IRC log of ws-addr on 2005-11-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:43:30 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
20:43:30 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-ws-addr-irc
20:43:36 [mnot]: zakim, this will be wsaddr
20:43:36 [Zakim]: I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, mnot
20:43:43 [mnot]: zakim, this will be ws_addr
20:43:43 [Zakim]: ok, mnot; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 17 minutes
20:43:53 [mnot]: Meeting: Web Services Addressing Working Group Teleconference
20:43:57 [mnot]: Chair: Mark Nottingham
20:44:06 [mnot]: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/8D0E6B47-E8E6-41F4-87A9-D694FF2C124D@bea.com
20:50:20 [DavidIllsley]: DavidIllsley has joined #ws-addr
20:54:16 [TonyR]: TonyR has joined #ws-addr
20:55:37 [Zakim]: WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
20:55:44 [Zakim]: + +1.831.332.aaaa
20:55:48 [prasad]: prasad has joined #ws-Addr
20:55:55 [Zakim]: +David_Illsley
20:57:18 [gpilz]: gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:57:25 [Katy]: Katy has joined #ws-addr
20:59:04 [Nilo]: Nilo has joined #ws-addr
20:59:20 [dhull]: dhull has joined #ws-addr
20:59:35 [Zakim]: +Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr
20:59:46 [pauld]: pauld has joined #ws-addr
20:59:54 [Zakim]: +Paul_Knight
20:59:59 [swinkler]: swinkler has joined #ws-addr
21:00:10 [Zakim]: +Bob_Freund
21:00:19 [Zakim]: -Paul_Knight
21:00:20 [Zakim]: +Vikas_Deolaliker
21:00:36 [Zakim]: +Steve
21:00:39 [PaulKnight]: PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
21:00:51 [Zakim]: +MarkN
21:00:56 [bob]: bob has joined #ws-addr
21:00:58 [Zakim]: +??P7
21:01:01 [swinkler]: Zakim, Steve is me
21:01:01 [Zakim]: +swinkler; got it
21:01:04 [Zakim]: +Dave_Chappell
21:01:06 [Zakim]: +Dave_Hull
21:01:08 [Zakim]: +Nilo_Mitra
21:01:17 [vikas]: vikas has joined #ws-addr
21:01:18 [TonyR]: zakim, ??p7 is me
21:01:18 [Zakim]: +TonyR; got it
21:01:30 [Zakim]: +Tom_Rutt
21:01:32 [Zakim]: +Steve_Vinoski
21:01:51 [swinkler]: yes
21:01:52 [yinleng]: yinleng has joined #ws-addr
21:02:02 [Zakim]: +Jonathan_Marsh
21:02:20 [Zakim]: + +1.441.132.aabb
21:02:27 [uyalcina]: uyalcina has joined #ws-addr
21:02:45 [Zakim]: +Paul_Knight
21:02:52 [Zakim]: +Prasad_Yendluri
21:02:53 [marc]: marc has joined #ws-addr
21:03:08 [Zakim]: +Umit_Yalcinalp
21:03:43 [TRutt]: TRutt has joined #ws-addr
21:03:49 [Zakim]: +Andreas_Bjarlestam
21:03:53 [marc]: zakim, who is on the phone
21:03:53 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'who is on the phone', marc
21:04:06 [marc]: zakim, who is here
21:04:06 [Zakim]: marc, you need to end that query with '?'
21:04:13 [marc]: zakim, who is here ?
