 Marc: Mixing up the value of wsa:To and the value of the property. 21:20:28 Anish: Proposal is if no values are specified you use anonymous. Similar with wsa:To. 21:20:43 Marc: Doesn't interfere with it, just conveys it. 21:21:17 Umit: In the end, what is the address on the wire? 21:21:37 Marc: If you're sending a message to anonymous, you can omit the wsa:To header or put in the anonymous value. 21:22:07 Umit: The relation of the HTTP address and the anonymous URI needs to be clarified somewhere. 21:22:26 Marc: We only define one case where anonymous has a meaning - HTTP back-channel. 21:22:41 Mark: What are you recommending? 21:22:50 ... that people avoid anonymous for destination? 21:22:57 Umit: Not sure what the solution is. 21:24:06 ... Maybe clarify where anonymous doesn't make sense. 21:24:20 Mark: So should we change or remove the 4th bullet? 21:24:41 Marc: Don't think we fix anything by removing the default. 21:25:08 Paco: This is a hole in WSDL we're trying to fix. 21:25:58 ... If you have a WSDL with no address, we're providing an interpretation for that case. 21:26:15 q+ 21:26:57 Paco: Can we derive the value of [destination] from WSDL? When the WSDL author doesn't provide one, we'll provide one. 21:27:09 q+ 21:27:13 ... Is that the wisest thing to do? 21:27:18 ack anish 21:28:00 Anish: In the proposal, the EPR is included as a child of wsdl:endpoint or wsdl11:port. DOes that mean the EPR applies only to the out messages for that endpoint/port? 21:28:06 s/out/in/ 21:28:33 ... What happens when it's specified for a port with only an out message? 21:28:52 ... Need to be more specific on which messages the embedded EPR applies to. 21:29:05 ... requires more thought. 21:29:52 ack uyal 21:29:54 ... Specifically a problem with the first "in" message, but might be others. 21:30:17 Umit: The reason you don't have an address in teh port (WSDL perspective) is that the address is added at deployment. 21:30:31 ... Might not be safe to assume there is an anonymous destination. 21:30:40 ... Addresses might be provided at a later time. 21:30:55 Marc: Why would you have an EPR at a later time. 21:31:29 ... OK, maybe so. 21:32:18 ACTION: Anish to explore the issue of application to messages other than the first "in". 21:33:17 ACTION: Umit explore the issues surrounding bullet 4 for next week. 21:33:35 Mark: i056 to email. 21:34:06 Topic: i059 support for async 21:34:20 Mark: Delegated to the Async TF. 21:34:40 ... At this point it seems the TF is running out of steam a bit. Good time to bring it back into the WG. 21:35:02 ... Need to wrap this up to get the doc into CR. 21:35:29 ... Glen will write up a summary, esp. of the decisions to be made, different proposals for solving them. 21:35:33 ... Please look for it. 21:36:03 ... Will reserve a chunk of the FTF to talk about this issue. If you have a proposal get it in by then. 21:36:32 Nilo has joined #ws-addr 21:36:36 ... Number of ways to address the issue, but we need to see which fit within our deliverables and our charter requirements. 21:38:29 Topic: i020 Addressing and WSDL. 21:38:38 Mark: Revised proposal from Anish. 21:38:42 glen, I'll send my regrets for wed now, I'm on the road... 21:38:49 Topic: i020 21:38:50 http://www.w3.org/mid/4325D89F.2070005@oracle.com 21:39:28 Anish: Logical/physical address 21:39:30 q+ re Japan Logistics 21:39:48 ... There was the potential for a physical and logical address. 21:40:34 ... The proposal had three parts, part 2 and 3 defined the relation of physical and logical. 21:40:48 ... those have gone away. Part 1 uses updated terminology. 21:41:28 ... Proposal: 21:41:28 When the EPR minter includes a [selected port type], and/or [service-port] then the EPR is considered to be specific to the [selected port type] and/or [service-port] 21:41:37 Marsh: The spec doesn't say this yet? 21:41:39 q+ 21:41:46 Anish: No, not that I could see. 21:42:03 ack uyal 21:42:28 Umit: No we don't say that anywhere. Although it seems obvious, it's not explicitly stated anywhere. 21:43:15 Paco: Makes sense. 21:43:16 +1 for the proposal 21:43:56 Mark: Any objections to the proposal? 21:44:12 Vikas: Doesn't resolve the logical and physical. 21:44:27 Mark: We resolved a while ago we wouldn't talk about that. 21:44:32 Subissue c: An EPR allows one to include (optionally) a service endpoint/port. If such an endpoint/port is included in an EPR, what is the relationship between the value of the [address] property and the URI value in the [service-port] property? We have said that the [address] property is a logical address and not necessarily the physical endpoint where messages can be sent and how the mapping between logical to physical takes place is an extensibility point. Is t 21:44:41 vice QName is present in the EPR. I.e., should our spec say that if the service QName is present then the physical address is what is specified by the wsdl port. 21:46:10 Anish: WSDL never says the port address is any more physical than the WS-A address. THey are all IRIs and that's that. 21:46:35 Vikas: Maybe we should rewrite the issue to get rid of the logical/physical confusion. 21:47:15 Umit: Does Anish's proposal make sense on it's own right or not. 21:47:38 Vikas: If the issue is cloudiness about physical/logical, the proposal doesn't address it. 21:48:08 Mark: Should we delete everything but the second sentence of the issue? 21:49:10 Anish: We can point to i052, say the questions about logical/physical are addressed there. 21:49:35 Mark: Proposed resolution: Anish's proposal, plus a ref to the resolution of 052. 21:49:55 ... Everyone comfortable? 21:50:12 Vikas: i052 resolution: remove "logical" when talking about addresses. 21:50:21 [silent assent] 21:50:37 RESOLUTION: i052 closed with Anish's proposal. 21:51:21 Topic: 2:51PM PDT, let's talk logistics 21:52:02 Bob: Customers have co-opted our meeting room, we've moved to a nearby building. 21:52:33 ... Logistics coming. 21:52:43 ... Negotiated rates available through email reservation. 21:53:24 ... Unless you are fluent in Japanese, have an international drivers license, etc., it's maddness in the metro area to try to drive. 21:54:09 ... Will be escorting people from the hotel to the meeting room starting on the 7th 21:54:24 ... Trying to gauge interest in some sightseeing or entertainment. 21:54:57 ... Just after the peak of the autumn color season, we might be able to get some rooms there Nov 5,6. 21:55:38 ... Other details like how to buy tickets, get from the airport, etc. coming. 21:55:48 DaveH: How long is the Narita express? 21:56:37 Bob: About an hour. 12 min from hotel to meeting room; fare: 210. Narita Express fare information forthcoming. 21:57:00 ... $125 hotel + $10.70 internet access. 21:57:43 ... I'm translating maps from Japanese, takes a while. 21:58:06 -stevewinkler 21:58:08 Mark: Talk next week, might be absent, in which case Hugo will chair. 21:58:11 ... Do your AIs. 21:58:12 -Paul_Knight 21:58:19 ... Get your potential issues in. 21:58:27 -Hugo 21:58:27 [adjourned] 21:58:28 vinoski has left #ws-addr 21:58:28 -Arun 21:58:28 -pauld 21:58:29 -Vikas_Deolaliker 21:58:30 -Nilo_Mitra 21:58:31 -??P37 21:58:32 -MSEder 21:58:33