17:05:55 RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr 17:05:56 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/01/19-ws-addr-irc 17:06:00 zakim, this is ws_addr 17:06:00 ok, mnot; that matches WS_AddrWG(F2F)6:00AM 17:06:09 Meeting: Web Services Addressing F2F 17:06:13 Chair: Mark Nottingham 17:06:21 zakim, who is here>? 17:06:21 I don't understand your question, mnot. 17:06:25 zakim, who is here? 17:06:25 On the phone I see ??P3, +1.604.642.aaaa 17:06:26 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, mnot, TonyR, prasad 17:06:43 zakim, ??p3 is me 17:06:43 +TonyR; got it 17:06:45 zakim, ??P3 is prasad 17:06:45 I already had ??P3 as TonyR, prasad 17:07:02 +??P9 17:07:15 zakim, ??p9 is me 17:07:15 +TonyR; got it 17:07:22 +??P10 17:07:24 Jonathan has joined #ws-addr 17:07:41 zakim, ??P10 is prasad 17:07:41 +prasad; got it 17:07:54 zakim, who is on the phone 17:07:54 I don't understand 'who is on the phone', TonyR 17:07:57 zakim, who is on the phone? 17:07:57 On the phone I see TonyR, +1.604.642.aaaa, TonyR.a, prasad 17:08:04 David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr 17:10:10 Gil has joined #ws-addr 17:10:44 anish has joined #ws-addr 17:11:04 hugo has joined #ws-addr 17:12:16 +Paco:Francisco_Curbera 17:12:31 Paco has joined #ws-addr 17:13:37 GlenD has joined #ws-addr 17:13:37 zakim, who is here? 17:13:37 On the phone I see TonyR, +1.604.642.aaaa, TonyR.a, prasad, Paco:Francisco_Curbera 17:13:40 On IRC I see GlenD, Paco, hugo, anish, David_Illsley, Jonathan, RRSAgent, Zakim, mnot, TonyR, prasad 17:13:44 pauld has joined #ws-addr 17:13:58 Meeting: WS-Addressing F2F, Vancouver BC 17:14:03 Chair: Mark Nottingham 17:14:07 Scribe: GlenD 17:14:15 gpilz has joined #ws-addr 17:15:23 uyalcina has joined #ws-addr 17:17:14 Arun has joined #ws-addr 17:18:13 gdaniels has joined #ws-addr 17:19:07 Discussion of rescheduling lunch 17:19:21 Lunch moves from 12:30 to 1PM to ease WSRX participation 17:21:19 PaulD makes a good point about the fact that admin stuff (dinner plans, logistics, etc) should be on the admin list, not the public list 17:21:27 Topic: Rechartering Discussion 17:22:16 Philippe: Rechartering won't change scope for us, just duration. That's easy. If we want to change the charter, it needs to go back to the AC. 17:22:35 Philippe: So, how long? 17:23:22 Philippe: would be good if this group would make rapid progress, and then get out of the way. :) 17:23:29 TonyR has joined #ws-addr 17:24:10 Philippe: How long do you feel you need to finish the recommendations? 17:24:54 PaulD: This was a time-driven schedule, and now we're rechartering. So have we failed? 17:25:00 Philippe: To some extent, yes. 17:25:22 yinleng has joined #WS-addr 17:25:23 Mark: We didn't expect to have to take as long on some of the chartered deliverables (i.e. WSDL binding wasn't in the submission). 17:25:32 dhull has joined #ws-addr 17:29:33 David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr 17:31:39 dorchard has joined #ws-addr 17:32:29 yinleng has joined #Ws-addr 17:32:40 hugo has joined #ws-addr 17:32:54 GlenD has joined #ws-addr 17:33:03 Paul: The SOAP level message patterns, headers, etc. seem very ripe for standardization. However, it seems to me that the WSDL stuff is clearly not yet ready for standardization. Maybe we can ship the one and not the other.... 17:33:18 (scribe misses some conversation due to network droppage) 17:33:32 bob has joined #ws-addr 17:33:43 (discussion of schedule coupling between WSDL 2.0 and WS-Addresing) 17:34:16 Jonathan: Don't see how we can get out of CR with the WSDL doc with the dependency there. 17:34:37 Philippe: Should we lower the bar for implementations in CR for the WSDL binding? 17:34:52 Paul: Yes, we're surely not going to get four WSDL 2.0 implementations! 17:35:31 Gil has joined #ws-addr 17:36:13 Nilo has joined #ws-addr 17:36:19 (further discussion - some folks are more optimistic, some less so with respect to how much consensus we've actually achieved with the WSDL doc) 17:37:22 Umit: Worst case scenario shouldn't be throwing out all the work that we've done for WSDL. Not even talking about WSDL 2.0... 17:37:56 Umit: Can we find a workable compromise which lets us meet a reasonable schedule and get some of the good work we've done out to the world? 17:38:18 Philippe: How long? 17:38:22 Anish: To PR, or Rec? 17:38:30 pauld has joined #ws-addr 17:38:36 Philippe: PR, Rec isn't in your control. 17:39:11 Mark: Perhaps we could evaluate that question at the end of this F2F, when we see how far we've gotten. 17:40:03 DaveO: Because we can leave all the URIs the same between PR and Rec, it's possible that we "win" once we get to PR, i.e. the world wouldn't need to change implementations, etc, if we get held up at PR for a while (by WSDL 2.0) 17:40:08 Arun has joined #ws-addr 17:40:47 dhull has joined #ws-addr 17:40:54 Philippe: So what next? Any new work for this group after these recs? 17:41:15 Paul: We should combine the maintenance work of Addr and XMLP into one group... 17:41:20 DaveO: WS-Core? :) 17:41:20 anish has joined #ws-addr 17:42:05 Topic: Interop Event Feedback / Summary 17:42:15 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/report/ 17:42:38 mnot has joined #ws-addr 17:42:44 uyalcina has joined #ws-addr 17:42:44 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/report/ 17:43:02 We can leave the URI for the Rec version the same as the PR version if there isn't an incompatible change, therefore we could go to PR with WSDL 2.0 at CR on our schedule AND when when WSDL 2.0 goes to PR (and we go to Rec) then there shouldn't be any change to our doc and implementations. 17:43:23 TRutt has joined #ws-addr 17:43:31 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/ 17:44:00 PaulD explains the test suite 17:47:13 PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr 17:48:58 hmmm. I wonder about splitting wsdl into 2/3 documents for wsdl 1.1 and wsdl 2.0. I imagine wsdl 1.1 couldn't be on the Rec track, so we could have the "wsdl core" which is then used by wsdl 1.1 and wsdl 2.0 docs. 17:49:05 Anish: wsa:To is anonymous, what does that mean? 17:49:24 Glen, Paul, others: That very question is in the feedback from the testing group. 17:49:30 Anish: did you use WSDL? 17:51:08 why are there two wsa:to in message 17:51:14 Paul: Normative part is the messages, and also the assertions. (explanation of XPath assertions in the suite) 17:52:08 Paul: There are WSDLs, but they aren't normative. 17:52:37 Anish: how many impls cared about the WSDL? 17:52:43 Paul: Don't care, do we? 17:52:56 Anish: We're eventually going to do interop on the WSDL stuff too, so curious... 17:54:16 (seems 2 or 3 impls might have used WSDL) 17:54:34 (paul goes over WSDL doc) 17:57:16 (discussion of using a single "echo" element which was both the req and the resp of a single operation, and changing that to "echoIn", "echoOut") 17:57:41 Anish: Any discussion around using our WSDL markers? UsingAddressing, etc 17:57:49 Mark: No, very little discussion about WSDL at all. 18:01:18 (explanation of log files and test assertion checking) 18:04:41 Glen: We should change the assertions that require particular CustomerKey values, for instance, to take advantage of the log file format and instead refer to "the CustomerKey value in the request message" 18:05:16 umit has joined #ws-addr 18:07:02 (discussion of output) 18:16:05 Glen: So what happens next? Does this test suite have any relevance after PR/Rec? 18:16:15 Paul: I go talk about it at XML 2006... that's about it 18:17:06 Paul: Nothing prevents people from reusing this stuff on their own 18:19:14 Umit: How can my company reproduce these results? 18:19:25 Paul: Join the calls and participate 18:20:29 Umit: Are people going to keep up public endpoints? 18:22:01 (discussion of Paul's canned client, and the possibility of automatically running messages against a publically available endpoint) 18:22:53 (discussion of how some failures in the matrix were more related to incorrect assertions in the tests, etc...) 18:23:23 Umit: What issues/problems in the spec did you guys find? 18:23:56 Paul: optionality of To seems an issue... should we define anonymous To? 18:25:10 Paul: My assumption is if I POST a message to your HTTP URI, then that URI is the assumed "To" when To is missing/anonymous. 18:25:55 (discussion of various opinions on the topic) 18:27:27 ACTION: PaulD to submit a CR issue about the optionality of wsa:To and the meaning of Anonymous To 18:29:07 Paul: Dispatch issues (unique GEDs vs Action vs To, etc) are somewhat in need of discussion... 18:29:16 Mark: Next steps for this work? 18:30:01 Marsh: Work on better display technology for the grid, debug failures, confirm results. 18:30:46 Marsh: Make it easy for implementors to check these results and raise issues / fix impls themselves. 18:31:43 Mark: Special thanks to Paul, Jonathan, and everyone involved in the test work, plus BEA for hosting. Very successful event! 18:35:38 (discussion of next steps, how to optimize future testing and calls) 18:36:11 Jonathan: Would be great to have a four hour timeslot where everyone's available, on IRC, endpoints up.... then we could manage 1-1 conversations as needed via phone, etc. 18:36:42 BREAK - back at 10:50 (14 min break) 18:37:26 -TonyR.a 18:38:34 -Paco:Francisco_Curbera 18:43:43 yinleng has joined #ws-addr 18:51:46 gdaniels has joined #ws-addr 18:51:55 +??P22 18:52:04 Topic: i066 - wsaw:UsingAddressing as a policy assertion 18:52:05 zakim, ??p22 is me 18:52:05 +TonyR; got it 18:52:09 Topic: i066 - wsaw:UsingAddressing as a policy assertion 18:52:12 +Paco:Francisco_Curbera 18:52:37 http://www.w3.org/mid/ 18:52:37 37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E8012AABB9@RED- 18:52:37 MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com 18:54:33 Proposal 1 is to make the general definition of the QName much more flexible. Proposal 2 says specifically we can use it in WSDL, and also in policy frameworks (of any kind). 18:56:15 Anish: Between the two I like proposal 1. But I dislike both (doesn't belong here)... 18:56:44 Anish: Two different WSDL extensions.. UsingAddressing and Anonymous. Why not say this kind of thing for Anonymous as well? 18:58:28 Marsh: By using UsingAddressing, you imply that the other info (action, anonymous) is available in particular places as well. 18:59:17 Mark: any others who prefer #1? 18:59:19 Tom: Yes 19:00:22 NiloM has joined #ws-addr 19:01:47 Jonathan: We need this and yes both will do the job, but we (MS) think #2 is much better and clearer. 19:06:53 Anish: I don't know exactly what "policy assertion" means (in #2)... first one seems to enable usage in other places without trying to say exactly what a policy assertion means. 19:09:13 (wordsmithing ensues) 19:09:32 new proposal: 19:09:32 3.3 Other Uses of the UsingAddressing Element 19:09:32 The wsaw:UsingAddressing element may also be used in other contexts (e.g., as a policy assertion in a policy framework) that use QNames. B The use of the element in such contexts is semantically equivalent to the use of wsaw:UsingAddressing as a WSDL extension. 19:09:33 When such uses associate the wsaw:UsingAddressing element with WSDL constructs, the meaning of such association is semantically equivalent to the use of wsaw:UsingAddressing as a WSDL extension. Note that the association of wsaw:UsingAddressing to WSDL constructs where the wsaw:UsingAddressing WSDL extension element is not allowed is not meaningful. 19:13:13 Revised proposal: 19:13:13 3.3 Other Uses of the UsingAddressing Element 19:13:13 The wsaw:UsingAddressing element may also be used in other contexts (e.g., as a policy assertion in a policy framework). B Its use (including the use of related elements and attributes) in such contexts is semantically equivalent to the use of wsaw:UsingAddressing as a WSDL extension. 19:13:13 When such uses associate the wsaw:UsingAddressing element with WSDL constructs, the meaning of such association is semantically equivalent to the use of wsaw:UsingAddressing as a WSDL extension. Note that the association of wsaw:UsingAddressing to WSDL constructs where the wsaw:UsingAddressing WSDL extension element is not allowed is not meaningful. 19:13:20 Anish: should we enable using Anonymous in the policy assertion context as well? 19:13:55 chad has joined #ws-addr 19:14:07 chad, hi 19:14:24 final proposal 3: 19:14:24 3.3 Other Uses of the UsingAddressing Element 19:14:24 The wsaw:UsingAddressing element may also be used in other contexts (e.g., as a policy assertion in a policy framework). Its use (including the use of related elements and attributes, such as wsaw:Anonymous and wsaw:Action) in such contexts is semantically equivalent to the use of wsaw:UsingAddressing as a WSDL extension. 19:14:25 When such uses associate the wsaw:UsingAddressing element with WSDL constructs, the meaning of such association is semantically equivalent to the use of wsaw:UsingAddressing as a WSDL extension. Note that the association of wsaw:UsingAddressing to WSDL constructs where the wsaw:UsingAddressing WSDL extension element is not allowed is not meaningful. 19:16:31 i066 Proposal 3 19:16:32 3.3 Other Uses of the UsingAddressing Element 19:16:32 The wsaw:UsingAddressing element may also be used in other contexts (e.g., as a policy assertion in a policy framework). Its use (including the use of related elements and attributes, such as wsaw:Anonymous and wsaw:Action) in such contexts is semantically equivalent to the use of wsaw:UsingAddressing as a WSDL extension. 19:16:33 Note that the association of wsaw:UsingAddressing to WSDL constructs where the wsaw:UsingAddressing WSDL extension element is not allowed is not meaningful. 19:16:58 Jonathan has joined #ws-addr 19:17:24 Mark: Should this be the proposal we vote on? 19:17:28 (group - yes) 19:17:40 Mark: Anyone object to closing this issue with this proposal? 19:17:48 (objections) 19:17:53 Mark: Time for a VOTE 19:18:13 BEA: YES 19:18:16 BT: YES 19:18:20 CA: YES 19:18:25 Ericcson: YES 19:18:30 Fujitsu: NO 19:18:33 Hitachi: YES 19:18:45 HP: ABSTAIN 19:18:47 IBM: YES 19:18:52 IONA: 19:18:57 JBoss: 19:19:01 Microsoft: YES 19:19:05 Nortel: YES 19:19:10 Oracle: NO 19:19:13 SAP: YES 19:19:21 Sonic: ABSTAIN 19:19:27 Sonoa: 19:19:31 Sun: ABSTAIN 19:19:38 TIBCO: YES 19:19:42 W3C: ABSTAIN 19:19:52 WebMethods: 19:20:11 10 YES, 2 NO, 4 ABSTAIN 19:20:23 The yesses have it. 19:20:52 RESOLUTION: i006 closed by accepting proposal 3 (see minutes) 19:21:00 Mark: Back to AI review! 19:21:06 Topic: Action Item Review 19:21:37 Topic: Approval of Jan 9 telcon minutes 19:21:42 (no objection) 19:21:56 Minutes are approved. 19:21:57 s/006/066 19:22:14 anish has joined #ws-addr 19:22:22 Topic: i067 19:23:24 Proposal 1: 19:23:57 Mark: We need a one-way SOAP 1.1 binding for testing at least... where should it go? 19:24:55 Mark: Decision comes down to whether we put it in one of our existing docs, or a note. 19:25:17 http://www.w3.org/mid/E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C5375E6@repbex01.amer.bea.com 19:25:39 (DaveO walks us through his email) 19:28:40 Anish: does this apply to req/resp MEP? Or all MEPs? 19:28:59 DaveO: Any MEP where the condition (non anon replyTo) is possible. 19:29:03 Anish: one-way? 19:29:05 DaveO: Sure 19:29:11 Anish: What does it mean? 19:30:30 q+ 19:31:15 q- dhull 19:31:16 q+ 19:31:18 q+ dhull 19:32:58 (discussion of meaning of outbound message) 19:34:10 (DaveO goes over the soap1.2 portion) 19:37:01 q? 19:37:08 ack Glen 19:38:18 Glen: What about new URIs that do "the same thing" as the anonymous URI, but aren't spelled the same way? Don't want to restrict these in the future. 19:38:37 DaveO: Could say "which uses the backchannel" or something instead... 19:38:45 Glen: +1, wordsmithing TBD 19:39:33 Glen: Also, prefer removing the last sentence of soap 1.1 portion - it doesn't add anything, and in fact probably confuses people. All you need to say is "use a different connection". 19:39:38 DaveO: ok 19:39:51 q+ 19:40:43 Glen, maybe "than the anonymous URI" -> "than any anonymous URIs" 19:40:44 ? 19:41:05 Umit: This changes the WSDL 2.0 => SOAP 1.2 MEP binding, and we should be careful to note that. 19:41:33 To umit: 'Something like adding: for example, the WSDL 2.0 binding of WSDL in-out to soap-request-response is changed" 19:41:39 There is an explicit reference to a single SOAP req-resp MEP which is being broken with this extension. 19:41:45 ack dhull 19:42:04 q+ 19:42:53 DaveH: I had a hand in the "not using anonymous means separate MEPs" wording, and I'm now unclear on that. WS-Polling might define a special URI which means poll for the answer... 19:43:06 DaveH: We want to be as unrestrictive as possible about the non-anonymous case 19:43:37 DaveH: Drop last sentence of 3.4.2? 19:43:48 DaveO: *goggle* but that's the whole thing! 19:44:11 DaveH: We need to say that when it IS anonymous, it's one MEP, but we can't say the converse... don't exactly know 19:45:10 DaveO: But why say anything then? If we don't have anonymous and don't say anything, how do you know what to do? 19:45:24 Gil: Trying to describe async... how can we not do that? 19:45:55 daveH proposes removing the setnence that talksa bout not containing the anonymous address. 19:46:03 DaveH: XMPP binding (SOAP over Jabber) 19:46:16 (DaveH summarizes binding) 19:49:23 DaveH: Could use XMPP req/resp binding with anonymous and it should work... but it's not clear that anonymous will work with their second binding... 19:50:30 q? 19:50:36 TCP connection broken is based on timeouts 19:50:47 DaveO: What should we be doing differently here? 19:51:27 DaveH: Option B = binding over Message is not legit. We need to answer what anonymous means over essentially "dual one way" protocols like XMPP or email... 19:51:49 DaveO: They could do whatever they want in their binding... 19:52:15 DaveO: SOAP MEPs insulate us from binding details 19:54:25 ack anish 19:54:45 DaveH: Want to make sure anonymous can use "reply addresses" built into protocols, even ones without explicit SOAP req-resp bindings 19:56:35 Anish: What happens if I define a UDP binding which supports SOAP req/resp and requires particular usages of WS-Addressing? 19:58:43 q+ 19:59:28 Anish: Let's not get into multi-binding issues, and make 3.4.2. HTTP specific 20:00:03 Mark: How to track this? 20:00:11 DaveO: I could rework over lunch.... 20:00:32 q? 20:01:17 Anish: This is independent of the URI of this document, whether it's the SOAP binding, a note, etc... 20:01:23 (agreement) 20:02:19 Umit: 3.4.1 is SOAP 1.1/HTTP 3.4.2 is SOAP1.2/HTTP... agree with Anish re specificity 20:02:30 ack Paco 20:02:57 Paco: Meaning of outbound message == out in WSDL MEP. If so, would be good to make that more explicit. 20:03:03 ack dhull 20:03:56 gdaniels has joined #ws-addr 20:04:02 Scribe: gdaniels 20:04:25 DaveH: Not good to say anonymous means "we are using SOAP req-resp MEP" 20:05:47 Glen: Change this to positive... "when using anonymous do this, when using another URI do the appropriate thing"... 20:05:47 q? 20:06:00 Glen: Think that might solve both my and DaveH's problems. 20:06:09 uyalcina has joined #ws-addr 20:06:53 DaveH: We don't define what sending to an address URI in an EPR MEANS... except for anonymous/none in the context of HTTP 20:07:09 i am concerned that we are not discussing the issue at hand. 20:07:35 DaveO has joined #ws-addr 20:07:54 q+ 20:08:03 DaveH: We can do this in pieces, making sure that we're as minimally restrictive as possible. 20:12:21 (discussion ensues, scribe was involved...) 20:12:34 DaveH: 3.4.2 might be redundant with what we already say in the SOAP 1.2 binding 20:14:06 DaveO and Umit have a lot of concern about removing the sentence about non anon address meaning 2 meps. 20:16:20 Mark: Can we let DaveO (and others) go off and edit this over lunch? 20:16:48 (Anish summarizes) 20:23:37 q+ 20:23:48 q+ 20:26:08 ack uyal 20:26:16 Glen: Prefer wording along the lines of "if using a URI that does not have a special meaning (such as anon, none), use normal SOAP mechanism to send outgoing message in a separate MEP" 20:26:33 Glen, maybe I'll show both? 20:27:05 Umit: This is a practical problem, we should just define anonymous (don't overgeneralize) 20:27:44 "When the value of the response endpoint EPR does not contain a URI that has a specialized meaning (such as anonymous), then any outbound message is not part of the mep that the inbound message is in. 20:27:59 Paco: limit this to HTTP, make it clear other specs can define new things... 20:28:16 q+ to make a short comment 20:28:21 gdaniels: +1 DaveO 20:28:30 ack Paco 20:29:06 Anish: This was good discussion, I feel more comfortable now. 20:29:33 ack dhull 20:29:33 dhull, you wanted to make a short comment 20:30:27 DaveH: don't want to preclude case I was talking about earlier with one-way protocols using "return to sender" 20:31:31 can declare victory in bite-sized pieces 20:31:42 Topic: i069/i070 20:31:53 s/rules/roolz/ 20:35:22 Glen: We discussed this kind of thing in WSDL... make sure that the contracts expressed at the "higher level" (binding) are not broken by the lower level (endpoint). So should be ok to turn ON more things, but not to turn things that were marked as required OFF. 20:35:55 Umit: Remove endpoint expression of UsingAddressing. Just on binding is much better.... 20:36:50 I am in favor of Proposal 1 and simplifying this. 20:36:54 Anish: Specifying this on port and not binding is nice... 20:37:20 Anish: that way I can use "canned" bindings (as from consortia) and then expand them with addressing for my endpoints 20:37:58 Glen, wrt 67/68, another slightly different phrasing is "using a URI that does not have a special meaning - WS-A defines the Anonymous URI - then use normal SOAP ..." 20:38:01 Paco: IBM is also of course behind this proposal 20:38:56 I noticed this anomaly when I was updating the WSDL document examples, the combinatorics make it harder. 20:41:56 maybe we can short cut this? 20:42:06 Anish: why is expressing anonymous at the port bad? 20:42:15 Umit: you can only express at the binding operation... 20:45:48 Anish: Should allow anonymous to be specified at the binding level so it can apply to all operations... 20:45:58 Anish: same for endpoint (applies to all) 20:47:18 (discussion of rollup and defaulting) 20:49:00 issue 69: Proposal #2. "Yes, and don't allow contradiction" 20:49:20 (issue 69, question #1) 20:50:17 Proposal #3: "Allow anon at binding level and IF so, then no Anon at the binding operation level" 20:50:20 Paco: this is a nightmare of combinatorics... 20:51:21 Paco: don't need control at the port level 20:51:33 -TonyR.a 20:51:41 DaveO: It's sort of like whether anony is "final" at the binding level... 20:53:42 Proposal #4: XOR Proposal. Can have anon at binding XOR at endpoint 20:55:45 (discussion of proposal wrangling during lunch) 20:56:24 LUNCH 20:56:28 yinleng has left #ws-addr 20:58:09 then it is 2 hours for lunch 20:58:26 Paco it is 1pm in pacific now 20:58:47 -Paco:Francisco_Curbera 20:58:58 -prasad 20:59:00 -TonyR 21:00:08 - +1.604.642.aaaa 21:00:09 WS_AddrWG(F2F)6:00AM has ended 21:00:10 Attendees were +1.604.642.aaaa, TonyR, prasad, Paco:Francisco_Curbera 21:02:02 TRutt has joined #ws-addr 21:06:06 TRutt has left #ws-addr 21:39:49 hugo has joined #ws-addr 21:40:17 David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr 21:41:32 dhull has joined #ws-addr 22:01:22 Paco has joined #ws-addr 22:02:52 mnot has joined #ws-addr 22:03:06 zakim, this is ws_addr 22:03:06 ok, mnot; that matches WS_AddrWG(F2F)12:00PM 22:03:19 zakim, who is on the phone? 22:03:19 On the phone I see ??P5 22:03:25 zakim, ??p5 is me 22:03:25 +TonyR; got it 22:04:02 +??P10 22:04:07 zakim, ??p10 is prasad 22:04:07 +prasad; got it 22:07:14 + +1.604.642.aaaa 22:07:32 Scribe: Hugo 22:07:45 glen-away has joined #ws-addr 22:07:55 +Paco:Francisco_Curbera 22:08:00 dorchard has joined #ws-addr 22:08:12 RRSAgent, draft minutes 22:08:12 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/01/19-ws-addr-minutes.html hugo 22:08:32 uyalcina has joined #ws-addr 22:08:54 PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr 22:09:31 Topic: i70 Allow for runtime override of WSDL address when generating [destination] MAP 22:09:42 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i070 22:09:51 Nilo has joined #ws-addr 22:10:56 Umit: the original intent was not to make it so restrictive 22:11:31 MarkN: we just need to look at i056 and soften the wording 22:11:37 s/i70/i070/ 22:12:10 Looking at Katy's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Jan/0047.html 22:12:18 Glen, what do you think of: ]. When the value of the response endpoint EPR contains a value that is intended to be used as an address by a binding (for example, a value other than the WS-Addressing anonymous URI) then 22:12:44 MarkN: do we have a formal concept of "runtime"? 22:13:00 Paco: can we say "in the course of the interaction"? 22:14:07 MarkN: "in the absence of additional information" seems to have been lost when we resolved i056 22:14:58 TRutt has joined #ws-addr 22:15:28 glen-away has joined #ws-addr 22:15:56 yinleng has joined #WS-addr 22:16:04 Proposed resolution: point the editors to the resolution of i056 and especially at "in the absence of additional information", and add an example for it (runtime override) 22:16:46 RESOLUTION: i070 closed with proposal spelled out above 22:17:30 Topic: i067/i068 22:18:24 Considering proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Jan/0048.html 22:22:00 Umit: thought that you were going to add something about WSDL 2.0 too 22:22:04 hugo has left #ws-addr 22:22:10 hugo has joined #ws-addr 22:22:19 q+ 22:22:27 note - this would all be much cleaner, I think, if we just allowed the
element to be optional, and stopped using random "special" URIs as markers.... 22:22:35 ack dh 22:22:39 no
== anonymous 22:22:52 another element like == none 22:22:55 easy peasy 22:22:58 pthtbtht 22:23:11 (just sayin') 22:23:14 Dave: I'm still concerned about the last sentence 22:23:26 ... I think it's the wrong way around 22:24:51 ... it says everytime you use anonymous, you use req-resp 22:24:58 s/Dave/DaveH/ 22:25:02 consider programming analogies like println("don't-print-this-special-string-but-instead-beep") 22:25:11 DaveO: when would you not be doing that? 22:25:15 overriding value spaces is yukky 22:25:22 DaveH: when you use 2 one-way's 22:25:40 DaveO: then you wouldn't be using the SOAP req-resp MEP 22:26:15 q? 22:27:25 Glen: the same way we clarified anonymous by linking it to req-resp, you could introduce a return-to-sender URI 22:27:27 anish has joined #ws-addr 22:27:29 When the value of the response endpoint EPR contains the anonymous address and the request is part of a SOAP request-response MEP [soap 1.2 adjuncts ref], then the response must be part the same SOAP request-response MEP [soap 1.2 adjuncts ref]. 22:27:54 bob has joined #ws-addr 22:28:07 TRutt has joined #ws-addr 22:28:18 hugo has left #ws-addr 22:28:43 hugo has joined #ws-addr 22:28:58 TRutt has left #ws-addr 22:29:08 TRutt has joined #ws-addr 22:29:13 DaveH: I could live with DaveO's latest proposal 22:30:14 Anish: what happened to the mention of outbound and inbound? 22:30:36 DaveO: they were replaced by req and resp 22:30:50 Umit: you could say WSDL input and WSDL output messages 22:32:03 Anish: we're all talking about inbound and outbound from a WSDL perspective 22:32:37 ... why don't we talk about it refering to those concepts as defined in the WSDL spec in the section about MEPs 22:33:44 ... I actually wanted to move this text in this section 22:34:10 DaveO: we already talk about response message in section 5 22:35:15 ... I liked the idea that this req-resp terminology was applying to both WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 22:35:27 MarkN: are we doing wordsmithing? 22:36:52 Anish: all I'm saying is that moving this section to section 5 is going to define clearly, because of the context, the meaning of inbound and outbound 22:37:53 Umit: we have some inconsistencies here 22:38:24 DaveO: what do I need to do for WSDL 2.0 in the text? 22:39:41 [ working on a new revision ] 22:39:45 TRutt has left #ws-addr 22:39:55 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Jan/0049.html 22:40:14 TRutt has joined #ws-addr 22:41:44 q+ 22:41:46 DaveO: I'd like to accept this; other decisions we have to make (on the SOAP 1.1 & 1.2 bindings) will not impact this text 22:42:49 MarkN: we could accept this text, and then maybe change the request vs. inbound if needed 22:42:57 Paco: I have an issue with this text 22:43:17 ... most bindings don't define what an address is 22:43:36 q+ 22:43:45 ... this statement is almost impossible to interpret 22:43:52 q+ 22:43:53 ack paco 22:43:55 q+ to suggest ed. change -- s/response endpoint/[reply endpoint]/ 22:44:23 DaveO: I know where you're going, but we're never going to get anywhere with this 22:44:32 Paco: we could make this specific to HTTP 22:44:41 DaveO: I am uncomfortable with that 22:45:05 +2 22:45:11 +3 22:45:13 ... I'm against having 3.4.2 HTTP specific 22:45:35 fo shizzle 22:45:36 ... MEPs are an abstraction layer which is intended to keep us away from this 22:46:01 Paco: yes, but we're talking about protocol-specific artifacts here 22:46:25 DaveH: how is it not a problem with WS-Addressing as a whole? 22:46:49 Paco: this kind of vague general statement is not helping 22:47:11 Glen: we are using address for real addresses, and special behaviors 22:47:22 ... as long as we have this, it *is* useful 22:49:16 ... what about: "when using a URI which doesn't have the special meaning of anonymous, …" 22:49:46 Paco: yes 22:50:15 DaveO: so you are comfortable with the term "special URI" 22:50:32 ... this is at least as vague as "intended to be used as an address" 22:51:43 Hugo: a long time ago, we agreed not to talk about logical vs. physical addresses, and this is exactly what we're doing here 22:52:36 Anish: we need to specify what address we're talking about: To, ReplyTo, FaultTo, ... 22:53:35 gpilz has joined #ws-addr 22:54:41 anish has joined #ws-addr 22:55:35 in section 3.2) 22:57:04 Paco: we have 2 options: be very vague, or very crisp 22:57:10 I actually think the "crisp" part is exactly opposite. 22:57:42 I think it's much more crisp to say that there are some special URIs, of which anonymous is one, that cause special behaviour. 22:57:48 are you suggesting the original version of our joint proposal as the text? 22:58:04 i.e. make the extensibility point explicit 22:58:24 DaveO: I think that Paco wants to say that "non-anonymous URI means using another connection for the reply" 22:59:03 If the value of the response endpoint EPR contains an address that is not anonymous then response message MUST be sent using a separate connection and using the address value specified by response endpoint. 22:59:23 Option #1: make HTTP specific 22:59:27 ...UNLESS something else tells you otherwise. :) 22:59:34 Option #2: If the value of the response endpoint EPR contains an address that is not anonymous then response message MUST be sent using a separate connection and using the address value specified by response endpoint. 22:59:49 Option #3: If the value of the response endpoint EPR contains an address that is intended to be used as an address by a binding (for example, a value other than the WS-Addressing anonymous URI), then response message MUST be sent using a separate connection and using the address value specified by response endpoint. 23:00:07 I think Paco intends that #2 be suffixed with "other specifications may change this" 23:00:22 (in which case it's a little weird for it to be a MUST, eh?) 23:00:50 MarkN: let's talk about the disposition of the SOAP 1.1 document 23:01:10 ... the candidates or in this doc or in the WG Note 23:01:33 Jonathan: if in another doc, will there be a ref to it? 23:01:40 DaveO: yes, in this doc 23:02:30 ... I was somewhat vague about "when WS-Addressing is indicated" 23:02:47 ... you need to have some kind of description language 23:03:07 Anish: it should really be in the SOAP doc 23:03:25 DaveO: yes, you can't have a ref from the SOAP doc to this new SOAP 1.1 binding doc 23:03:37 Jonathan: that makes me not really love this 23:03:53 Anish: if we added a ref in the SOAP doc, would we need to go back with it? 23:04:00 MarkN: what kind of ref? 23:04:09 ... is it just informational? 23:05:27 DaveO: Jonathan, if you want to get from soap binding to soap 1.1 one-way binding, then you won't like by value in the wsdl doc because you can't do that reference either. 23:08:40 MarkN: if we add a normative ref to this for the SOAP 1.1 binding, would we have to go back to WD? 23:08:53 Anish: keep in mind that implementations already do that 23:09:09 It is in the test suite as implemented 23:09:15 Hugo: then I think that it would not be substantive, if it already is what everybody's doing 23:10:19 DaveO: the proposed text could go in the SOAP binding doc 23:11:32 MarkN: so we would transfer this issue to the SOAP binding as a CR issue 23:12:55 Paco: why are we leaning towards a separate WG Note? 23:13:24 Here's what a Note might look like: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Jan/0027.html 23:13:28 MarkN: people feel more comfortable with a separate document, and we heard from the team that a Rec is a problem 23:13:56 Here's what an addition to SOAP Binding document might look like, which I'll update based upon today's discussion. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Jan/0029.html 23:14:54 The SOAP 1.2 Addressing 1.0 Feature changes the SOAP 1.1/HTTP binding 23:14:54 when "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" is not specified 23:14:54 for the response endpoint. In this case, the SOAP 1.1 one-way HTTP 23:14:54 Binding [@@] is in effect 23:15:05 The SOAP 1.2 Addressing 1.0 Feature changes the SOAP 1.1/HTTP binding 23:16:26 Hugo: thinking about whether the change would be substantive or not again, our spec is based on SOAP 1.1, not the WS-I BP 23:16:45 The SOAP 1.2 Addressing 1.0 Feature changes the SOAP 1.1/HTTP binding when "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" is not specified 23:16:45 for the response endpoint. In this case, the receiver of a message MUST use a binding that supports not returning a SOAP envelope in the HTTP response, such as [URI for binding doc]. 23:16:56 ... so it may be a substantive change for somebody who doesn't follow the WS-I BP 23:18:30 [ Considering Dave's text ] 23:22:05 -Paco:Francisco_Curbera 23:22:09 -TonyR 23:29:11 -prasad 23:30:47 +Prasad_Yendluri 23:38:36 +Paco:Francisco_Curbera 23:40:45 ==== 23:40:47 +??P2 23:40:54 zakim, ??p2 is me 23:40:54 +TonyR; got it 23:40:56 Topic: Back to i069 23:42:07 Gil: actually, Anonymous *can* appear on the endpoint 23:42:16 ... so #1 is bogus 23:42:25 s/bogus/incorrect/ 23:43:00 ... for #2, we have a proposal 23:43:00 ==== 23:45:14 [ Gil struggling to show the text ] 23:45:37 Umit: I actually changed my mind; I think that there's no problem, and that we should close with no action 23:46:48 Jonathan: I think that the text is not that clear 23:47:26 MarkN: does IBM have any comment about that? 23:47:34 Paco: our proposal is proposal #1 23:48:22 Jonathan: this issue arose because it's not crystal-clear if we can put it in 2 places 23:48:32 Umit: it is very clear in the spec 23:48:42 ... for Anonymous 23:48:52 MarkN: what about UsingAddressing? 23:50:44 Paco: so you're saying that UsingAddressing can appear in either place, but Anonymous can appear in both places 23:50:57 Umit: yes, it's very much like Action 23:51:10 Paco: isn't there a default value for Anonymous? 23:51:16 Marc: yes, optional 23:52:07 Paco: I think that this is really confusing 23:52:25 Jonathan: so it would be nice to prohibit UsingAddressing at the endpoint level 23:52:31 Paco: I agree 23:53:30 Jonathan: there's a set of applications where you want to allow things externally 23:54:51 Gil: who really cares about enabling things post-facto? 23:55:23 ... I don't understand how it really simplifies the spec 23:55:42 Glen: there could be an industry standard binding 23:57:11 uyalcina has joined #ws-addr 23:57:32 Paco: I think people defend the status quo without really thinking about the consequences 23:59:31 ... if you want to enable it at the endpoint level, then you should allow it completely