21:04:13 [Zakim]: On the phone I see +1.831.332.aaaa, David_Illsley (muted), Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr, Bob_Freund, Vikas_Deolaliker, swinkler, MarkN, TonyR, Dave_Chappell, Dave_Hull, Nilo_Mitra,
21:04:16 [Zakim]: ... Steve_Vinoski, Tom_Rutt, Jonathan_Marsh, +1.441.132.aabb, Paul_Knight, Prasad_Yendluri, Umit_Yalcinalp, Andreas_Bjarlestam (muted)
21:04:21 [Zakim]: On IRC I see TRutt, marc, uyalcina, yinleng, vikas, bob, PaulKnight, swinkler, pauld, dhull, Nilo, Katy, gpilz, prasad, TonyR, David_Illsley, RRSAgent, Zakim, mnot, Jonathan_Marsh,
21:04:23 [Zakim]: ... hugo
21:04:24 [Zakim]: +Mark_Little
21:04:29 [pauld]: zakim, why won't you answer the phone, old fruit?
21:04:29 [Zakim]: I don't understand your question, pauld.
21:04:32 [Zakim]: +??P19
21:04:51 [Zakim]: +pauld
21:04:54 [marc]: zakim, +1.441.132.aabb is me
21:04:54 [Zakim]: +marc; got it
21:04:57 [vinoski]: vinoski has joined #ws-addr
21:05:16 [gpilz]: zakim, +1.831.332.aaaa is me
21:05:16 [Zakim]: +gpilz; got it
21:05:18 [Zakim]: -??P19
21:05:25 [vinoski]: vinoski has joined #ws-addr
21:05:53 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
21:05:55 [pauld]: pauld has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Nov/0083.html
21:06:03 [Paco]: Paco has joined #ws-addr
21:06:58 [Zakim]: +??P22
21:06:58 [anish]: anish has joined #ws-addr
21:07:27 [Zakim]: +Anish
21:08:01 [yinleng]: zakim, ??P22 is me
21:08:01 [Zakim]: +yinleng; got it
21:08:10 [PaulKnight]: scribe: PaulKnight
21:08:12 [Zakim]: +Dave_Orchard
21:09:17 [PaulKnight]: any corrections to minutes?
21:09:29 [Jonathan_Marsh]: zakim, who's making noise?
21:09:40 [Zakim]: Jonathan_Marsh, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: MarkN (20%), swinkler (4%), Andreas_Bjarlestam (79%)
21:10:06 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
21:10:19 [PaulKnight]: minutes accepted
21:11:11 [PaulKnight]: s/unitl/until
21:12:37 [PaulKnight]: Agenda Item 4 covered - action item review
21:12:46 [PaulKnight]: now on agenda item 5
21:13:05 [Zakim]: -Prasad_Yendluri
21:13:06 [Zakim]: +Prasad_Yendluri
21:14:04 [PaulKnight]: suggestion to defer cr10 due to W3C representatives not being present
21:17:52 [PaulKnight]: discussion of "on the web" definition -
21:19:11 [dhull]: +1
21:19:23 [dhull]: (to marsh)
21:19:48 [PaulKnight]: Mark N: need to defer this discussion until W3C reps are here
21:20:36 [PaulKnight]: Mark N: let's be prepared to make a decision next week, continue on email discussion
21:20:48 [PaulKnight]: Agenda item 6
21:21:11 [PaulKnight]: TOPIC: Agenda item 6
21:21:39 [PaulKnight]: WD Issues <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/>
21:22:49 [PaulKnight]: Umit: describing her proposal 1
21:23:06 [PaulKnight]: Proposal 1: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/att-0116/ProposalTake3.htm>
21:23:53 [PaulKnight]: Proposal 2: <http://www.w3.org/mid/D1503191-88CA-4537-A20A-1F891F43606D@Sun.COM>
21:24:23 [Zakim]: -MarkN
21:26:05 [Zakim]: +MarkN
21:27:20 [PaulKnight]: uyalcina: wsaw:Async element may have three distinct values, “full”, “never” and “always”. Discussing behavior of end point with each value.
21:28:14 [dorchard]: dorchard has joined #ws-addr
21:28:57 [PaulKnight]: anish: question - anonymousUse Element at binding level?
21:29:21 [PaulKnight]: Umit: no, at child level
21:29:36 [dorchard]: q+ to ask about problems of attribute extension
21:30:19 [marc]: q+ to ask about HTTP 202 stuff in WSDL binding doc
21:30:45 [PaulKnight]: anish: must set non-anonymous EPR? (if using addressing)
21:31:15 [PaulKnight]: uyalcina: yes, does this need to be changed?
21:31:20 [dhull]: q+ to propose separating markup issues from semantics
21:32:35 [PaulKnight]: anish: WSDLRequired set to true in this case?
21:32:49 [mnot]: ack dorch
21:32:49 [Zakim]: dorchard, you wanted to ask about problems of attribute extension
21:33:10 [PaulKnight]: dorchard: attribute extension instead of element use?
21:33:41 [andreas]: andreas has joined #ws-addr
21:34:56 [PaulKnight]: uyalcina, others : use element notation so BP1.1 is not required
21:36:14 [PaulKnight]: discussion of requiring BP1.1 rather than WSDL 1.1
21:36:43 [gpilz]: q+
21:37:04 [PaulKnight]: what current products would have issues?
21:38:12 [PaulKnight]: dhull: allow extensibility point
21:38:20 [dhull]: s/dhull/dorchard/
21:38:22 [Zakim]: -gpilz
21:38:40 [PaulKnight]: thanks...
21:39:14 [mnot]: ack marc
21:39:15 [Zakim]: +gpilz
21:39:17 [Zakim]: marc, you wanted to ask about HTTP 202 stuff in WSDL binding doc
21:39:49 [PaulKnight]: marc: section 3.1.2 - somewhat repititious
21:40:20 [PaulKnight]: uyalcina: it was written from perspective of anonymous usage
21:41:04 [PaulKnight]: marc: is it in right place? it does not really have to do with WSDL, but with SOAP. Maybe move it to SOAP or adendum to SOAP binding?
21:41:37 [PaulKnight]: uyalcina: depends on how we want to position it, that might be okay
21:41:43 [mnot]: ack dhull
21:41:43 [Zakim]: dhull, you wanted to propose separating markup issues from semantics
21:41:58 [dorchard]: Marc, I agree with the gist of where you are going with this..
21:42:30 [PaulKnight]: dhull: separate semantics, based on my alternate proposal
21:43:15 [uyalcina]: q+
21:43:26 [PaulKnight]: dhull: in context of SOAP... but don't want to address this in middle of conversation on markup
21:44:32 [PaulKnight]: dhull: talk first about angle brackets, then address the proposal (SOAP over HTTP) separately
21:46:13 [PaulKnight]: dhull: deal with section 3.1.3 separately, (still in WSDL doc)
21:46:49 [PaulKnight]: dhull: two separate subissues of i59
21:47:05 [PaulKnight]: markN: what do people think?
21:47:39 [PaulKnight]: uyalcina: this is a big change, not clear what dhull is proposing
21:48:32 [PaulKnight]: dhull: 3.1.3 mentioned earlier is probably now 3.1.2
21:49:05 [PaulKnight]: uyalcina: maybe it will be editorial, not adding a section
21:50:01 [PaulKnight]: dhull: maybe no conflict, reviewing document
21:50:08 [Jonathan_Marsh]: q+ to ask whether specification of default values is really necessary.
21:50:30 [PaulKnight]: dhull: what do people think?
21:50:43 [PaulKnight]: dorchard: seems like two separable things
21:51:36 [PaulKnight]: dhull: proposed asynch text is to give rules to say exactly what goes on wire
21:52:39 [PaulKnight]: markN: we discussed this at F2F, seemed to have an agreement to go forward using the combined proposal. concerned about competing proposals on the table now.
21:52:45 [uyalcina]: the chair reflects my understanding as well.
21:53:48 [PaulKnight]: markN: suggest dhull expresses his text as a delta against the agreed text
21:54:06 [PaulKnight]: dhull: I am trying to do this
21:55:05 [PaulKnight]: dhull: want to be able to handle both cases if it can be done easily, hoping to get opinions on the technical feasibility
21:55:53 [PaulKnight]: dhull: there may be no conflict, just trying to get opinions, and hope to hear where my proposal might fit in
21:56:13 [Zakim]: -Dave_Chappell
21:57:00 [PaulKnight]: markN: let's proceed with other decisions and syntax, get that finished, then come back to this.
21:57:17 [mnot]: q?
21:57:50 [PaulKnight]: dhull: okay, I do want to see this discussed at some point, not want to disrupt momentum
21:57:55 [mnot]: ack gpilz
21:58:13 [gpilz]: q-
21:58:23 [mnot]: ack uyal
21:58:47 [PaulKnight]: uyalcina: not want to rehash earlier decisions
21:59:24 [mnot]: ack jon
21:59:24 [Zakim]: Jonathan_Marsh, you wanted to ask whether specification of default values is really necessary.
21:59:50 [PaulKnight]: Jonathan: getting complicated; can we remove the defaulting attribute?
22:00:48 [PaulKnight]: uyalcina: considered it, it makes sense, would simplify proposal
22:01:07 [PaulKnight]: Jonathan: would it be inconvenient not to have the default
22:01:22 [PaulKnight]: Jonathan scremed and disappeared
22:03:01 [PaulKnight]: Jonathan: in anonymousUseDefault, can we say that you specify one of three values, otherwise it will be allow. (?)
22:04:17 [PaulKnight]: Jonathan: can we get rid of ... ( can someone post the proposal?)
22:04:36 [gpilz]: q+
22:04:47 [PaulKnight]: anish: we discussed some sort of marker for this
22:05:03 [PaulKnight]: Jonathan: are there simplifications we can make?
22:06:03 [PaulKnight]: dorchard: if you get rid of this, it makes the spec more clear
22:06:16 [mnot]: s/dorchard/gpilz/
22:06:50 [PaulKnight]: mnot: is this needed or syntactic sugar?
22:08:19 [PaulKnight]: can we get rid of it or do we need multiple properties that need to be reconciled at run time?
22:08:43 [Zakim]: -Mark_Little
22:09:40 [PaulKnight]: Jonathan: unless restricting anonymous is the main case, we should consider this
22:12:44 [mnot]: q?
22:13:09 [Zakim]: -gpilz
22:13:35 [Zakim]: +gpilz
22:14:13 [anish]: q+
22:14:32 [mnot]: ack gpilz
22:15:01 [PaulKnight]: gpilz: these issues can be skirted if there is no defaulting mechanism
22:16:23 [PaulKnight]: mnot: jonathan wants to get rid of the attribute, umit can go either way...
22:17:23 [PaulKnight]: anish: the default should not cause restriction on the values of the attribute vs. the element
22:17:50 [PaulKnight]: mnot: should we keep the attribute byDefault?
22:18:01 [marc]: q+ to ask if there is a default if we drop the attribute
22:18:06 [PaulKnight]: anish: it should be a syntactic roll-up
22:18:31 [PaulKnight]: mnot: can we remove the attribute for now?
22:19:05 [PaulKnight]: Marc: is there still a default for ReplyTo?
22:20:16 [PaulKnight]: mnot: any problem with dropping defaultUse attribute?
22:20:31 [PaulKnight]: uyalcina: it appears several places
22:20:57 [marc]: UsingAddr means either anon or non-anon if other element not present
22:21:03 [marc]: right ?
22:21:56 [PaulKnight]: mnot: we are asking Umit to remove this item, then look at this to see if it causes other issues
22:22:10 [anish]: q+
22:22:39 [uyalcina]: q+
22:22:43 [PaulKnight]: uyalcina: allowed, always, never - should we keep these values, or modify?
22:22:46 [mnot]: ack anish
22:23:08 [PaulKnight]: anish: I have a use case where defaulting is useful
22:24:15 [PaulKnight]: anish: response going back on HTTP response channel... (describes use case)
22:24:29 [mnot]: ack marc
22:24:29 [Zakim]: marc, you wanted to ask if there is a default if we drop the attribute
22:24:35 [PaulKnight]: mnot: still syntactic sugar?
22:24:42 [PaulKnight]: anish: yes
22:25:02 [PaulKnight]: mnot: still at a point where we can ask Umit to remove this for now
22:25:19 [pauld]: pauld has joined #ws-addr
22:25:24 [PaulKnight]: no objections to action item for Umit for this.
22:25:27 [mnot]: ACTION: Umit to revise i059 sub-proposal 1 to remove defaulting attribute
22:25:40 [mnot]: ack uyal
22:25:56 [PaulKnight]: uyalcina: syntax of element?
22:26:24 [PaulKnight]: dhull: required, prohibited, optional
22:26:24 [dhull]: +1
22:26:34 [dhull]: s/dhull/marsh/
22:26:52 [marc]: +1 to johnathan, i proposed exactly that at the end of the F2F
22:27:23 [PaulKnight]: support for using Jonathan's suggested values
22:28:09 [uyalcina]: q+
22:28:55 [PaulKnight]: does not work well with operation level granularity
22:29:18 [Katy]: q+
22:29:27 [PaulKnight]: uyalcina: yuckyness
22:30:04 [PaulKnight]: Katy: can we keep ....
22:30:21 [TRutt]: q+
22:30:25 [dhull]: q+
22:31:37 [PaulKnight]: Jonathan: support 3 elements, no operation level support
22:33:00 [PaulKnight]: mnot: this sounds like we are reconsidering the F2F agreement
22:34:04 [PaulKnight]: Katy: at F2F, we said we needed a separate proposal?
22:34:11 [mnot]: ack uyal
22:34:13 [mnot]: ack katy
22:34:49 [mnot]: ACTION: keep syntax option 3 up-to-date as alternate proposal
22:34:52 [uyalcina]: q+
22:34:58 [PaulKnight]: anish: reconsider decison from F2F on operation level granularity?
22:35:40 [Zakim]: -gpilz
22:35:43 [PaulKnight]: mnot: decisions were to help us move forward, but we can consider all proposals as they come forward, one by one
22:35:55 [PaulKnight]: mnot: focus for now on Umit's proposal
22:36:40 [PaulKnight]: anish: decisions independent of proposal - are we reconsidering them?
22:37:15 [PaulKnight]: uyalcina: these are not just my proposals, I'm incorporating the decisions made at the F2F
22:37:40 [PaulKnight]: TomRutt: having this available does not mean everyone has to use it
22:38:16 [PaulKnight]: but this may bear on how conformance to the standard is measured
22:39:20 [mnot]: q?
22:39:30 [mnot]: ack Trutt
22:39:37 [mnot]: ack dhull
22:40:01 [PaulKnight]: mnot: moving forward, we'll take Umit's proposal as the baseline going forward, with additional proposal by Jonathan to be considered later
22:41:59 [PaulKnight]: dhull: is the one-element solution compatible with multiple values (?)
22:42:00 [mnot]: ack uyal
22:42:32 [PaulKnight]: mnot: what else do we need to do to address i59?
22:43:41 [mnot]: ACTION 2=Jonathan to keep syntax option 3 (three elements) up-to-date as an alternate proposal
22:45:25 [PaulKnight]: mnot: how do people feel about WSDL dependency? to include MEPs
22:46:01 [Zakim]: +gpilz
22:47:19 [PaulKnight]: gpilz: MEPs beginning with in are easy to define, but those with out are harder, no clue..
22:47:58 [PaulKnight]: dhull: i have already done the action, see the proposal
22:48:25 [Zakim]: -swinkler
22:48:47 [PaulKnight]: dhull: flowing into Umit's text is the main issue
22:48:58 [dhull]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Nov/0051.html
22:49:19 [PaulKnight]: mnot: please look at how to flow it into Umit's text
22:49:42 [PaulKnight]: dhull: okay, this is fairly well covered now
22:50:52 [Nilo]: Nilo has joined #ws-addr
22:50:56 [PaulKnight]: xmlp recharter is expected after AC meeting
22:52:21 [PaulKnight]: mnot: reformulation of option 1 by Umit due Friday
22:52:50 [PaulKnight]: mnot: look at David Hull's proposal
22:53:08 [PaulKnight]: mnot: hopeful we can close i59 by end of year
22:53:34 [PaulKnight]: mnot: only a few more meetings this year
22:53:48 [PaulKnight]: mnot: any other thoughts on i59? none
22:53:59 [PaulKnight]: TOPIC: agenda item 7, testing
22:54:57 [PaulKnight]: PaulD: will have regular meetings for remainder of year
22:55:07 [Zakim]: -Dave_Orchard
22:55:15 [Zakim]: -Anish
22:55:16 [PaulKnight]: mnot: any other business?
22:56:22 [pauld]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Nov/0081.html
22:56:28 [PaulKnight]: vikas: recent email on async cases? does it fall under i59? How source routing works?
22:57:43 [PaulKnight]: mnot: anyone want to respond? It's not part of i59, which is async in general; this is not in scope for us.
22:57:49 [Zakim]: -Steve_Vinoski
22:57:50 [Zakim]: -pauld
22:57:51 [Zakim]: -yinleng
22:57:52 [PaulKnight]: Meeting adjourned
22:57:52 [Zakim]: -Prasad_Yendluri
22:57:53 [Zakim]: -marc
22:57:55 [Zakim]: -MarkN
22:57:56 [Zakim]: -Nilo_Mitra
22:57:58 [Zakim]: -Vikas_Deolaliker
22:57:59 [Zakim]: -Jonathan_Marsh
22:58:03 [Zakim]: -Tom_Rutt
22:58:05 [Zakim]: -[IBM]
22:58:06 [Zakim]: -Bob_Freund
22:58:08 [Zakim]: -Umit_Yalcinalp
22:58:10 [Zakim]: -TonyR
22:58:14 [Zakim]: -Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr
22:58:14 [TRutt]: TRutt has left #ws-addr
22:58:17 [bob]: bob has left #ws-addr
22:58:18 [Zakim]: -David_Illsley
22:58:20 [Zakim]: -Andreas_Bjarlestam
22:58:22 [Zakim]: -gpilz
22:58:30 [PaulKnight]: anything to do to close the IRC??
22:58:52 [Zakim]: -[Microsoft]
22:58:55 [yinleng]: yinleng has left #ws-addr
22:58:59 [mnot]: rrsagent, please generate minutes
22:58:59 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-ws-addr-minutes.html mnot
22:58:59 [TonyR]: TonyR has left #ws-addr
22:59:00 [PaulKnight]: bye
22:59:17 [mnot]: rrsagent, please make logs public
22:59:19 [Zakim]: -Paul_Knight
22:59:24 [mnot]: rrsagent, please generate minutes
22:59:24 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/11/28-ws-addr-minutes.html mnot
23:00:41 [vinoski]: vinoski has left #ws-addr
23:00:47 [Zakim]: -Dave_Hull
23:00:49 [Zakim]: WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
23:00:50 [Zakim]: Attendees were David_Illsley, Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr, Paul_Knight, Bob_Freund, Vikas_Deolaliker, MarkN, swinkler, Dave_Chappell, Dave_Hull, Nilo_Mitra, TonyR, Tom_Rutt, Steve_Vinoski,
23:00:55 [Zakim]: ... Jonathan_Marsh, Prasad_Yendluri, Umit_Yalcinalp, Andreas_Bjarlestam, Mark_Little, pauld, marc, gpilz, [IBM], Anish, yinleng, Dave_Orchard, [Microsoft]