Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference -- 20 Mar 2006

<Bozhong> IP Caller is Bozhong

<Katy> thanks paul

<Katy> nice try

<Katy> i've used 61#

I shall be your scribe for today. Hello all

<pauld> scribe: vikas

<scribe> Agenda:

1) AI and 2) Some new isssues 3) Status of Director call

dhull: Wants to add editorial comments as agenda item

<pauld> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Mar/0070.html

bob: Objections to minutes to March 2nd F2F?
... Objections to March 3rd F2F?
... Accepted minutes of March 2nd, 3rd
... Objections to March 13th minutes?
... No objections raised; minutes accepted and will be posted to website
... LC for WSDL is end of month; Not seeing many comments; but if we can stay real-time in our response it woudl be great
... Jonathan to get comments out

Jonathan: Work in progress

bob: Hugo AI on Infoset Reference was given to hugo

hugo: Mark and Tony had AI on LC117

on LC116

bob: LC112 AI pending; Owner: Hugo

<dhull> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2006Mar/0004.html

bob: Dave Hull Issue

dhull: Describes the bullets in the issues (link posted above)

<bob> Bullet 2:

<bob> Section 3.2.1 defines the {anonymous required} WSDL property that

<bob> reflects the value of the wsaw:Anonymous element. This may have

<bob> one of the three values "optional", "required" or "prohibited".

<bob> The name {anonymous required} (unlike wsaw:Anonymous) strongly

<bob> suggests a boolean, and having "prohibited" as a value for

<bob> {anonymous required} seems confusing. Either calling it

<bob> {anonymous} in line with wsa:Anonymous or something like

bob: Could we come up with something specific instead of (a) or (b) Choices

<bob> {anonymous EPR constraint} might be less potentially confusing.

<Jonathan> {anonymous addresses}?

<bob> change recommended in bullet 1 was accepted

bob: Why not use {anonymous addresses} in response to bullet 2

Bullet 3:

The first paragraph of section 4.2.1 refers to the [action]

property of messages and says that if no value is given it reverts

to the SOAPAction if any. This isn't referring to the actual

[action] property of the message in question -- putting something

in a WSDL doesn't automatically cause messages to contain that

property. Instead it's talking about what the endpoint is saying

it will accept and produce for the [action] property.

<bob> resolution: use {anonymous addresses} as resolution to bullet 2

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how the wording can be improved (but I

would take an action to come up with a better wording if need be)

<bob> n.b. dhull's email is recorded as lc119

resolution to bullet 3: Drop with no action

<bob> RESOLUTION: brop bullet 3 with no action

Bullet 4:

RESOLUTION: bullet 4 is withdrawn

Bullet 5:

Nit: In section 5, we talk about properties being "mandatory" or

"optional". "Required" might be better than "mandatory", since

things like RFC 2119 use "required"/"optional" and not

"mandatory"/"optional". On the other hand, WSN ended up changing

a few instances of "optional" in the case of "optional elements"

because we didn't think it really matched the RFC 2119 sense. I

believe we settled on "can be omitted". The main issue is whether

we specifically want use RFC 2119 terms here, specifically don't

want to use them, or don't care.

Resolution to bullet 5: Strike the words "or optional" where it appears in Section 5

thanks jonathan

Next F2F Meeting, IBM hosted at Cambridge, MA

<gpilz> when again?

<marc> May 3, 4

When: May 3-4

<anish> do we need 2 hr weekly calls?

Wrapping up...

AI: For editors to do RFC 2119 of document

End of Meeting

<bob> Adjourned at 4:40p

<scribe> ACTION: Editor to do RFC 2119 scan of the document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/20-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]

- DRAFT -

Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference

20 Mar 2006

Attendees

Contents

Next F2F Meeting, IBM hosted at Cambridge, MA

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output