IRC log of ws-addr on 2005-09-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

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