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
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]
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]
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]
20:59:46 [pauld]
pauld has joined #ws-addr
20:59:54 [Zakim]
20:59:59 [swinkler]
swinkler has joined #ws-addr
21:00:10 [Zakim]
21:00:19 [Zakim]
21:00:20 [Zakim]
21:00:36 [Zakim]
21:00:39 [PaulKnight]
PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
21:00:51 [Zakim]
21:00:56 [bob]
bob has joined #ws-addr
21:00:58 [Zakim]
21:01:01 [swinkler]
Zakim, Steve is me
21:01:01 [Zakim]
+swinkler; got it
21:01:04 [Zakim]
21:01:06 [Zakim]
21:01:08 [Zakim]
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]
21:01:32 [Zakim]
21:01:51 [swinkler]
21:01:52 [yinleng]
yinleng has joined #ws-addr
21:02:02 [Zakim]
21:02:20 [Zakim]
+ +1.441.132.aabb
21:02:27 [uyalcina]
uyalcina has joined #ws-addr
21:02:45 [Zakim]
21:02:52 [Zakim]
21:02:53 [marc]
marc has joined #ws-addr
21:03:08 [Zakim]
21:03:43 [TRutt]
TRutt has joined #ws-addr
21:03:49 [Zakim]
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]
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]
21:04:51 [Zakim]
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]
21:05:25 [vinoski]
vinoski has joined #ws-addr
21:05:53 [Zakim]
21:05:55 [pauld]
pauld has changed the topic to: Agenda:
21:06:03 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
21:06:58 [Zakim]
21:06:58 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
21:07:27 [Zakim]
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]
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]
21:10:19 [PaulKnight]
minutes accepted
21:11:11 [PaulKnight]
21:12:37 [PaulKnight]
Agenda Item 4 covered - action item review
21:12:46 [PaulKnight]
now on agenda item 5
21:13:05 [Zakim]
21:13:06 [Zakim]
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]
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 <>
21:22:49 [PaulKnight]
Umit: describing her proposal 1
21:23:06 [PaulKnight]
Proposal 1: <>
21:23:53 [PaulKnight]
Proposal 2: <>
21:24:23 [Zakim]
21:26:05 [Zakim]
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]
21:37:04 [PaulKnight]
what current products would have issues?
21:38:12 [PaulKnight]
dhull: allow extensibility point
21:38:20 [dhull]
21:38:22 [Zakim]
21:38:40 [PaulKnight]
21:39:14 [mnot]
ack marc
21:39:15 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
22:09:40 [PaulKnight]
Jonathan: unless restricting anonymous is the main case, we should consider this
22:12:44 [mnot]
22:13:09 [Zakim]
22:13:35 [Zakim]
22:14:13 [anish]
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]
22:22:39 [uyalcina]
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]
22:26:34 [dhull]
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]
22:28:55 [PaulKnight]
does not work well with operation level granularity
22:29:18 [Katy]
22:29:27 [PaulKnight]
uyalcina: yuckyness
22:30:04 [PaulKnight]
Katy: can we keep ....
22:30:21 [TRutt]
22:30:25 [dhull]
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]
22:34:58 [PaulKnight]
anish: reconsider decison from F2F on operation level granularity?
22:35:40 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
22:48:47 [PaulKnight]
dhull: flowing into Umit's text is the main issue
22:48:58 [dhull]
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]
22:55:15 [Zakim]
22:55:16 [PaulKnight]
mnot: any other business?
22:56:22 [pauld]
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]
22:57:50 [Zakim]
22:57:51 [Zakim]
22:57:52 [PaulKnight]
Meeting adjourned
22:57:52 [Zakim]
22:57:53 [Zakim]
22:57:55 [Zakim]
22:57:56 [Zakim]
22:57:58 [Zakim]
22:57:59 [Zakim]
22:58:03 [Zakim]
22:58:05 [Zakim]
22:58:06 [Zakim]
22:58:08 [Zakim]
22:58:10 [Zakim]
22:58:14 [Zakim]
22:58:14 [TRutt]
TRutt has left #ws-addr
22:58:17 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr
22:58:18 [Zakim]
22:58:20 [Zakim]
22:58:22 [Zakim]
22:58:30 [PaulKnight]
anything to do to close the IRC??
22:58:52 [Zakim]
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 mnot
22:58:59 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
22:59:00 [PaulKnight]
22:59:17 [mnot]
rrsagent, please make logs public
22:59:19 [Zakim]
22:59:24 [mnot]
rrsagent, please generate minutes
22:59:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mnot
23:00:41 [vinoski]
vinoski has left #ws-addr
23:00:47 [Zakim]
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]