IRC log of ws-Addr on 2005-12-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:39:11 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-Addr
20:39:11 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:39:14 [mnot]
zakim, this will be WS_ADDR
20:39:14 [Zakim]
ok, mnot; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 21 minutes
20:39:29 [mnot]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing Working Group Teleconference
20:39:33 [mnot]
Chair: Mark Nottingham
20:47:31 [mnot]
20:53:49 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
20:56:30 [Nilo]
Nilo has joined #ws-addr
20:57:45 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
20:58:14 [pauld]
pauld has joined #ws-addr
20:58:26 [uyalcina]
uyalcina has joined #ws-addr
20:58:47 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
20:59:28 [mnot]
zakim, who is here?
20:59:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see no one
20:59:30 [Zakim]
On IRC I see uyalcina, pauld, TonyR, Nilo, David_Illsley, RRSAgent, Zakim, mnot, prasad
20:59:31 [uyalcina]
i will be a little bit late,
20:59:40 [uyalcina]
My office has moved and there is some work here.
20:59:47 [PaulKnight]
PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
21:00:06 [Gil]
Gil has joined #ws-addr
21:00:34 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
21:00:42 [Pete]
Pete has joined #ws-Addr
21:01:06 [Gil]
zakim, you are confused
21:01:06 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'you are confused', Gil
21:01:16 [Gil]
zakim, exactly
21:01:16 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'exactly', Gil
21:01:18 [Jonathan_Marsh]
Jonathan_Marsh has joined #ws-addr
21:01:25 [yinleng]
yinleng has joined #ws-addr
21:02:11 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
21:02:37 [mnot]
zakim, who is here?
21:02:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see no one
21:02:38 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-addr
21:02:39 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Paco, yinleng, Jonathan_Marsh, Pete, Katy, Gil, PaulKnight, uyalcina, pauld, TonyR, Nilo, David_Illsley, RRSAgent, Zakim, mnot, prasad
21:02:46 [bob]
bob has joined #ws-addr
21:02:57 [pauld]
zakim, this will be a turing test
21:02:57 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, pauld
21:03:04 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
21:03:13 [plh]
plh has joined #ws-addr
21:03:24 [TRutt]
TRutt has joined #ws-addr
21:03:25 [plh]
zakim, call plh-work
21:03:26 [Zakim]
ok, plh; the call is being made
21:03:43 [Jonathan_Marsh]
zakim, passcode?
21:03:43 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2337 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), Jonathan_Marsh
21:03:57 [dorchard]
dave's here
21:04:05 [marc]
marc has joined #ws-addr
21:04:15 [Jonathan_Marsh]
dave's there ;-)
21:04:24 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
21:04:59 [noone]
I'm here!
21:05:01 [pauld]
zakim, no one holds the working group
21:05:01 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'no one holds the working group', pauld
21:08:45 [prasad]
scribe: prasad
21:08:52 [uyalcina]
uyalcina has joined #ws-addr
21:09:10 [prasad]
2. Agenda review, AOB
21:09:21 [prasad]
Mark review agenda
21:09:34 [prasad]
3. Call for corrections to the minutes
21:09:39 [prasad]
No corrections
21:09:50 [prasad]
resolution: approved minutes of dec 12 05
21:10:04 [prasad]
4. Review action items
21:10:24 [prasad]
all pending
21:10:41 [prasad]
topic: XMLP Request for requirements feedback
21:10:59 [prasad]
Anish: Issue is still open
21:11:31 [Zakim]
'restarting in a minute to recover teleconference state'
21:11:39 [dhull]
21:12:03 [prasad]
Anish: issue to resolve in soap 1.2 erratum or in the new XMLP work
21:12:37 [Katy]
21:14:00 [prasad]
Anish: We initially did not want to fix in errata as it impacts too much in the spec. But Noah may have changed mind
21:14:48 [uyalcina]
21:15:19 [mnot]
ack dhull
21:15:48 [prasad]
Dhul: I was on the XMLP call. Noah thinks can be done in erratum. Does not see a need for one-ay MEP
21:15:53 [vikas]
vikas has joined #ws-addr
21:15:59 [prasad]
21:16:11 [anish]
21:16:15 [prasad]
21:16:31 [RalphS_]
RalphS_ has joined #ws-addr
21:16:33 [anish]
21:16:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-Addr
21:16:41 [RalphS_]
zakim, this is addr
21:16:41 [Zakim]
ok, RalphS_; that matches WS_AddrWG()4:00PM
21:16:45 [RalphS_]
zakim, who's on the call?
