IRC log of ws-addr on 2006-01-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:43:36 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
20:43:36 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:43:44 [mnot]
zakim, this will be ws_
20:43:44 [Zakim]
ok, mnot; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 17 minutes
20:43:56 [mnot]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing Working Group Teleconference
20:44:01 [mnot]
Chair: Mark Nottingham
20:44:24 [mnot]
20:49:07 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has left #ws-addr
20:49:27 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has joined #ws-addr
20:50:24 [Gil]
Gil has joined #ws-addr
20:55:45 [yinleng]
yinleng has joined #ws-addr
20:56:06 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
20:56:13 [Zakim]
20:56:46 [prasad]
prasad has joined #ws-Addr
20:56:57 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
20:57:29 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
20:57:57 [Nilo]
Nilo has joined #ws-addr
20:58:05 [pauld]
pauld has joined #ws-addr
20:58:34 [Zakim]
20:58:42 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p1 is me
20:58:42 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
20:58:54 [PaulKnight]
PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
20:58:57 [Zakim]
20:59:10 [Zakim]
21:00:10 [Zakim]
21:00:18 [Zakim]
21:00:19 [PaulKnight]
PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
21:00:27 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
21:00:45 [Zakim]
21:01:26 [Zakim]
21:01:29 [Zakim]
21:01:35 [Zakim]
21:01:38 [plh2]
plh2 has joined #ws-addr
21:01:47 [plh2]
zakim, who's here?
21:01:47 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Gilbert_Pilz, TonyR, MarkN, David_Illsley, Andreas_Bjarlestam (muted), Mark_Little, Tom_Rutt, Paul_Knight, Umit_Yalcinalp, Nilo
21:01:49 [Zakim]
On IRC I see plh2, Katy, PaulKnight, pauld, Nilo, TonyR, David_Illsley, prasad, yinleng, Gil, TomRutt, RRSAgent, Zakim, mnot
21:01:51 [Bozhong]
Bozhong has joined #ws-addr
21:01:56 [plh2]
zakim, call plh-work
21:01:56 [Zakim]
ok, plh2; the call is being made
21:01:57 [Zakim]
21:02:00 [Zakim]
21:02:04 [uyalcina]
uyalcina has joined #ws-addr
21:02:09 [Zakim]
21:02:26 [gdaniels]
gdaniels has joined #ws-addr
21:02:42 [Jonathan]
Jonathan has joined #ws-addr
21:02:42 [Zakim]
21:02:44 [Zakim]
21:02:45 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
21:02:47 [marc]
marc has joined #ws-addr
21:03:01 [swinkler]
swinkler has joined #ws-addr
21:03:23 [mnot]
zakim, who is on the phone?
21:03:23 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Gilbert_Pilz, TonyR, MarkN, David_Illsley, Andreas_Bjarlestam (muted), Mark_Little, Tom_Rutt, Paul_Knight, Umit_Yalcinalp, Nilo (muted), Plh, pauld, [Microsoft],
21:03:26 [Zakim]
... ??P13, ??P12
21:03:34 [Zakim]
21:03:45 [Zakim]
21:03:47 [Zakim]
21:03:51 [Zakim]
21:03:59 [Zakim]
21:04:04 [Zakim]
21:04:29 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-addr
21:04:51 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
21:04:51 [Zakim]
21:05:08 [Zakim]
21:05:40 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
21:05:55 [Zakim]
21:08:03 [TomRutt]
Topic: agenda
21:08:11 [TomRutt]
Added new issues for discussion.
21:08:47 [TomRutt]
Umit: I would like to resolve cr 13 on faults
21:09:16 [TomRutt]
Topic: Minutes approval
21:09:20 [Zakim]
21:09:48 [TomRutt]
No objection to approval of Minutes < minutes.html>
21:10:01 [TomRutt]
Topic: Action Items
21:10:35 [TomRutt]
2005-11-28: i059 - keep open
21:10:50 [TomRutt]
2005-12-05: i066 - action completed
21:11:07 [TomRutt]
2005-12-12: i067 - action completed
21:11:21 [TomRutt]
Topic: F2F
21:12:02 [TomRutt]
BEA will not provide lunches and bkfast in room.
21:12:14 [TomRutt]
Self arrange for bkfast, go out as group for lunch
21:12:51 [TomRutt]
Dinner: BEA could host on Wed evening, vs Thursday.
21:13:01 [PaulKnight]
run a ballot for dinner?
21:13:03 [TomRutt]
Dave O prefers Wed Evening.
21:13:34 [Nilo]
same here
21:14:08 [TomRutt]
Tue and Thur Evening could be informal groups
21:14:37 [TomRutt]
Mark N will conduct a poll on options.
21:15:14 [TomRutt]
Suggested 8:30 PM Wed Evening in the poll
21:15:50 [TomRutt]
Mark N: plan short lunch on thursday, friday can be a better lunch.
21:16:09 [TomRutt]
Possible order in "thai" type food
21:16:32 [TomRutt]
Weather: rainy, not snowy
21:16:45 [TomRutt]
Topic: Proposed new issues
21:17:19 [Katy]
21:19:38 [anish]
one reason to use the marker in port is that in WSDL 2.0, the binding is reusable
21:19:55 [anish]
21:19:59 [TomRutt]
Katy Proposes to remove tags wsaw:anonymous, and wsaw:Using addressing at endpoint level
21:22:22 [TomRutt]
Glen D: so the problem is conflicts between endpoint and binding
21:22:28 [uyalcina]
21:23:00 [Jonathan]
21:23:03 [TomRutt]
Katy: this provides a way to clean up the spec,
21:23:06 [mnot]
ack uyal
21:23:32 [dorchard]
q+ to ask whether use case examination will actually take less time than fixing the minor problems in the spec.
21:23:32 [TomRutt]
Umit: I agree to have them on the binding
21:23:33 [gdaniels]
It buys us reusable bindings
21:24:04 [mnot]
ack Jonathan
21:24:05 [gdaniels]
so you don't have to build one for "addressing on" and another for "addressing off" in order to support different capabilities on different endpoints
21:25:40 [mnot]
ack dorch
21:25:40 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to ask whether use case examination will actually take less time than fixing the minor problems in the spec.
21:27:37 [TomRutt]
Resolution: agreed to add new issue based on Katy's email
21:27:48 [TomRutt]
Owner: Katy
21:28:13 [Katy]
21:28:21 [TomRutt]
Topic: Second New Issue from Katy
21:29:33 [TomRutt]
Katy: there are times when the address needs to be overridden, which violates 4.1 text
21:30:00 [anish]
21:30:05 [mnot]
ack anish
21:30:10 [uyalcina]
+1 to the issue
21:30:37 [TomRutt]
Anish: If you are not using address are you still using that port?
21:31:17 [TomRutt]
Anish: if you need run time info you would use epr not port in wsdl
21:32:08 [TomRutt]
Anish: if wsdl port has static address, that is its definition
21:32:42 [TomRutt]
Katy: Jax rpc has call interfaced to override address, I thought of this as same port, If not so we should clarify the spec.
21:33:17 [TomRutt]
Anish: I do not object to adding issue, however resolution might be clarification text.
21:33:45 [TomRutt]
Jonathan: we should also continue to look at Katy's original proposal.
21:34:25 [TomRutt]
Resolution: add Katy second New issue from her email, Katy owner
21:34:51 [TomRutt]
Umit: there will be new CR issues for next week.
21:35:20 [TomRutt]
Mark N: my hope is to resolve all CR issues next week.
21:36:58 [TomRutt]
Suggest wg meeting to 6 or 6:30 on thursday
21:37:40 [Zakim]
21:37:41 [TomRutt]
Topic: i067 - SOAP 1.2 support for Async
21:37:57 [Zakim]
21:38:41 [TomRutt]
Discussion of Dave O action item
21:39:17 [TomRutt]
21:41:55 [TomRutt]
Mark N: how do these issue resolutions get reflected in our wsdl binding document?
21:41:58 [uyalcina]
I fail to see what the difference is between what is part of our original proposal and in this proposal with respect to SOAP 1.1/HTTP. Just wording differences>?
21:42:39 [TomRutt]
Dave O: if it done in a separate "soap binding " doc the wsdl could use reference to that binding
21:43:02 [uyalcina]
It seems to me that this is not the content problem, but which document the defn is included.
21:43:46 [TomRutt]
Mark N: if the impact is low, and we can agree to push the binding work elsewhere, with an editors' not in the last call to allow updated of reference, we might be done.
21:44:31 [TomRutt]
Dave O: the reference could specify a minimum requirement on the binding, a bar which hits what we are doing in our test cases.
21:45:02 [uyalcina]
21:45:03 [TomRutt]
Mark N: that is why the reference can be left open for change after last call.
21:45:30 [TomRutt]
Paco: do we know who will take this over for both soap 1.1 and 1.2?
21:45:47 [TomRutt]
Mark N: we have to make that happen before we clan close the issue.
21:46:27 [TomRutt]
Marc N: for soap 1.2 xmlp could do it, for soap 1.1 a separate w3c Note could be cited.
21:47:02 [TomRutt]
Dave O: our WG could do if for Soap 1.1, xmlp could do it for soap 1.2
21:47:30 [TomRutt]
Umit: why not put the soap 1.1 stuff in this wsdl binding now, rather than refer to another future doc
21:47:56 [dorchard]
q+ to answer umit
21:48:03 [TomRutt]
Umit: I thought we already agreed on the soap 1.1 solution.
21:48:14 [dhull]
q+ to advocate dodging the whole issue
21:48:30 [TomRutt]
Umit: I do not see the big advantage to this separate document for soap 1.1
21:48:51 [TomRutt]
Mark N: some people see a separate document as more easy to reference elsewhare
21:48:53 [mnot]
ack uyal
21:49:14 [mnot]
ack dorch
21:49:14 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to answer umit
21:50:12 [TomRutt]
Dave O: xmlp is working on this for soap 1.2, this has been on the table for quite some time that they will have a separate doc for soap 1.2 oneway.
21:51:06 [TomRutt]
Dave O: haveing a separate document for a binding is a separate thing than a wsdl extension. Some believe a separate document for a binding for Soap binding is best.
21:51:48 [TomRutt]
Umit: my concern is a w3c does not have the same importance as a rec doc.
21:52:31 [Gil]
21:52:34 [TomRutt]
Dave O: I would like to see this as a w3c Rec.
21:53:03 [TomRutt]
Mark N: our charter deliverables do not include a soap binding document.
21:53:55 [TomRutt]
Mark N: we could publish a note, but we are not chartered to do a soap oneway binding for soap 1.1
21:55:19 [TomRutt]
Dave O: I think our charter could allow two documents rather than one.
21:55:29 [mnot]
ack dhull
21:55:29 [Zakim]
dhull, you wanted to advocate dodging the whole issue
21:56:16 [dorchard]
So, for the record, I agree with Umit's concern about the binding being in a Note rather than a Rec track document. If separate doc is Note, then I'd rather have 1) keep in SOAP binding and go back to CR or 2) keep in WSDL doc.
21:56:18 [Paco]
21:58:10 [TomRutt]
D Hull: define anonymous using behaviour rather than a specific address. We can leave out details
21:59:12 [mnot]
ack Gil
21:59:31 [TonyR]
21:59:56 [dhull]
22:00:11 [Zakim]
22:00:25 [TomRutt]
Gil: the last place I would look to see how to to asynch in soap 1.1 is in a wsdl binding document for ws addressing. It has broader usage than within our group
22:00:46 [TomRutt]
s/to to/to do/
22:00:53 [mnot]
ack Paco
22:01:36 [dorchard]
q+ to mention that if w3c is against Rec tracking anything soap 1.1, then they ought to be objecting to it being in ws-a wsdl extension and they haven't done so.
22:01:57 [anish]
22:02:22 [dhull]
22:02:40 [plh]
plh has joined #ws-addr
22:02:49 [TomRutt]
Paco: wrt soap 1.2, we agree to let another group do it. since we are group to likely solve soap 1.1 problem, I hesitate to waid for another document.
22:03:02 [TomRutt]
Paco: perhaps do not go to LC until we have soap 1.1 solution
22:03:03 [mnot]
ack Tony
22:03:15 [TomRutt]
22:04:10 [mnot]
ack dorch
22:04:10 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to mention that if w3c is against Rec tracking anything soap 1.1, then they ought to be objecting to it being in ws-a wsdl extension and they haven't done so.
22:04:10 [Jonathan]
22:04:22 [TomRutt]
Tony R: If Soap 1.1 is expected to go away, having the binding in a separate doc would have advantages.
22:04:45 [TomRutt]
Dave O: I believe soap 1.1 will be used as the primary vehicle for a while.
22:04:55 [plh]
22:05:30 [mnot]
ack plh
22:06:23 [TomRutt]
Philipe: Soap 1.1 is w3c note, not recommendation. A w3c rec should not rely on a w3c note.
22:06:55 [TomRutt]
Phiipe: if the recommendation would have to rely on a w3c note we would be against thate
22:07:38 [TomRutt]
Philippe: if the text lives by itself it is not optional. Optional text in a rec is a different case
22:09:07 [TomRutt]
Dave O: I do not get the importance of something being optional, ws whether the optional part is by value or by reference?
22:09:26 [TomRutt]
s/ws /vs. /
22:10:27 [Gil]
your point would be?
22:10:37 [TomRutt]
Mark N: it is more acceptable to have the soap 1.1 binding stuff as an optional part of our spec.
22:11:00 [Zakim]
22:11:37 [yinleng]
zakim, ??P12 is me
22:11:37 [Zakim]
+yinleng; got it
22:11:48 [plh]
A W3C Recommendation for the Web Services Addressing SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 Binding specification, mapping Web Services Addressing message properties to SOAP 1. 1 and SOAP 1.2 headers.
22:11:49 [TomRutt]
Philippe: Need to be concerned about requiring charter change for new deliverable.
22:12:03 [dorchard]
BEA would like to see the document that specifies the soap 1.1 one-way http binding go through CR and Rec.
22:12:37 [anish]
22:12:58 [dorchard]
+1 to umit
22:13:01 [dhull]
q+ about handling async
22:13:10 [dhull]
22:13:22 [dhull]
q+ to comment on handling async
22:13:32 [plh]
"The use of these abstract message properties in the context of all WSDL 1.1 or WSDL 2.0 Message Exchange Patterns, including the asynchronous use of these MEPs."
22:13:43 [TomRutt]
Umit: I do not see how this would require a new charter if we do it within the soap binding document?
22:14:27 [TomRutt]
Dave O: we have been talking about this in the wsdl document for a long time, so why would it be outside our charter.
22:14:51 [TomRutt]
Mark N "including the asynchonous use of the meps" is in the charter wording
22:15:21 [uyalcina]
+1 to DO
22:16:44 [TomRutt]
Anish: I do not see problem with soap 1.1 binding as note, with reference in our rec doc.
22:17:21 [TomRutt]
Anish: it removes concern about putting in wsdl doc, and als the concern to not put soap doc back to LC.
22:17:48 [plh]
22:17:56 [dorchard]
Hmm.. So what's the difference between 1) Rec track document contains one-way binding (wsdl doc) 2) Rec track dcoument references Note?
22:17:58 [mnot]
ack anish
22:18:28 [mnot]
ack Jonathan
22:18:47 [TomRutt]
Jonathan: I do not want to take soap binding to lc. Schedule is important. I do not see problem with a note, referenced in wsdl doc.
22:18:59 [mnot]
ack dhull
22:18:59 [Zakim]
dhull, you wanted to comment on handling async
22:20:06 [dorchard]
So it seems that there is a trade-off between Rec track but arguably inappropriate document factoring vs appropriate document factoring and Note status.
22:20:25 [mnot]
ack plh
22:20:36 [TomRutt]
D Hull: in some respects the ReplyTo satisfies the requirement in the charter. Having soap 1.1 binding is not charter item, but is a good thing.
22:21:16 [uyalcina]
22:21:34 [dorchard]
22:21:40 [mnot]
ack uyal
22:21:42 [TomRutt]
Phillipe: WG can publish notes. However the WG should get their spec out sooner rather than later
22:22:00 [dorchard]
q+ to point out that we are talking about 2 sentences..
22:22:34 [TomRutt]
Umit: one or two paragraphs would be the contents of the note (from either My proposal of Dave O proposal). Notes take time to progress on their own.
22:23:01 [mnot]
ack dorch
22:23:01 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to point out that we are talking about 2 sentences..
22:23:08 [TomRutt]
Anish: the Wsdl binding and Note can go to LC at the same time.
22:23:36 [TomRutt]
Dave O: one or two sentences might suffice. I do not see it as being a reason to delay progression of the spec.
22:24:07 [TomRutt]
Dave O: we have to agree on what the sentences are, independent of which document they go in.
22:24:12 [dorchard]
maybe straw poll time?
22:24:37 [Zakim]
22:24:44 [dorchard]
1) wsdl doc by value; 2) wsdl doc then refer to Note; 3) soap binding doc; 4) wsdl doc then refer to Rec
22:26:28 [Zakim]
22:26:37 [TomRutt]
Mark N: two choices: 1) separate doc with ref in wsdl doc, or 2) agree soon and put in wsdl doc
22:27:04 [TomRutt]
Tony R: I prefer separated
22:27:23 [TomRutt]
Paco: I would rather leave in the WSDL document
22:27:51 [TomRutt]
Paco: restricting it to wsdl doc places it stronger within our charter.
22:28:04 [TomRutt]
Dave O: there is another option to put it in the soap binding document.
22:28:34 [TomRutt]
Jonathan: I am against such a dely on soap binding rec.
22:28:40 [TomRutt]
22:29:22 [TomRutt]
Mark N: if someone could draft proposed referencing text we could look at it.
22:30:00 [mnot]
ACTION: DaveO to propose referencing text for i067 and i068, and give summary of SOAP 1.1 HTTP binding
22:30:06 [TomRutt]
Dave O: I volunteered to do those action items, some of the referencing text has already be proposed.
22:31:52 [TomRutt]
Mark N: discuss on email list, looking at Dave O proposals on referenceing. Dave O will summarize how the soap 1.1 one way binding would look like. At f2f We will have three options before group
22:32:04 [TomRutt]
1) soap 1.1 in wsdl doc
22:32:18 [TomRutt]
2)soap 1.1 in soap biding doc (back to lc)
22:32:29 [TomRutt]
3) make soap 1.1 asynch in separate note
22:33:18 [TomRutt]
Topic: WD issue I066 Using addressing as policy assertion
22:34:27 [mnot]
22:34:31 [TomRutt]
Jonathan: proposes to make discussion of global element more generic, to allow its use elsewhere. He provided example
22:36:11 [uyalcina]
22:36:43 [anish]
22:36:54 [TomRutt]
Jonathan : i give two proposals, the second is more specific to policy framework, that is why I prefer it.
22:37:02 [Zakim]
22:37:10 [mnot]
ack uyal
22:37:39 [TomRutt]
Umit: this proposal is based on the older version of wsdl binding document. Some paragraphs have been changed
22:39:22 [mnot]
ack anish
22:40:29 [TomRutt]
Anish: Saying that anyone using this element has the same meaning as how we use it in this spec seems wrong. The using spec can tighten semantics.
22:41:04 [TomRutt]
Jonathan: section 3.2 already uses term "semantic equivalence"
22:41:19 [Zakim]
22:41:27 [TomRutt]
Anish: we are not just talking about ws-policy, we are restricting any framework using ws-addressing.
22:41:57 [bob]
bob has joined #ws-addr
22:42:16 [bob]
hi, i need to be completely retrained
22:42:46 [TomRutt]
Anish: I think the other specs should have freedom on how they use an element in a policy framework in a wsdl document.
22:43:17 [bob]
22:44:49 [TomRutt]
Anish: I am saying we should not do this.
22:45:28 [TomRutt]
Jonathan: I want to be able compose the spec on on using addressing element and a spec on policy framework.
22:45:46 [jeffm]
jeffm has joined #ws-addr
22:46:00 [dorchard]
22:46:08 [TomRutt]
Anish: this is going beyond the bounds of the wsdl binding document.
22:46:14 [Paco]
22:47:05 [mnot]
ack dorchh
22:47:08 [mnot]
ack dorch
22:47:11 [plh]
22:47:44 [mnot]
ack Paco
22:47:47 [TomRutt]
Dave O: while outside charter, it is such a small tweek that I am in favor.
22:48:00 [uyalcina]
22:48:51 [TomRutt]
Paco: I am in favor of this. Using this element in another framework is not supported by the ws-addressing spec.
22:49:01 [mnot]
ack plh
22:49:57 [TomRutt]
Phillipe: I like the idea of opening the text to allow the element to be used elsewhere .
22:50:04 [mnot]
ack uyal
22:50:40 [TomRutt]
Umit: I speak in Favor of It, especially the second one.
22:50:46 [TomRutt]
22:51:06 [mnot]
ack Tom
22:52:07 [TomRutt]
Tom R: I could live with neither proposal, but prefer the more general proposal 1.
22:53:12 [TomRutt]
Jonathan: the fist one seems less direct, and sneakear.
22:53:40 [TomRutt]
Tom R: I prefer no change, but could live more with change 1.
22:54:25 [TomRutt]
Mark N: we can have a Chad on this at next week f2f, with a short discussion. Please send any email before meeting.
22:54:39 [TomRutt]
Topic: Review of Remainder of Issues.
22:55:30 [TomRutt]
Jonathan: cr 10 has a proposal 6 which seems to be agreeable.
22:55:54 [TomRutt]
CR 13, familiarize yourself with proposal from Umit.
22:56:45 [uyalcina]
CR13 does NOT require us to go back to LC as there is already a note in the spec indicating that we can add more faults if needed
22:57:19 [TomRutt]
CR14 - the proposal from D Hull has three options.
22:57:58 [TomRutt]
s/I prefer nochange, but /I/
22:58:15 [Zakim]
22:58:49 [TomRutt]
s/I prefer no change, but/I /
22:59:03 [Zakim]
22:59:12 [TonyR]
zakim, ?p1 is me
22:59:12 [Zakim]
sorry, TonyR, I do not recognize a party named '?p1'
22:59:13 [TomRutt]
Marc N: People should look at these CR issues as well as Katy's new issues.
22:59:18 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p1 is me
22:59:18 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
22:59:47 [Zakim]
22:59:49 [Zakim]
22:59:50 [Zakim]
22:59:51 [Zakim]
22:59:51 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
22:59:52 [Zakim]
22:59:53 [Zakim]
22:59:54 [Zakim]
22:59:56 [Zakim]
22:59:58 [Zakim]
22:59:59 [plh]
plh has left #ws-addr
22:59:59 [Zakim]
23:00:00 [Zakim]
23:00:02 [Zakim]
23:00:03 [Zakim]
23:00:04 [Zakim]
23:00:06 [Zakim]
23:00:06 [yinleng]
yinleng has left #ws-addr
23:00:08 [Zakim]
23:00:10 [Zakim]
23:00:12 [Zakim]
23:00:14 [Zakim]
23:00:16 [Zakim]
23:00:18 [Zakim]
23:00:20 [Zakim]
23:00:22 [Zakim]
23:01:13 [Zakim]
23:01:32 [mnot]
s/Marc N/mnot/g
23:01:39 [mnot]
rrsagent, please make logs public
23:01:45 [mnot]
rrsagent, please generate minutes
23:01:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mnot
23:02:51 [Zakim]
23:02:53 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
23:02:54 [Zakim]
Attendees were Gilbert_Pilz, TonyR, MarkN, David_Illsley, Andreas_Bjarlestam, Mark_Little, Tom_Rutt, Paul_Knight, Umit_Yalcinalp, Nilo, Plh, pauld, [Microsoft], Dave_Hull,
23:02:57 [Zakim]
... Prasad_Yendluri, Marc_Hadley, Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr, GlenD, Dave_Orchard, [IBM], Steve_Winkler, Anish, yinleng, JeffM, Bob_Freund
23:04:22 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has left #ws-addr
23:05:39 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr