IRC log of ws-addr on 2006-02-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:42:53 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
20:42:53 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:43:13 [bob]
zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
20:43:13 [Zakim]
ok, bob; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 17 minutes
20:43:49 [bob]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference
20:44:02 [bob]
Chair: Bob Freund
20:46:18 [bob]
20:49:28 [illsleydc]
illsleydc has joined #ws-addr
20:51:39 [pauld]
pauld has joined #ws-addr
20:52:35 [Jonathan]
Jonathan has joined #ws-addr
20:54:06 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
20:54:13 [Zakim]
20:56:36 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
20:57:05 [Zakim]
21:00:11 [prasad]
prasad has joined #ws-addr
21:01:40 [Zakim]
21:01:52 [Zakim]
21:02:01 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p6 is me
21:02:01 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
21:02:06 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
21:02:20 [Zakim]
21:02:39 [PaulKnight]
PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
21:02:41 [Zakim]
21:03:06 [Zakim]
21:03:12 [Zakim]
21:03:25 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-addr
21:03:27 [Zakim]
21:03:40 [Zakim]
21:03:56 [Zakim]
21:03:59 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
21:04:15 [Zakim]
21:04:16 [Zakim]
21:04:49 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
21:05:08 [Zakim]
21:05:50 [Katy]
mute Katy_Warr
21:06:46 [bob]
scribenick: illsleydc
21:06:52 [TRutt]
TRutt has joined #ws-addr
21:07:11 [illsleydc]
topic: Agenda Review
21:07:42 [dorchard]
low turnout because of Pres' day?
21:08:21 [illsleydc]
agenda approved
21:08:46 [illsleydc]
RESOLVED: minutes of 13th accepted
21:09:21 [Zakim]
21:10:04 [uyalcina]
uyalcina has joined #ws-addr
21:11:37 [illsleydc]
Bob: New Issues cr22. Jonathan has provided a proposal
21:12:13 [illsleydc]
Jonathan: Straightforward proposal - changes wording from MAY to SHOULD
21:13:14 [illsleydc]
RESOLUTION: Proposal 1 accepted
21:13:51 [illsleydc]
Topic: CR23
21:14:14 [GlenD]
GlenD has joined #ws-addr
21:14:44 [illsleydc]
Bob: WSRX had requested some changes around anonymous as CR4 which were nullifed by CR15
21:14:53 [dhull]
21:15:15 [illsleydc]
Umit: Joint proposal for CR20 contains fix for this.
21:15:33 [illsleydc]
Umit: Should we wait for resolution to that
21:15:36 [dhull]
21:15:46 [illsleydc]
Bob: Fine, keep CR23 open
21:15:54 [dhull]
21:15:58 [illsleydc]
Topic: CR20
21:16:19 [illsleydc]
Bob: Does proposal for CR20 cover CR18?
21:16:47 [illsleydc]
Anish: CR20 Proposal 3 contains language appropriate to CR18
21:17:32 [illsleydc]
Bob: Are people happy with Proposal 3 for CR20 at this time?
21:17:36 [PaulKnight]
Proposal 3: Clarify Status Quo<>
21:17:58 [illsleydc]
21:18:48 [illsleydc]
dhull: Pauls proposal says that anonymous has no semantics but in the response case we have a requirement to use it so there are some defined semantics
21:19:57 [illsleydc]
paulsd: That line has context as it appears after text describing sending messages down the back channel
21:20:13 [illsleydc]
21:20:34 [illsleydc]
dhull: happy but wants some i-dotting and t-crossing
21:21:30 [illsleydc]
Bob: From timeline standpoint, barring other long issues, nearly done
21:21:48 [illsleydc]
Bob: Wants all but small cleanups done by end of next week
21:22:58 [illsleydc]
Anish: Should we resolve CR20 before CR18
21:23:43 [illsleydc]
dhull: Can we leave text to editors discretion with paulds proposal and a note to editors to keep consistent with section 3.4
21:23:49 [illsleydc]
Jonathan: ok withthat
21:24:18 [illsleydc]
RESOLUTION CR18 Proposal 3 with caveats - david hull to work with editors
21:25:14 [pauld]
zakim, who is here?
21:25:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Bob_Freund, David_Illsley, GlenD, TonyR, Jonathan_Marsh, Andreas_Bjarlestam (muted), Prasad_Yendluri, Tom_Rutt, Paul_Knight, Hugo, David_Hull,
21:25:17 [Zakim]
... Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr (muted), Anish, Paul_Downey, Umit_Yalcinalp
21:25:18 [Zakim]
On IRC I see GlenD, uyalcina, TRutt, dhull, anish, dorchard, PaulKnight, Katy, prasad, TonyR, Jonathan, pauld, illsleydc, RRSAgent, Zakim, bob, hugo
21:25:19 [dhull]
new CR issue at
21:25:44 [illsleydc]
Bob: CR20 Listening to debates. Decide to go down one of 2 routes...
21:26:11 [illsleydc]
Bob: Close with no issue or editorial tweaks of the amalgemated proposal
21:26:25 [Zakim]
21:26:35 [illsleydc]
Anish: Proposal to combine proposals from Anish and Paco
21:26:40 [pauld]
zakim, Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr is probably Katy_Warr
21:26:40 [Zakim]
+Katy_Warr?; got it
21:26:59 [illsleydc]
Anish: Removes defaulting from core
21:27:11 [bob]
Topic: cr20
21:27:51 [illsleydc]
Anish: specifies in SOAP spec that messages on the back channel must have anonymous as To and that it defaults to this
21:28:24 [illsleydc]
Anish: Also includes wording similar to paulds proposal and specifies no additional semantics
21:29:11 [illsleydc]
Anish: Also re-incorporates resolution to CR4. Editorial issues raised which Anish accepts
21:29:32 [dhull]
q+ to talk about relevance of CR4/CR 15 issue
21:29:36 [illsleydc]
Jonathan: Disagrees with proposal. Why are we bothering. Fears unintended consequences
21:30:16 [illsleydc]
Jonathan: Defaulting per status quo doesn't bother me. Happy to close issue today
21:30:26 [GlenD]
Am fine with status quo myself.
21:30:38 [illsleydc]
Umit: Jonathan, what issue do you think is luking
21:30:49 [uyalcina]
21:30:53 [GlenD]
Esp if the representative from the company whose implementation had the problem thinks so. :)
21:31:02 [anish]
q+ to talk about defaulting
21:31:15 [illsleydc]
Jonathan: Seem to just be moving bits around between specs. Seem to be adding complexity
21:31:21 [pauld]
q+ to ask about use-cases
21:31:26 [dhull]
+1 to not mucking with default
21:31:42 [dhull]
-1 to referring to 3.4 as an obscure rule
21:31:50 [GlenD]
+1 - if you can't deal with anonymous, you simply ARE NOT going to give other people EPRs containing the anonymous address....
21:31:59 [uyalcina]
21:32:07 [illsleydc]
Jonathan: Makes itmore complicated to have to refer to different specs to work out the defautlt value
21:32:11 [hugo]
+1 for status quo
21:32:28 [illsleydc]
Jonathan: No major benefit for a big change
21:33:03 [illsleydc]
Bob: How strongly do people feel about changing the spec liek this
21:33:04 [dhull]
also "such a channel" doesn't square with accepted CR 15 text
21:33:06 [TRutt]
21:33:13 [Katy]
21:33:15 [illsleydc]
Anish: Doesn't agree that this is a major change
21:33:21 [andreas]
andreas has joined #ws-addr
21:33:50 [anish]
21:33:52 [illsleydc]
Anish: Defined anonymous as being something the binding defines. Since not defined in core need to look at binding anyway
21:34:53 [bob]
ack dhull
21:34:53 [Zakim]
dhull, you wanted to talk about relevance of CR4/CR 15 issue
21:35:02 [illsleydc]
dhull: Text of amalgamated proposal. Don't talk about back channel anymore - talk in terms of MEPs etc
21:35:09 [anish]
david, the editors can change the text to fit with CR15
21:36:16 [illsleydc]
dhull: Anything we do needs to be in harmony with resolution of CR15 and perhaps need to rexamine conflict between CR4 and CR15 before moving on. Proposal is perhaps too amalgemated
21:36:35 [uyalcina]
21:36:42 [illsleydc]
dhull: would prefer to be more specific and just talk about defaulting when talking about CR20
21:37:30 [illsleydc]
Anish: Text from CR4 included because I was surprised it was taken out. Acceptable to take that out and put it in the right context.
21:37:53 [bob]
ack pauld
21:37:53 [Zakim]
pauld, you wanted to ask about use-cases
21:38:03 [illsleydc]
dhull: Would like to have discussion separately and define term underlying response message
21:38:11 [TonyR]
21:38:27 [Zakim]
21:38:38 [bob]
ack tr
21:38:42 [illsleydc]
pauld: agree with Jonathan. Thinks it is a big change, would change a reviewers experience
21:39:04 [GlenD]
GlenD has joined #ws-addr
21:39:27 [dhull]
21:39:42 [bob]
ack ka
21:39:51 [dhull]
"underlying response message" is *nothing* new. It's just putting a tag on what we already figured out in CR 15.
21:40:06 [illsleydc]
Tom: Want minimal change. Think that sentence from CR 4 should go in but separate issue. Best we can do is lots of wordsmithing but agrees with Jonathan
21:40:29 [bob]
ack hu
21:40:38 [illsleydc]
Katy: Defaulting to anonymous may not be appropriate to all bindings so moving it from the Core makes sense
21:40:46 [anish]
i don't want to rehash my arguments for the default in core issue. Since I expressed them before. But is inappropriate to define an anon default in the core, when we don't even know what it means.
21:40:50 [pauld]
you can send To anonymous only if the service understands anonymous .. but our spec doesn't give it any *special* meaning so I don't understand why defaulting it is suddenly interesting or useful or why we should make this change during CR
21:41:18 [pauld]
s/but our/our/
21:41:22 [bob]
ack uy
21:41:31 [illsleydc]
Hugo: Agreeing with Jonathan. Close to PR. Should not be moving things around without good reason and full understanding. Supports the status Quo.
21:42:10 [anish]
+1 to not being myopic
21:42:23 [Jonathan]
q+ to dispute long-term view.
21:42:49 [anish]
defaults have to be appropriate
21:42:56 [bob]
ack tony
21:43:07 [pauld]
thinks this will constrain future binding authors
21:43:13 [illsleydc]
Umit: Net effect on functionality is same between status quo and proposal. Longer term view: Amalegmated proposal is better for the unforseen future. Unsure
21:43:59 [illsleydc]
Tony: Thinks would be good to have a fault for 'you should have given me a wsa:to, not defaulted'
21:43:59 [bob]
ack dh
21:44:35 [bob]
ack jon
21:44:35 [Zakim]
Jonathan, you wanted to dispute long-term view.
21:44:46 [illsleydc]
dhull: Defining Underlying response message is something we've discussed before
21:45:10 [Katy]
zakim, mute Katy_Warr
21:45:10 [Zakim]
Katy_Warr? should now be muted
21:45:21 [GlenD]
GlenD has joined #ws-addr
21:45:30 [illsleydc]
Jonathan: Don't agree that this will help in the long term. Spoken to engineers working on new binding and like the defaulting of anonymous
21:46:02 [chad]
chad has joined #ws-addr
21:46:05 [uyalcina]
My point is it depends on the binding. Therefore, it would be beneficial not to default it in the core.
21:47:18 [illsleydc]
Bob: 2 alternatives: Amalgemated proposal or status quo
21:47:55 [TonyR]
21:48:35 [illsleydc]
Anish: summary of propsal - remove defaualting from core. Add it to SOAP binding and say that message son such a channel must have destination of anonymous
21:48:55 [Katy]
zakim, unmute katy_warr
21:48:55 [Zakim]
Katy_Warr? should no longer be muted
21:49:37 [Katy]
zakim, mute katy_warr
21:49:37 [Zakim]
Katy_Warr? should now be muted
21:50:15 [Zakim]
21:50:38 [illsleydc]
status quo: 7 proposal: 4 abstains: 3
21:50:55 [TRutt]
When will we add the text back from CR 4?
21:51:17 [illsleydc]
RESOLUTION CR20: Closed with not action
21:51:17 [anish]
tom, that is now issue 23
21:51:26 [illsleydc]
Topic: CR23
21:51:45 [dhull]
21:51:46 [illsleydc]
Bob: How do we regain text from CR4 that we lost in CR15?
21:51:56 [TonyR]
s/not action/no action/
21:52:18 [anish]
21:52:38 [TRutt]
why not put the text back which used to be there
21:52:55 [TRutt]
21:53:03 [illsleydc]
Umit: No proposal about this. Seen dhulls proposal. Have several issues with it. Some clarity in defining HTTP back channel but requires more editorial work
21:53:08 [bob]
ack tr
21:53:36 [illsleydc]
Tom: Anish, how much of the first paragraph from the proposal was fromCR4?
21:53:46 [illsleydc]
Anish: Copied and pasted from CR4
21:53:48 [uyalcina]
21:53:55 [bob]
ack dh
21:54:27 [illsleydc]
dhull: want to understand issue. Understand of CR4 is WSRX needs a way of saying Acks go back in response message
21:55:15 [uyalcina]
this is not the correct characterization of the problem...
21:55:38 [illsleydc]
dhull: Think when it was first resolved added the vague language about back channel. This was clarified in resolution to CR15. Proposing defining the underlying response message
21:55:41 [TRutt]
Adding a new "special uri" at CR is too much
21:56:12 [illsleydc]
dhull: Intent to wrap name around well understood meaning to make it resuable
21:57:39 [TRutt]
from anish proposal: 2) In the SOAP binding spec [2], in section 5.1 add:
21:57:39 [TRutt]
21:57:39 [TRutt]
{The para below is the resolution text for CR4 and included here for flow}
21:57:39 [TRutt]
When "" is specified as
21:57:39 [TRutt]
the address of an EPR, such as the ReplyTo or FaultTo EPR, the
21:57:40 [TRutt]
underlying SOAP protocol binding provides a channel to the specified
21:57:42 [TRutt]
endpoint. Any underlying protocol binding supporting the SOAP
21:57:44 [TRutt]
request-response message exchange pattern provides such a channel for
21:57:46 [TRutt]
response messages. For instance, the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding [SOAP 1.2
21:57:48 [TRutt]
Part 2: Adjuncts] puts the reply message in the HTTP response.
21:57:51 [illsleydc]
dhull: Want to build on CR15 and not lose that work
21:58:09 [uyalcina]
Thanks Tom. This was the resolution text
21:58:11 [bob]
ack anishq?
21:59:16 [illsleydc]
Anish: Question for dhull: are you suggesting we not define what anonymous means in an EPR in our specs other than ReplyTo/FaultTo and leave this definition to the WSRX spec or other specs as appropriate
22:00:07 [illsleydc]
dhull: yes, we define semantics for meaning of anonymous for ReplyTo/FaultTo, need to provide hooks to allow other specs to define
22:00:10 [bob]
ack ani
22:00:38 [illsleydc]
dhull: establish terminology for others to use
22:01:54 [GlenD]
+1 to Dave's CR15 analysis
22:01:59 [bob]
ack u
22:02:35 [anish]
q+ to say that david's suggested resolution is ok, but that this requires the WSRX to change their spec. If we can do ASAP, that would be good.
22:03:16 [illsleydc]
Umit: getting more confused as to what problem dhull thins we are solving. IN terms of WSRX, what does anonymous mean in a non wsa-defined EPR. Can someone else define it to have the same meaning as a ReplyTo - the underlying response channel
22:04:01 [illsleydc]
dhull: So lets give a name to a HTTP response in SOAP11 and the response message in SOAP12 and factor out the defintion
22:04:57 [illsleydc]
Unit: We were pointing to the definition provided and the back channel. Your problem is the definition of channel, not what the resolution says which talks about EPRs
22:05:07 [bob]
ack ani
22:05:07 [Zakim]
anish, you wanted to say that david's suggested resolution is ok, but that this requires the WSRX to change their spec. If we can do ASAP, that would be good.
22:06:11 [uyalcina]
22:06:20 [dhull]
how does WS-RX refer to anonymous?
22:06:26 [illsleydc]
Anish: define anonymous EPRs for everything so WSRX does not have to define it, dhull wants to be more specific in wsa and make other specs define it specifically.
22:06:32 [bob]
ack u
22:06:51 [illsleydc]
Anish: Want this fixed soon. Fast WSRX scehdule. Upcoming interop
22:07:12 [illsleydc]
Umit: Why are we reopening the issue?
22:07:57 [illsleydc]
Bob: Original resolution text to CR4, as pasted was agreed. What has changed to make that text to be unacceptable.
22:08:34 [illsleydc]
dhull: Not well enough defined. Refers to 'such a channel' Since CR15 we don't talk about channels, now talk about messages
22:08:55 [illsleydc]
Bob: How do me generate minimal delta to CR4 to make it work
22:09:20 [illsleydc]
dhull: how does WSRX refer to anonymous address?
22:09:39 [illsleydc]
Umit: It doesn't. Leaves that to ws-addressing
22:09:44 [bob]
22:09:51 [anish]
22:10:13 [illsleydc]
Umit: CR4 paragraph defines meaning of anonymous which is used by WSRX
22:11:13 [illsleydc]
dhull: CR15 paragraph didn't mean anything, now narrowed to mean use response message when used as response endpoint and using response message when used as destination
22:12:04 [gdaniels]
gdaniels has joined #ws-addr
22:12:23 [bob]
ack ani
22:13:09 [illsleydc]
Anish: 2 possible ways to make progress. Take resolution to CR4, make changes to align with CR15 (split wrt SOAP11/12)
22:13:16 [TRutt]
a WS-RX ack can occur at any time, ans has the entire history of the sequence in it whenever sent. so there is no problem of stating "will be returned on some underlhying http response"
22:13:28 [TRutt]
22:14:40 [illsleydc]
Anish: or take dhulls approach and define all anonymous EPRs and make WSRX define what anonymous AcksTo means using specific terminology
22:14:41 [dhull]
right now, anon means "response to this request" or "this response"
22:14:52 [illsleydc]
22:14:56 [dhull]
22:15:04 [TRutt]
22:15:27 [illsleydc]
Umit: Do we have concrete understanding of the terminology as WSRX group think this issue is complete
22:15:34 [bob]
ack dh
22:16:31 [illsleydc]
dhull: Do we have text saying what Anonymous means in an EPR in general? Yes.
22:16:40 [uyalcina]
It does not help RX
22:17:01 [illsleydc]
Anish: AcksTo set in different MEP. Set for sequence
22:17:25 [illsleydc]
dhull: definitely not what addressing defines today
22:17:30 [bob]
ack t
22:17:41 [gdaniels]
22:17:44 [gdaniels]
22:17:50 [illsleydc]
Tom: Never took anonymous to mean response to this message
22:17:53 [bob]
ack q
22:18:33 [illsleydc]
Tom: Up to ws-rx to clarify in their binding
22:18:59 [illsleydc]
dhull: thinks its dangerous to rely on a ws-addressing ambiguity
22:20:05 [illsleydc]
dhull: When I send an anonymous FaultTo I mean to send the fault on the response message of this message exchange, not some later one
22:20:06 [uyalcina]
It appears that David Hull does NOT agree with the resolution of CR4
22:20:19 [anish]
22:20:39 [bob]
ack gd
22:20:45 [dhull]
dhull states clearly that the putative resolution to CR4 didn't actually resolve CR4. Resolution of CR 15 is clearly "new information"
22:20:58 [illsleydc]
glen: +1 to what dhull is saying. need clarification to state that response is part of the same MEP
22:21:50 [dhull]
David Hull is mostly OK with the stated resolution: "The paragraph in question should be extended to allow other EPRs to use the same semantics defined for the anonymous address." But you only want to re-use part of the semantics
22:22:18 [illsleydc]
glen: if ws-rx need different they should define it. They shouldn't be using anonymous to mean any future response, they should mint a new URI
22:22:59 [dhull]
22:23:22 [illsleydc]
Bob: Resolution to CR4 was agreement with external organisation. From credibility standpoint can we go back to CR4 and see if we can craft it to fit CR15
22:23:43 [illsleydc]
Anish: willing to do this but would like to see how the group feels about htis first
22:24:19 [uyalcina]
Isn't this defined by the semantics of ReplyTo?
22:24:34 [bob]
ack ani
22:24:40 [bob]
ack dh
22:24:42 [illsleydc]
Anish: Not clear why glen wants requirement that response is part of same MEP.
22:24:49 [uyalcina]
+1 to Anish
22:25:30 [illsleydc]
glen: Interoperability, needs to know whether to expect response as response message if anonymous used
22:25:56 [TRutt]
22:25:59 [gdaniels]
What's so hard about minting a new URI which means "any response on this sequence"?
22:26:15 [uyalcina]
uyalcina has joined #ws-addr
22:26:26 [uyalcina]
22:26:32 [gdaniels]
"sequence" is a WS-RX concept, and understanding the semantics of the proposed new URI in fact DEPENDS on understanding that there will be future requests (i.e. that a sequence exists)
22:26:44 [anish]
glen, thinking about your response ... it might make sense to define a new URI (in wsrx)
22:26:45 [illsleydc]
WS-RX waiting on ws-addressing resolving this issue
22:26:54 [mnot]
mnot has joined #ws-addr
22:26:56 [mnot]
22:27:25 [illsleydc]
Tom: Never took anonymous to mean anonymous on this request.
22:27:26 [gdaniels]
I would MUCH rather use clearly and consistently defined URI, even if two different ones, than make the meaning of anonymous "morph" based on whether it's in <acksTo> or <replyTo>
22:27:35 [bob]
ack tr
22:27:45 [anish]
q+ to say that the semantics of 'anon' is changing yet again.
22:27:52 [gdaniels]
ew ew ew
22:28:05 [dhull]
22:28:12 [anish]
my understanding was that 'anon' referred to the channel not the channel for THIS req-res. Although Glen's point is valid
22:28:16 [anish]
wrt interop
22:28:35 [umit]
umit has joined #ws-addr
22:28:37 [illsleydc]
Tom: WSRX could define their own thing for use in AcksTo. Don't have problem with tight semantics for ReplyTo. Talking about applying semantics to different epr
22:29:04 [bob]
ack u
22:29:17 [illsleydc]
dhull: reviews resolution to CR15
22:29:24 [gdaniels]
22:29:36 [illsleydc]
Umit: Have problem with restricting semantics
22:30:03 [illsleydc]
Umit: Acks to defined by WSRX, should not be limited by ws-addressing
22:30:28 [illsleydc]
dhull: hearing different things
22:30:43 [illsleydc]
Umit: WSRX defining semantics of AcksTo, not anonymous
22:30:53 [gdaniels]
anonymous == "schmoo"
22:31:04 [illsleydc]
Umit: on't want WSRX to redefine semantics of anonymous
22:31:06 [bob]
ack mno
22:31:36 [dhull]
+1 glen
22:31:41 [illsleydc]
mnot: thinks dangerous to have people trying to represent 2 wgs on one call
22:32:11 [gdaniels]
I can always define the semantics of <AcksTo> to reinterpret any "ftp:" URL as an "http:" URL too, but I wouldn't want to do that....
22:32:24 [illsleydc]
mnot: straightforward approach to return to other group
22:32:31 [bob]
22:32:32 [illsleydc]
mnot: already sort of done. issue of hats
22:32:35 [gdaniels]
(i.e. changing the meaning of identifiers based on context is in general bad)
22:32:52 [illsleydc]
Anish: meaning of anonymous have changed again.
22:32:54 [umit]
+1 to Anish
22:33:16 [TonyR]
22:33:29 [TRutt]
22:33:34 [TRutt]
22:33:40 [illsleydc]
Anish: stated to mean devices without a URI, changed to mean back channel, now to back channel to specific request-response
22:34:08 [bob]
ack ani
22:34:08 [Zakim]
anish, you wanted to say that the semantics of 'anon' is changing yet again.
22:34:19 [pauld]
wonders why we need to worry about WS-RX if we don't preclude their use-case
22:34:21 [TRutt]
when I read i see it being restricted to a response epr
22:34:25 [illsleydc]
glen: Some of use feel this clarificationis what we meant to do
22:34:42 [illsleydc]
dhull: What about a UDP message with no back channel
22:34:57 [illsleydc]
Anish: it mean the back channel, the channel simply doesn't exist
22:35:32 [illsleydc]
dhull: CR18 now specifically states semantics is undefiend elsewhere
22:35:35 [bob]
ack tony
22:35:43 [illsleydc]
22:36:17 [illsleydc]
Tony: in WS-RX is the sequence always between the same to endpoints with the same addresses
22:36:25 [dhull]
22:36:35 [illsleydc]
Anish: A sequence can span multiple WSDL MEPs and clients
22:37:06 [bob]
ack tr
22:37:29 [umit]
22:38:01 [illsleydc]
Tony: So this is not what anonymous means (as an ack could go down any HTTP response in the sequence)
22:38:03 [bob]
ack dh
22:38:15 [umit]
I agree with Tom, we have an ambiguity there.
22:38:29 [illsleydc]
dhull: CR15 qualified to ReplyTo or FaultTo - does not restrict semantics of AcksTo
22:39:00 [umit]
I should add that response endpoint is only defined within WSDL binding, not as a general definition either.
22:39:32 [illsleydc]
dhull: Anonymous means my binding knows what to do. You can use it where you know it will be useful but there is an implict 'danger' warning there
22:39:49 [bob]
22:42:28 [bob]
ack um
22:43:16 [andreas]
andreas has joined #ws-addr
22:45:08 [andreas_]
andreas_ has joined #ws-addr
22:45:51 [Katy]
22:45:56 [illsleydc_]
illsleydc_ has joined #ws-addr
22:46:03 [umit]
i do not see an issue here. The response endpoint is defined within the context of WS-A, not for WS-RX. It does not need to encompass AcksTo.
22:46:12 [TRutt]
22:46:55 [bob]
ack katy
22:46:56 [TonyR]
22:47:03 [Zakim]
22:47:30 [illsleydc]
Katy: agrees with Umit and Anish. Don't want to start restricting use of anonymous. Go back to CR4, leaving open for use
22:47:43 [umit]
We do not have to throw out the definition of cr15
22:48:08 [bob]
ack tony
22:48:19 [illsleydc]
Katy: some work for exact details, someone takes cr4 and cr15 and work out the details
22:48:41 [TRutt]
22:49:03 [illsleydc]
Tony: anonymous has different meaning in different EPRs e.g. anonymous To and anonymoys ReplyTo in same message has different meaning
22:49:12 [anish]
btw, the use of 'anon' in the URL is very unfortunate. The URL has nothing to do with being anonymous
22:49:39 [umit]
response endpoint is defined in WSDL binding only.
22:49:52 [umit]
22:50:05 [illsleydc]
Tom: CR15 talks about response endpoints whereas CR4 was all about anonymous in non response EPRs. Think this can be resolved
22:50:05 [bob]
ack tr
22:50:18 [uyalcina]
uyalcina has joined #ws-addr
22:50:22 [uyalcina]
22:50:33 [uyalcina]
+1 ti Tom
22:50:39 [bob]
ack u
22:50:46 [illsleydc]
Katy: Key. CR15 was specific to response endpoints
22:51:10 [illsleydc]
Umit: Response binding only defined in WSDL binding. Should be crisper.
22:51:27 [illsleydc]
Umit: Don't think we need to change anything from CR4
22:51:51 [illsleydc]
Bob: Need an owner for CR23
22:52:06 [anish]
proposal: define 'anon' only in the context of reply-to/fault-to (not responses) and ask WSRX can defined their own URI for acksTo
22:52:21 [anish]
22:52:25 [illsleydc]
Katy: WIll attempt to resolve the inconsistencies
22:52:51 [dhull]
Go, Katy!
22:53:11 [illsleydc]
Bob: No meeting next monday. Meeting a week on thursday for F2F. Possibly have a lunch
22:53:29 [Zakim]
22:53:30 [Zakim]
22:53:30 [Zakim]
22:53:31 [Zakim]
22:53:31 [Zakim]
22:53:33 [Zakim]
22:53:34 [Zakim]
22:53:35 [Zakim]
22:53:36 [Zakim]
22:53:38 [Zakim]
22:53:40 [Zakim]
22:53:42 [Zakim]
22:53:42 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
22:53:46 [Zakim]
22:53:48 [Zakim]
22:53:50 [Zakim]
22:53:54 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
22:53:56 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bob_Freund, David_Illsley, GlenD, TonyR, Jonathan_Marsh, Andreas_Bjarlestam, Prasad_Yendluri, Tom_Rutt, Paul_Knight, Hugo, David_Hull, Anish, Paul_Downey,
22:54:01 [Zakim]
... Umit_Yalcinalp, Dave_Orchard, Katy_Warr?, Mark_Nottingham
22:56:20 [TRutt]
TRutt has left #ws-addr
22:58:17 [bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
22:58:49 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:58:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob