IRC log of ws-addr on 2005-12-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

21:01:59 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
21:01:59 [RRSAgent]
logging to
21:02:05 [TonyR]
zakim, who is on the phone?
21:02:05 [Zakim]
sorry, TonyR, I don't know what conference this is
21:02:06 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, mnot, Katy, bob, vikas, prasad, uyalcina, Tony, Nilo, David_Illsley, TonyR, Jonathan_Marsh, pauld, hugo
21:02:07 [mnot]
zakim, this is ws_addr
21:02:07 [Zakim]
ok, mnot; that matches WS_AddrWG()4:00PM
21:02:17 [mnot]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing Working Group Teleconference
21:02:20 [Zakim]
21:02:22 [mnot]
Chair: Mark Nottingham
21:02:25 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
21:02:30 [TonyR]
zakim, who is on the phone?
21:02:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P0, David_Illsley, gpilz, Steve_Vinoski, Bob_Freund, Mark_Little, Nilo_Mitra, +1.408.748.aaaa, +1.781.444.aabb, Umit_Yalcinalp, [Microsoft], Dave_Hull, ??P14
21:02:34 [Zakim]
... (muted)
21:02:37 [mnot]
21:02:42 [TonyR]
zakim, I am ??p0
21:02:42 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
21:02:48 [Zakim]
21:03:03 [vikas]
That 748.aaaa is Vikas
21:03:04 [Zakim]
21:03:07 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr
21:03:11 [Zakim]
21:03:26 [pauld]
zakim, aaaa is Vikas
21:03:26 [Zakim]
+Vikas; got it
21:03:32 [Tony]
zakim, +1.781.444.aabb is me
21:03:32 [Zakim]
+Tony; got it
21:03:33 [Zakim]
21:03:51 [Zakim]
21:03:58 [hugo]
Zakim, call hugo-617
21:03:58 [Zakim]
ok, hugo; the call is being made
21:04:00 [Zakim]
21:04:12 [hugo]
Zakim, call hugo-617
21:04:13 [Zakim]
ok, hugo; the call is being made
21:04:14 [Zakim]
21:04:19 [marc]
marc has joined #ws-addr
21:04:27 [Zakim]
21:04:30 [Zakim]
21:04:33 [swinkler]
swinkler has joined #ws-addr
21:04:40 [Zakim]
21:04:45 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
21:05:02 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
21:05:11 [Zakim]
21:05:14 [mnot]
zakim, who is on the phone?
21:05:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see TonyR, David_Illsley, gpilz, Steve_Vinoski, Bob_Freund, Mark_Little, Nilo_Mitra, Vikas, Tony, Umit_Yalcinalp, [Microsoft], Dave_Hull, ??P14 (muted),
21:05:17 [Zakim]
... Prasad_Yendluri, Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr, MarkN, pauld, Marc_Hadley, Hugo, ??P18, Steve_Winkler, Anish
21:05:24 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.219.aacc
21:05:41 [Zakim]
21:05:52 [Zakim]
21:06:21 [pauld]
zakim, IBM contains Paco
21:06:21 [Zakim]
+Paco; got it
21:06:39 [bob]
./mr oops
21:06:50 [vinoski]
vinoski has joined #ws-addr
21:07:06 [marc]
scribe: marc
21:07:13 [Zakim]
21:07:53 [marc]
2. Agenda review, AOB
21:07:55 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-addr
21:07:59 [marc]
no ob
21:08:11 [marc]
3. Call for corrections to the minutes
21:08:46 [marc]
2005-11-21: <> approved
21:09:05 [marc]
2005-11-28: <> corrections pending
21:09:16 [marc]
4. Review action items <>
21:09:23 [marc]
Umit - done
21:09:33 [marc]
Jonathan - open
21:09:50 [marc]
5. Co-ordination
21:09:59 [marc]
* TAG request for help
21:09:59 [marc]
21:11:26 [dhull]
21:12:17 [marc]
Mark reviews note from TAG
21:13:50 [mnot]
ack dhull
21:14:14 [marc]
Mark: does WG feel the need for formal response ?
21:14:28 [bob]
21:15:10 [Zakim]
21:15:13 [pauld]
wonders what we can do, or care about how other people use our specs
21:15:16 [Zakim]
- +1.408.219.aacc
21:16:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.407.503.aadd
21:17:23 [TonyC]
TonyC has joined #ws-addr
21:17:31 [marc]
dhull: wonders if we need something to explain migration from submission
21:17:34 [mnot]
ack bob
21:17:41 [pauld]
zakim, aadd is Glen
21:17:41 [Zakim]
+Glen; got it
21:18:04 [TonyC]
Yeah. Tony just got dropped and reconnected as TonyC
21:18:21 [marc]
WG is OK with informal response to TAG
21:18:31 [marc]
other 5. Proposed and New Issues
21:18:49 [TonyC]
zakim, +1.781.444.aabb is me
21:18:49 [Zakim]
sorry, TonyC, I do not recognize a party named '+1.781.444.aabb'
21:18:56 [marc]
* Proposed: wsaw:UsingAddressing as a policy assertion
21:18:56 [marc]
21:19:12 [TonyC]
zakim, +1.781.444.0202 is me
21:19:13 [Zakim]
sorry, TonyC, I do not recognize a party named '+1.781.444.0202'
21:20:03 [marc]
Jonathan reviews the issue
21:21:14 [marc]
21:21:15 [uyalcina]
21:21:54 [GlenD]
GlenD has joined #ws-addr
21:21:57 [GlenD]
21:22:45 [GlenD]
Nothing prevents anyone from using <wsa:UsingAddressing> as a policy assertion element under <wsp:Policy>, does it?
21:22:51 [uyalcina]
21:23:00 [uyalcina]
this is what I wrote on my email
21:23:14 [GlenD]
+1 on extensibility
21:23:52 [marc]
Mark: such a policy assertion would need to be compatible with WS-Policy ?
21:23:58 [marc]
Jonathan: yes
21:24:21 [uyalcina]
21:24:25 [Zakim]
21:24:35 [Zakim]
21:24:39 [GlenD]
21:24:39 [marc]
Mark: havediscussed with several people, feedback indicates that charter changes might be required
21:24:42 [GlenD]
that wasn't the mute button
21:24:44 [bob]
mark, we lost you
21:24:48 [mnot]
21:25:23 [mnot]
ring ring
21:25:29 [Zakim]
21:25:33 [GlenD]
ha beat him back!
21:25:39 [Zakim]
21:27:06 [Paco]
21:27:32 [marc]
Jonathan: charter requires us to define a mechanism for indicating use - policy is one way of doing that. can be done without normative reference to WS-Policy.
21:27:38 [anish]
21:27:44 [mnot]
21:27:56 [mnot]
scribe: mnot
21:28:34 [mnot]
march: know of people developing policy constraints; would like to use that instead of a specific policy language.
21:29:19 [mnot]
... Would like to speak against domain-specific policy langauge; want to use something domain-independant one (which is usable with WS-Policy).
21:29:31 [mnot]
... Urge WG to look at WS-PolicyConstraints.
21:29:36 [mnot]
scribe: marc
21:29:39 [mnot]
21:29:42 [mnot]
ack marc
21:30:25 [mnot]
ack uyal
21:31:06 [GlenD]
21:31:16 [GlenD]
21:31:24 [pauld]
AIUI Anne's OASIS dipal working group is based upon XACML:
21:31:30 [Zakim]
21:31:49 [bob]
and it is looking very interesting
21:32:41 [mnot]
ack Paco
21:33:16 [marc]
umit: can use existing extension elements in WS-Policy, good enough, lets move on
21:33:50 [dhull]
21:34:02 [mnot]
ack hugo
21:34:10 [marc]
Paco: in favor of defining policy assertions
21:34:37 [mnot]
ack anish
21:34:45 [marc]
Paco: existing elements can be r-used in policy language when that gets standardized
21:35:12 [marc]
anish: can't see any need to say anything about policy right now
21:37:03 [bob]
21:37:07 [mnot]
ack bob
21:38:36 [Paco]
21:38:42 [mnot]
ack Paco
21:38:46 [Bo]
Bo has joined #ws-addr
21:38:54 [Jonathan_Marsh]
21:39:00 [uyalcina]
21:40:15 [mnot]
ack Jonath
21:42:17 [marc]
jonathan: need a policy assertion, I can either talk to paco and IBM and MS can define it or we can do it in the WG. Former is not that unattractive as bilaterally we can define waht we want and twiddle it whenever we want. Doing it in the WG is a low cost way to get this on a standards track.
21:42:22 [mnot]
ack uyal
21:42:29 [Zakim]
21:43:34 [marc]
umit: don't want to see another policy assertion document elsewhere, lets do this in the WG
21:43:44 [Zakim]
21:44:57 [marc]
umit: just need an indication that the elements we define can be used in policy and leave it at that
21:45:20 [mnot]
ack hugo
21:45:20 [Zakim]
hugo, you wanted to answer the question: should we open the issue?
21:45:38 [anish]
21:45:40 [marc]
hugo: don't think we need to open an issue for this
21:46:01 [dhull]
q+ quick question
21:46:09 [marc]
hugo: from charter pov, we have defined WSDL extensions
21:46:19 [dhull]
q- quick question
21:46:26 [dhull]
q+ to ask a quick question
21:46:27 [mnot]
ack anish
21:46:59 [marc]
anish: thinks jonathans suggestion re MS and IBM defining this is the best way to go
21:47:02 [mnot]
ack dhull
21:47:02 [Zakim]
dhull, you wanted to ask a quick question
21:47:04 [uyalcina]
why are we abstracting concrete QNames, Anish?
21:47:33 [marc]
dhull: nothing prevents our elements being re-used - right ?
21:48:01 [marc]
jonathan: nothing structural, but thinks such use would be viewed as abuse
21:49:08 [marc]
umit: (to hugo) thinks if we don't open this issue then we are asking for it to happen elsewhere
21:50:55 [marc]
glen: doesn't think use of our elements elsewhere would be viewed as abuse
21:52:47 [marc]
mark: if we open this to use with policy then we would need to track usage quite closely
21:53:15 [anish]
+1 to marc
21:54:10 [hugo]
+1 to Marc
21:54:28 [bob]
+1 to Marc too
21:54:52 [marc]
marc: either do the job and define use in each framework or don't do it, making some vague statement will do nobody any favours
21:55:05 [marc]
mark: what is your preference ?
21:55:12 [TonyR]
21:55:30 [bob]
note that you are now requiring a very high bar...
21:55:40 [marc]
marc: would like a standardized policy framework to do the work against, in absence of such don't see what we can do
21:55:43 [pauld]
21:56:22 [marc]
tony: policy not in a state where we can reliably define something for use in it
21:56:50 [marc]
pauld: would like to see some concrete proposals
21:57:09 [Zakim]
21:59:47 [marc]
Mark: could accept this as an issue and explore solutions that are not specific to any policy framework
22:00:11 [Zakim]
22:00:43 [marc]
hugo: there was quite a bit of opposition, can we poll to see level of interest
22:01:07 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr
22:01:44 [Zakim]
22:02:52 [marc]
mark: if we open the issue then ill be tightly scoped to a couple of generic sentences saying elements can be used elsewhere
22:03:30 [marc]
jonathan: that's acceptable
22:03:41 [marc]
paco seconds the issue
22:04:03 [mnot]
ACTION: Jonathan to make concrete, non-referencing proposal for new issue WRT policy.
22:04:05 [Zakim]
22:05:02 [marc]
TOPIC: 6. Working Draft Issues <>
22:05:17 [marc]
* i059 - Support for asynchronous / multi-MEP usage of web services
22:05:35 [Zakim]
22:05:47 [marc]
umit presents her proposal
22:06:13 [Zakim]
22:07:00 [Zakim]
22:08:05 [marc]
mark: lots of discussion on email
22:08:33 [marc]
umit: lets agree to incorporate the proposal and then work on the comments as separate issues
22:08:56 [dhull]
22:09:06 [marc]
jonathan: q re prohibited value, is that really a common requirement ?
22:09:19 [marc]
umit: voted at F2F
22:09:39 [mnot]
ack dhull
22:09:42 [pauld]
ack, pauld
22:09:50 [pauld]
22:10:04 [marc]
dhull: seems that WS-AT requires this
22:10:36 [anish]
22:11:27 [gpilz]
22:11:54 [marc]
jonathan: any other cases ?
22:12:44 [marc]
umit: application level requirements
22:13:02 [mnot]
ack uyal
22:13:49 [marc]
anish: nice indication at binding that responses will not come back on back channel, good to know beforehand rather than find out at runtime
22:14:29 [dorchard]
+1 to app level requirements
22:14:49 [mnot]
ack anish
22:15:31 [uyalcina]
what I am saying is that application level requirements may require async bindings. In this case, this marker will be useful even it is at the binding level
22:16:39 [mnot]
ack gpilz
22:16:47 [uyalcina]
of course, you can build async applications on top of sync protocols too, but if we had a long running request response at the app level, it will REQUIRE an async binding.
22:17:35 [dhull]
22:18:32 [dorchard]
q+ to add a bit to gil's point about ws-rx.
22:19:25 [Zakim]
22:19:27 [mnot]
ack dhull
22:19:49 [marc]
gil: thinks there are cases where this is important and that it would be odd if that was not possible in WSDL
22:20:42 [Paco]
22:20:50 [uyalcina]
q+ to ask a q to Anish
22:20:54 [mnot]
ack dorch
22:20:54 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to add a bit to gil's point about ws-rx.
22:21:20 [TonyC]
TonyC has joined #ws-addr
22:22:02 [Zakim]
22:23:23 [marc]
dorchard cites WS-RX case where WS-Addr capability can be used to indicate support for anon/non-anon RX replies
22:24:20 [mnot]
22:25:58 [mnot]
ack Paco
22:26:37 [marc]
paco: doesn't understand RX use case well enough but looks like partitioning of functionality isn't the most appropriate way to do it
22:26:58 [Zakim]
22:27:56 [mnot]
22:28:00 [mnot]
ack uyal
22:28:00 [Zakim]
uyalcina, you wanted to ask a q to Anish
22:28:18 [marc]
umit: same use case as anish, long running request response
22:29:32 [marc]
umit: the markup enables applications, think we should keep it
22:30:30 [mnot]
22:30:33 [marc]
anish: WSDL 1.1 abstract isn't that abstract so use of this markup isn't that counter
22:31:01 [marc]
umit: make a high level decision on whether to incorporate this or not
22:31:04 [marc]
22:31:22 [mnot]
ack marc
22:32:47 [marc]
marc: don't want to incorporate a lot of text that is open to change, don't think the proposal is ready yet
22:33:45 [marc]
22:35:33 [marc]
working through point raised in above referenced email
22:35:48 [marc]
(i) agree this is an issue
22:36:05 [marc]
(ii) similar to wsaw:Action seems appropriate
22:36:57 [dorchard]
+ to MarcH
22:37:05 [dorchard]
+1 to MarcH
22:37:16 [gpilz]
+1 to not cramming everything into the WSDL binding document
22:37:31 [marc]
(iii) agreed
22:41:43 [Jonathan_Marsh]
Jonathan_Marsh has joined #ws-addr
22:43:07 [marc]
(iv) and (v) generated a lot of discussion wrt to whether new bindings are being defined or required
22:43:54 [anish]
22:45:42 [anish]
22:51:39 [marc]
22:52:05 [marc]
jonathan: in wsdl 2.0 we always include an explicit way of saying the same thing as the default
22:52:14 [marc]
marc: ok with leaving it in
22:52:26 [marc]
22:53:59 [marc]
umit: didn't think too deeply on this one, wanted to keep BP semantic but also thought there were cases where a reply envelope would be required
22:54:30 [marc]
jonathan: related to the RM question of sending ack back ?
22:55:03 [Zakim]
22:55:19 [marc]
umit: yes
22:55:39 [Zakim]
22:55:47 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p0 is me
22:55:48 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
22:56:20 [gpilz]
this "open door" is just "request with optional response" by another name
22:56:26 [gpilz]
not that that is a bad thing
22:57:06 [dhull]
not convinced
22:57:10 [dhull]
(either way)
22:57:11 [marc]
anish: so 202 SHOULD NOT include a SOAP envelope and we can revisit
22:57:19 [marc]
umit: yes
22:57:40 [gpilz]
WS-RX has problems if there is no SOAP envelope
22:57:54 [dhull]
How about SHOULD follow BP, as opposed to SHOULD NOT not follow it?
23:03:24 [dorchard]
Hard to imagine w3c spec normatively referring to ws-i spec. Pretty much flies in the face of "we just do profiles"...
23:04:03 [pauld]
where is the WS-I 'one-way' binding, is there a URI?
23:04:20 [Zakim]
23:04:28 [TonyC]
TonyC has left #ws-addr
23:04:42 [marc]
look for 202 in BP
23:04:46 [Zakim]
23:05:10 [Zakim]
23:05:31 [Zakim]
23:05:33 [Zakim]
23:05:34 [Zakim]
23:05:34 [Zakim]
23:05:35 [Zakim]
23:05:36 [Zakim]
23:05:37 [vinoski]
vinoski has left #ws-addr
23:05:37 [Zakim]
23:05:39 [Zakim]
23:05:40 [Zakim]
23:05:41 [Zakim]
23:05:42 [Zakim]
23:05:44 [Zakim]
23:05:46 [Zakim]
23:05:48 [Zakim]
23:05:50 [Zakim]
23:05:54 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
23:06:01 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'generate log', anish. Try /msg RRSAgent help
23:06:04 [Zakim]
23:06:15 [Zakim]
23:07:26 [Zakim]
23:07:35 [Zakim]
23:08:00 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr
23:09:33 [Zakim]
23:12:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate anish
23:16:05 [Zakim]
23:18:19 [Zakim]
23:20:19 [Zakim]
23:20:20 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
23:20:21 [Zakim]
Attendees were David_Illsley, gpilz, Steve_Vinoski, Bob_Freund, Mark_Little, Nilo_Mitra, +1.408.748.aaaa, Umit_Yalcinalp, [Microsoft], Dave_Hull, TonyR, Prasad_Yendluri,
23:20:24 [Zakim]
... Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr, MarkN, Vikas, pauld, Marc_Hadley, Anish, Hugo, Steve_Winkler, +1.408.219.aacc, Jonathan_Marsh, Paco, Pete_Wenzel, [Fujitsu], +1.407.503.aadd, Glen, TonyC,
23:20:26 [Zakim]
... Tom_Rutt, DOrchard, Mark_Nottingham
23:40:42 [mnot]
rrsagent, make minutes public
23:40:42 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', mnot. Try /msg RRSAgent help
23:40:53 [mnot]
rrsagent, make logs public
23:41:02 [mnot]
rrsagent, generate minutes
23:41:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mnot