21:16:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see David_Illsley, Mark_Nottingham, Gilbert_Pilz, ??P3, Prasad_Yendluri, Mark_Little, Bob_Freund, Paul_Knight, Nilo, [IBM], Tom_Rutt, Pete_Wenzel,
21:16:48 [Zakim]
... Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr, Dave_Orchard, Marc_Hadley, Plh, ??P16, Dave_Hull, Anish, Umit_Yalcinalp, Jonathan_Marsh, +44.144.250.aaaa, Vikas_Deolaliker
21:16:57 [RalphS_]
sorry for the inconvenience, folks
21:17:03 [TRutt]
21:17:35 [mnot_2]
mnot_2 has joined #ws-addr
21:17:38 [Zakim]
21:17:39 [prasad]
Umit: When is the decision on errata vs new work going to be made?
21:18:04 [RalphS_]
RalphS_ has left #ws-addr
21:18:17 [Zakim]
21:18:27 [mnot_2]
21:18:32 [prasad]
Anish: I don't think it is either or
21:18:51 [plh]
zakim, who's here?
21:18:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see David_Illsley, Mark_Nottingham, Gilbert_Pilz, ??P3, Prasad_Yendluri, Mark_Little, Bob_Freund, Paul_Knight, Nilo, [IBM], Tom_Rutt, Pete_Wenzel,
21:18:55 [Zakim]
... Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr, Dave_Orchard, Marc_Hadley, Plh, ??P16, Dave_Hull, Anish, Umit_Yalcinalp, Jonathan_Marsh, +44.144.250.aaaa, Vikas_Deolaliker
21:18:58 [Zakim]
On IRC I see uyalcina, mnot_2, Zakim, vikas, dhull, marc, TRutt, plh, anish, bob, dorchard, Paco, yinleng, Marsh, Pete, Katy, Gil, PaulKnight, pauld, TonyR, Nilo, David_Illsley,
21:19:01 [Zakim]
... RRSAgent, mnot, prasad
21:19:02 [Zakim]
21:19:10 [pauld]
zakim, who is making noise?
21:19:23 [Zakim]
pauld, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Mark_Nottingham (68%), Gilbert_Pilz (12%), ??P16 (20%), Vikas_Deolaliker (49%)
21:19:43 [prasad]
prank call ?
21:19:45 [pauld]
zakim, who is making noise?
21:19:56 [Zakim]
pauld, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Mark_Nottingham (69%), Gilbert_Pilz (4%), Vikas_Deolaliker (44%)
21:20:13 [dorchard]
please paste # into irc
21:20:14 [marc]
did someone get that number ?
21:20:14 [prasad]
21:20:15 [Marsh]
21:20:22 [Zakim]
21:20:28 [Marsh]
21:20:40 [mnot_2]
+1 866 214 3176 (US)
21:20:40 [mnot_2]
+1 404 827 9098 (non-US)
21:20:41 [mnot_2]
Access Code: 2979273
21:20:45 [Zakim]
21:20:47 [Zakim]
21:20:51 [Zakim]
21:20:58 [TRutt]
sounds like downs syndrome to me
21:21:01 [Zakim]
21:21:03 [Zakim]
21:21:06 [Zakim]
21:21:18 [Zakim]
21:21:19 [Zakim]
21:21:19 [Zakim]
21:21:20 [Zakim]
21:21:20 [Zakim]
21:21:21 [Zakim]
21:21:22 [Zakim]
21:21:23 [Zakim]
21:21:25 [Zakim]
21:21:27 [Zakim]
21:21:29 [Zakim]
21:21:31 [Zakim]
- +44.144.250.aaaa
21:21:31 [prasad]
swithing over to other line
21:21:33 [Zakim]
21:21:35 [Zakim]
21:21:37 [Zakim]
21:21:39 [Zakim]
21:21:58 [Zakim]
21:21:59 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
21:22:00 [Zakim]
Attendees were David_Illsley, Mark_Nottingham, Gilbert_Pilz, Prasad_Yendluri, Mark_Little, Bob_Freund, Paul_Knight, Nilo, [IBM], Tom_Rutt, Pete_Wenzel, Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr,
21:22:02 [Zakim]
... Dave_Orchard, Marc_Hadley, Plh, Dave_Hull, Anish, Umit_Yalcinalp, Jonathan_Marsh, +44.144.250.aaaa, Vikas_Deolaliker
21:22:11 [TRutt]
Host not yet arrived
21:23:12 [pauld]
zakim, aaaa is me
21:23:12 [Zakim]
sorry, pauld, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
21:23:35 [plh]
21:23:43 [prasad]
21:25:01 [prasad]
Trutt: Distingushing reliable vs non-reliable transports is important
21:26:10 [prasad]
DHull: Do we really need one-way MEP from XMLP?
21:27:04 [prasad]
Anish: One-Way MEP in Errata or new effort?
21:27:10 [prasad]
DHull: New
21:28:38 [uyalcina]
21:29:02 [prasad]
DaveO: Real question is req optional response good enough?
21:29:08 [mnot_2]
ack uyal
21:30:18 [dorchard]
Seems to me that wsdl one-way could map to soap request-optional-response mep.
21:30:39 [dorchard]
And I'd rather not "hijack" this discussion to meet some other requirement.
21:30:42 [dhull]
cheese sandwich with no bread
21:30:51 [prasad]
Umit: Is whats on the table maping WSDL MEP to SOAP optional resp
21:31:26 [prasad]
dhull: believe so, not sure
21:31:52 [prasad]
mnot: No feed back at this pint to XMLP. Moving on
21:32:36 [prasad]
DHull: We can set the expectation as our feedback
21:32:59 [prasad]
Topic: 6. Test Suite and Testing Update
21:33:08 [prasad]
Mnot: Where are we on that
21:33:21 [prasad]
Paul: Probably on track
21:34:03 [prasad]
paul: MS put out two end points. IBM put out a web page
21:34:34 [prasad]
paul: some test broke; trying to fix
21:36:17 [prasad]
Mnot: Plan to do some tests end-to-end for the vancouver f2f
21:37:02 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
21:37:09 [Zakim]
21:37:17 [Zakim]
21:37:19 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
21:37:21 [Zakim]
Attendees were
21:37:47 [prasad]
7. Working Draft Issues
21:38:00 [prasad]
Topic: i066 - wsaw:UsingAddressing as a policy assertion
21:39:13 [prasad]
Topic: i059 - Support for asynchronous / multi-MEP usage of web services
21:39:32 [prasad]
Mnot: We split i59 into three parts last week
21:40:09 [dorchard]
For the record, I haven't had a chance to review the umit's proposal because it arrived on Sunday night.
21:41:03 [prasad]
Mnot: i67 and i68 in addtion to i59
21:41:45 [mnot_2]
21:41:46 [mnot_2]
21:41:47 [prasad]
Mnot: Un=mt has a new proposal
21:41:48 [Marsh]
21:42:07 [prasad]
21:42:58 [mnot_2]
ack Marsh
21:43:15 [marc]
21:43:17 [prasad]
Mnot: Too many Proposals and status is confusing
21:43:43 [dhull]
21:43:59 [prasad]
Marsh: Proposal does not seem specific enough
21:45:31 [anish]
21:45:33 [prasad]
Marsh: If I have a method tht has a reply and fault and one of them is anonymous am i required to generate a fault?
21:45:36 [dorchard]
Seems to me that Jonathan's concerns about fault handling might need to be handled by a new issue.
21:45:39 [dhull]
fault goes back as transport-level response (if available). After we understand WSA headers and WSA is engaged, anonymous means "response channel"
21:45:48 [dhull]
+1 to DaveO
21:45:53 [dhull]
21:46:39 [dorchard]
q+ to mention that SOAP already has this problem, and it says that faults may or may not be delivered... c'est la vie.
21:46:56 [dhull]
prohibited is currently defined in terms of what may appear (not what is used)
21:46:57 [anish]
+1 to daveo
21:47:01 [dhull]
+1 to anish
21:47:14 [anish]
difference between generating a fault and sending a fault
21:48:14 [prasad]
discussion on malformed fault handling
21:48:28 [prasad]
... between umit, Marsh and others
21:51:38 [dhull]
Let's not say "anonymous" so much here. Back-channel, response or whatever makes sense outside of WSA. "Anonymous" only means anything in WSA.
21:52:21 [pauld]
21:52:27 [pauld]
pauld has changed the topic to: Agenda:
21:53:27 [mnot_2]
21:53:36 [mnot_2]
ack marc
21:53:47 [anish]
21:56:09 [prasad]
Marc; We provide two ways to do using addressing and in SOAP module we don not proide a way to do anonymous equivalent
21:56:24 [prasad]
21:56:51 [anish]
you could use a property
21:57:11 [prasad]
Mnot: Can do discuss this in i67?
21:59:38 [vikas]
vikas has joined #ws-addr
22:00:18 [prasad]
DaveO: U can set properties but, properties are global and not scoped to an operation
22:05:18 [mnot_2]
22:05:52 [anish]
22:06:00 [mnot_2]
ack dhull
22:13:35 [anish]
22:13:45 [anish]
q+ to request a ed change to example 3-3
22:18:23 [marc]
22:20:08 [mnot_2]
ack dorchard
22:20:08 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to mention that SOAP already has this problem, and it says that faults may or may not be delivered... c'est la vie.
22:20:49 [uyalcina]
it is not as is. You can always raise issues about the wording.
22:23:03 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
22:23:09 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
22:23:10 [Zakim]
Attendees were
22:23:34 [mnot_2]
22:23:42 [mnot_2]
q+ anish
22:23:45 [mnot_2]
q+ marc
22:24:48 [mnot]
ack anish
22:27:20 [mnot]
ACTION: Umit to incorporate anon element into example 3-3 in conjunction with wsoap:module
22:27:21 [prasad]
Anish: asks for examples in section 3-3 use of anonymous element in conjunction with SOAP module
22:27:36 [mnot]
ack marc
22:28:11 [vikas]
vikas has joined #ws-addr
22:28:13 [prasad]
Marc: Concerned with including text in section 3.4
22:28:59 [mnot]
22:29:21 [prasad]
MNot: None questioned 3.4 so far
22:32:54 [anish]
22:33:06 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-addr
22:34:25 [dhull]
22:34:27 [anish]
q+ to ask about "empty SOAP envelope in section 3.4
22:36:43 [prasad]
Mnot: Like to close i59 with Umit's proposal with the "anonymous text" in 3.3 deleted and examples added, text in section 3.4 is subject to editorial update.
22:37:17 [prasad]
Marc: 3.4 is not going in the doc?
22:37:29 [prasad]
MNot: It is, but can raise issues againt it.
22:38:26 [prasad]
Umit: Why don't we add an editoril note in section 3.4 that the folllowing text is subject to change?
22:39:00 [dorchard]
Why not just accept up to 3.4? 3.4 is easily talked about in email/proposals.
22:39:37 [dhull]
3.4.1 captures one useful scenario. OK with noting that, but there are useful scenarios that conflict with that text. OK with 3.4.1 as long as it's clearly scoped
22:40:17 [dhull]
22:40:24 [bob]
+1 Katy
22:40:27 [dorchard]
22:40:40 [prasad]
Katy: Likes Umit's proposal
22:40:52 [dorchard]
q+ to say that we can get consensus to accept up to 3.4, so let's do that and be uncontroversial.
22:41:16 [dhull]
q+ to clarify discomfort with 3.4.1
22:41:47 [prasad]
MArc: uncomfortable with putting 3.4 in spec
22:41:53 [uyalcina]
22:41:59 [prasad]
Mnot: That is a separate issue
22:42:19 [dorchard]
22:42:37 [uyalcina]
Not accepting 3.4 is mixed with the concept of putting it to a different document. This is not a content issue.
22:42:51 [prasad]
TRutt: I would go with putting in 3.4 with a disclaimer
22:43:12 [prasad]
Anish: Adding a note seems a reasonable way fwd
22:44:07 [prasad]
Marsh: When there is no consensus what is the status quo? What is in the doc ?
22:44:37 [prasad]
MarsH; What we have not agreed to should not be in the doc
22:44:45 [pauld]
+1 to Jonathan - the document should reflect the Status Quo, not least for generating test cases
22:44:56 [prasad]
22:45:00 [mnot]
ack dhull
22:45:00 [Zakim]
dhull, you wanted to clarify discomfort with 3.4.1
22:45:09 [dorchard]
+1 to Jonathan on declaring victory up to 3.4
22:45:48 [mnot]
ack anish
22:45:48 [Zakim]
anish, you wanted to ask about "empty SOAP envelope in section 3.4
22:46:13 [Paco]
22:47:12 [prasad]
Anish: In 3.4.1 2nd sub-bullet 1. What is "empty SOAP Env"? Empty HTTP entity Body, with SOAP hdrs ?
22:47:30 [TRutt]
22:48:00 [prasad]
Marc / Umit: we need another issue on this
22:48:41 [mnot]
ack uyal
22:49:13 [prasad]
Umit: Options: Don't say anything about SOAP 1.1 HTTP binding; put text with disclaimers..
22:49:39 [prasad]
Umit: I am infavor of putting in w/ disclaimer
22:50:08 [prasad]
Marc: Can we find in the minutes what we agreed to?
22:50:40 [mnot]
ack paco
22:51:27 [prasad]
Paco: What we agreed to at the f2f is status quo
22:51:29 [mnot]
ack TRutt
22:51:53 [prasad]
Trutt: Text in 3.4 reflects what we agreed in the meeting
22:53:08 [dhull]
In other words, the rule is, if you get a message over HTTP, you *must* send something back (which is what HTTP demands anyway). If you don't know what to say, send an empty 202.
22:53:12 [prasad]
MNot: proposes we accept as resolution for i59 all changes in Umit's proposal upto section 3.4 ...
22:54:16 [prasad]
s/3.4/3.2 and editor's recollection of what we agreed to at f2f/
22:54:36 [prasad]
Anish: what about examples?
22:54:44 [prasad]
Mnot: Those included
22:55:08 [TRutt]
22:57:47 [dorchard]
Marc, Mark said "upto section 3.4 "
22:59:45 [prasad]
Mnot: Any objections to proposal?
22:59:51 [prasad]
Marsh: I object
23:01:05 [prasad]
Taking a formal vote
23:01:33 [yinleng]
23:03:06 [dorchard]
why are people abstaining?
23:03:26 [dorchard]
Is it because not enough text going in? Or too much?
23:03:27 [prasad]
Yes - 10; No -2; Abs - 3;
23:03:45 [prasad]
Mnot: Motion Carries; i59 is closed
23:04:16 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr
23:04:18 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
23:04:22 [prasad]
No meeting next 2 weeks. Reconvene Jan 9th
23:04:30 [prasad]
23:04:52 [yinleng]
yinleng has left #ws-addr
23:05:12 [prasad]
rrsagent, make logs public
23:05:29 [prasad]
rrsagent, generate minutes
23:05:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate prasad
23:08:39 [pauld]
quit to sleep
23:54:24 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr