Web Services Addressing Working Group Teleconference -- 17 Oct 2005

sribe: MSEder

<scribe> scribe: MSEder

agenda item 3

<mnot> {When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" is specified as

<mnot> the address of an EPR, such as the ReplyTo or FaultTo EPR, the

<mnot> underlying SOAP protocol binding provides a channel to the specified

<mnot> endpoint. Any underlying protocol binding supporting the SOAP

<mnot> request-response message exchange pattern provides such a channel for

<mnot> response messages. For instance, the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding[SOAP 1.2 Part

<mnot> 2: Adjuncts] puts the reply message in the HTTP response.

<mnot> }

<mnot> Note that the only difference with what is recorded in the minutes (and

<mnot> reflected to the CR resolution) and what I remember is the clause (",

<mnot> such as ...") which appears editorial, but I thought I should bring this

<mnot> up. In my opinion, my recollection provides clearer text, but I want to

<mnot> check since I want to send it to the ws-rx tc.

<GlenD> +1

text posted to IRC as resolution

resolution: no objections to Umits resolution from the face-to-face
... no objections to posting minutes from face-to-face with Umits amendments.
... no objections to posting minutes from last week's face-to-face

October 10, 2005

<Arun> brb

review of action items

Marc has completed his action items

Umit will get to her items next week

Paul completed his action item

Anish has not been able to get to his action item

5 proposed and new issues

Katy will own the issue

<Arun> back

Katy: summarizes the issue

i065 - What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict?

discussion about changing the must to a should

a plus 1 from Glen's cat

a number of people speaking for the original solution as proposed by Katy

Glen: cleaner to keep WS-A action and soap action as the same thing

Anish: value of soap action in WSDL has to be URI?

Mark: wants to know if people are ready to close this issue

<scribe> ACTION: Katy to document the current proposals, and put them in an e-mail for next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/17-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]

<marc> Need to consider which migration scenario is more important: WSDL without WS-Addr or WSDL with WS-Addr submission - that shoudl inform our discussion

resolution: Katy will document the current proposals in an e-mail for future discussion

agenda item 6

resolution: wait for proposals

<marc> http://www.w3.org/mid/4B4D2001-302D-48CD-9FA4-C170E0891718@Sun.COM

cr8 - SOAPAction

Marc: summarizes issue

Mark: by nature restricted a soap 1.1

Marc: Yes

Anish: what does soap 1.2 say

Marc: issue restricted to SOAP 1.1

resolution: accept Marc's proposal for cr8

mark: no more open CR issues

<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/0055.html

Marsh: is there a CR issue about what action should be used for general purpose soap faults
... why are we not saying anything about soap faults
... proposal is to use our general URI

Marc: soap already has strict definition about what is the fault
... does not see that we have to do this

<dhull> (I prefer "different from", "different to" just sounds British to me, "different than" bugs me, but it's not ungrammatical)

Marsh: maybe we need to talk more about faults

resolution: Marsh will post this issue to the CR list

CR testing

Paul: summarizes issue

<pauld> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/0095.html

Paul: test suite with test cases being built up

<pauld> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/att-0095/CR_TestCases-fixed.html

Mark: how should we proceed on this?
... maybe we need an extra call or people go back and look at this
... identify soon who is planning to do testing

Glen: Apache is planning to

Katy: IBM is planning to

<marc> Arun: Sun is planning to

Microsoft and Sun

Mark: should we have a separate testers call?

Glen: General agreement

- DRAFT -

Web Services Addressing Working Group Teleconference

17 Oct 2005

Attendees

Contents