19:42:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:42:58 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/04/24-ws-addr-irc
19:43:23 <bob> zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
19:43:23 <Zakim> ok, bob; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 17 minutes
19:43:46 <bob> Meeting: Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference
19:43:56 <bob> Chair: Bob Freund
19:46:18 <bob> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/7D5D3FDA429F4D469ADF210408D6245A03923C@jeeves.freunds.com
19:55:14 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
19:55:21 <Zakim> +Bob_Freund
19:55:29 <prasad> prasad has joined #ws-Addr
19:56:02 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
19:56:27 <David_Illsley> David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
19:57:11 <Gil> Gil has joined #ws-addr
19:57:38 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
19:57:57 <bob> zakim, ip caller is katy
19:57:57 <Zakim> I don't understand 'ip caller is katy', bob
19:58:10 <Katy> Katy has joined #ws-addr
19:58:14 <bob> zakim, [ipcaller] is katy
19:58:14 <Zakim> +katy; got it
19:58:16 <Zakim> +David_Illsley
19:58:49 <hugo> Zakim, call hugo-617
19:58:49 <Zakim> ok, hugo; the call is being made
19:58:51 <Zakim> +Hugo
19:59:10 <Zakim> +Prasad_Yendluri
19:59:26 <Zakim> +Mark_Little
20:00:01 <Zakim> +Nilo_Mitra
20:00:18 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Marsh
20:01:00 <Nilo> Nilo has joined #ws-addr
20:01:37 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
20:01:44 <Zakim> +Andreas_Bjarlestam
20:02:09 <Zakim> +Dave_Hull
20:02:20 <dhull> dhull has joined #ws-addr
20:02:21 <marc> marc has joined #ws-addr
20:03:19 <Zakim> +Dave_Orchard
20:03:57 <Zakim> + +1.781.442.aaaa
20:04:16 <bob> zakim, aaaa is marc
20:04:16 <Zakim> +marc; got it
20:04:44 <dorchard> dorchard has joined #ws-addr
20:06:07 <prasad> scribe: prasad
20:06:12 <bob> Scribe: prasad
20:06:27 <prasad> TOPIC: Agenda review
20:06:58 <Zakim> +GlenD
20:06:58 <prasad> Bob: Reviews Agenda
20:07:32 <Zakim> +[IBM]
20:07:49 <bob> zaki, [ibm] is paco
20:07:58 <prasad> TOPIC: Corrections to minutes
20:08:02 <GlenD> GlenD has joined #ws-addr
20:08:10 <Paco> Paco has joined #ws-addr
20:08:18 <prasad> Minutes of 10th April 06
20:08:32 <prasad> Minutes Accepted
20:08:57 <prasad> TOPIC: Action items
20:09:08 <bob> zakim, [ibm] is paco
20:09:08 <Zakim> +paco; got it
20:10:11 <PaulKnight> PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
20:10:35 <prasad> Bob: Can we assume no response to a LC resolution as accepted?
20:10:47 <prasad> Hugo: Yes, roughly equivalent
20:10:56 <Zakim> +Paul_Knight
20:11:11 <Zakim> +Paul_Downey
20:11:20 <prasad> TOPIC: Proposed and New Issues
20:11:35 <Jonathan> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/pr-issues/#pr1
20:11:44 <prasad> Bob: PR Issues, http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/pr-issues
20:12:09 <prasad> pr1 -
20:12:09 <prasad>       mU fault one way test Owner:
20:12:16 <yinleng> yinleng has joined #ws-addr
20:12:34 <prasad> s/Owner://
20:12:49 <TRutt> TRutt has joined #ws-addr
20:13:24 <prasad> pr2 - HTTP Web Method Not Specified in test documentation or specifications
20:13:46 <Zakim> +??P17
20:14:05 <yinleng> zakim, ??P17 is me
20:14:05 <Zakim> +yinleng; got it
20:14:32 <prasad> Pr3 - Comments on Core and Soap Proposed Recs
20:15:06 <prasad> Bob: LC issues, 131 and 132 from Jonatahn
20:15:33 <prasad> s/Jonatahn/Jonathan/
20:16:29 <prasad> Bob: b4 and f2f goal to have final text with issue resolution updates
20:18:17 <pauld> I wonder if Mark wanted to raise a WS-Addressing PR issue. I thought he was just looking for evidence for the discussion on ImmediateDestination on the TAG list
20:18:28 <prasad> Bob: PR issues, PR1 mU fault one way test
20:19:57 <prasad> Jonthan: This is an issue specific to test suite
20:21:11 <prasad> Bob: Our response this to basically inviting folks to submit tests, adequate?
20:21:22 <Zakim> -Dave_Hull
20:21:38 <prasad> Hugo: The answer we gave is fine
20:21:39 <Zakim> +Dave_Hull
20:21:59 <prasad> Bob: Proposes close issue w/ no action
20:22:19 <prasad> RESOLUTION: Close w/ No action
20:22:49 <prasad> Bob: PR-2 is also on test suite
20:23:02 <prasad> Bob: Close with no Action As well?
20:23:12 <prasad> RESOLUTION: Close w/ No action
20:23:47 <prasad> PR3  Several sub issues
20:24:09 <prasad> 1. The EPR abbrev is used without first defining it
20:24:50 <prasad> RESOLUTION: Editors After first use of EPR add expansion in paren
20:27:08 <prasad> Discussion on process for making (editorial?) changes to spec
20:28:15 <prasad> PR3 - 1.1 It's too bad that XML Schema Component Designators
20:28:27 <prasad> Bob: Its just a gee wiZ
20:28:36 <prasad> RESOLUTIOn: No Action
20:29:10 <prasad> PR3 - 2 Order of scetions 2 & 3
20:29:30 <prasad> Hugo: It is a matter of preference
20:29:37 <prasad> Bob: Ok with leave as is?
20:30:07 <prasad> RESOLUTION: Closed w/ N Action (Annotation that spec had been reviewed for a while and acceptable to most)
20:30:38 <Zakim> -Mark_Little
20:30:50 <prasad> PR3 - 2.1  Shouldn't that says "...this IRI is used...]?
20:30:52 <Zakim> -Dave_Hull
20:31:08 <Zakim> +Dave_Hull
20:31:50 <prasad> Bob: DaveH's coment was right and we will accept that
20:32:17 <prasad> RESOLUTION: Bob will prepare the response. No change to spec
20:33:05 <prasad> PR3 - 3 - parties may specify -> parties MAY specify
20:34:55 <prasad> RESOLUTION: We will take No further action (Already capitalized Appropriately)
20:35:50 <prasad> PR3 - 3.1 References are made to the WS-A WSDL Binding spec not reached even CR yet
20:36:23 <prasad> Hugo: Clarify that refs are not Normative
20:36:34 <prasad> RESOLUTION: No Action
20:36:42 <TRutt> TRutt has left #ws-addr
20:37:04 <prasad> s/Action/Change/
20:37:31 <prasad> PR3 - 3.1 3.1 [relationship] In the abstract definitions it is unclear whether the
20:37:31 <prasad>              relationship type is the 1st or 2nd member of the pair.
20:37:50 <prasad> s/3.1 3.1/3.1/
20:38:55 <prasad> PR3 - 3.1 [reference params] I'm sure there's a good reason but why isn't
20:38:55 <prasad>              [destination] and EPR?
20:39:26 <prasad> Bob / Jonathan: This had been considered thoroughly already
20:39:50 <prasad> RESOLUTION: Closed w/ No Action (will respond to author as above)
20:40:16 <prasad> PR3 - 3.2 minor nit: why do the abstract properties and infoset reps have
20:40:16 <prasad>              different names? 
20:40:53 <prasad> Bob: Agree it would have been nice to be same, but late in the game
20:41:17 <prasad> RESOLUTION: No Action (response as above)
20:41:58 <prasad> PR3 - 3.2  section 3.4 describes the default for wsa:FaultTo as being
20:41:58 <prasad>              wsa:ReplyTo..and if wsa:ReplyTo is empty then it's a free-for-all. 
20:41:58 <prasad>              Shouldn't this behavior be stated here?
20:42:51 <prasad> DHull: Like above, we can be more explicit (but late in the game)
20:44:21 <marc> wsa:replyTo defaults to anon so hard to get empty [reply endpoint] when using our binding of MAPs to XML
20:44:49 <prasad> RESOLUTION: No Action (Thank the author for the comment)
20:45:43 <prasad> PR 3 - 3.2.1 why isn't comparison of [source], [reply endpoint] and [fault
20:45:43 <prasad>              endpoint] discussed?
20:46:42 <prasad> AACTION: Bob to produce consolidated response to Byron
20:47:01 <prasad> s/AACTION/ACTION/
20:48:15 <prasad> Getting back to "PR 3 - 3.1 [relationship] In the abstract definitions it is unclear whether "
20:48:46 <prasad> DHull: Since both are the same (IRI) type it is not clear
20:49:03 <prasad> Bob: Does this cause implementation issues?
20:49:49 <prasad> DHull: No one uses abstract for implementation
20:52:05 <prasad> Hugo: Two options (1) Say we will fix in Errata (2) Say, did not cause problems so far
20:55:56 <pauld> current definition seems loose enough to be useful to me
20:56:24 <prasad> RESOLUTION: <what hugo said for option 2>
20:57:46 <prasad> Bob: PR issues 1, 2, 3 Closed
20:58:55 <prasad> TOPIC: LC Issues 
20:59:09 <hugo> what hugo said for option 2 = we acknowledge that the order is not specified, but we have not encountered any problem with our implementations, and cannot foresee what this change will fix nor break, so we prefer not changing the text at this point
20:59:18 <prasad> TOPIC: lc124 - Conformance section
20:59:33 <hugo> (not as good as the first time I said it, unfortunately)
20:59:40 <bob> Jonathan's proposal:
20:59:44 <bob> Add a new section: 
20:59:44 <bob>              
20:59:44 <bob>              
20:59:44 <bob>             6 Conformance 
20:59:44 <bob>              
20:59:45 <bob>              
20:59:47 <bob>             An endpoint reference whose wsa:Metadata element has among its children 
20:59:49 <bob>             the elements defined in [2.1 Referencing WSDL Metadata from an EPR] 
20:59:51 <bob>             conforms to this specification if it obeys the structural constraints 
20:59:53 <bob>             defined in that section. 
20:59:55 <bob>              
20:59:58 <bob>             A WSDL description conforms to this specification when it incorporates 
20:59:59 <bob>             directly or indirectly one or more of the [3.1 wsaw:UsingAddressing 
21:00:01 <bob>             Extension Element] or the [3.3 WSDL SOAP Module] markers, and obeys the 
21:00:03 <bob>             structural constraints defined in section [3 Indicating the use of 
21:00:05 <bob>             Addressing] appropriate to that marker, and those defined in section 
21:00:07 <bob>             [4.2 Action]. 
21:00:09 <bob>              
21:00:11 <bob>             An endpoint conforms to this specification if it has a conformant WSDL 
21:00:13 <bob>             description associated with it, and receives and emits messages in 
21:00:16 <bob>             accordance with the constraints defined in sections [4 Specifying 
21:00:17 <bob>             Message Addressing Properties in WSDL] and [5 WS-Addressing and WSDL 
21:00:19 <bob>             Message Exchange Patterns]. 
21:03:46 <prasad> Bob: Couple of +1s on the mail list
21:04:02 <prasad> Bob: Any objections?
21:04:05 <prasad> None:
21:04:25 <prasad> RESOLUTION: Proposal 1 is the accepted resoultion for LC 124
21:04:54 <prasad> ACTION: Bob to respond to Carl 
21:05:27 <prasad> TOPIC: LC 129
21:05:47 <bob> s/Carl/Karl
21:05:51 <Gil> Gil has left #ws-addr
21:06:53 <prasad> Paco: Describes his proposed changes
21:08:23 <Zakim> -Paul_Knight
21:09:08 <prasad> Jonathan: Like Davis's SHOULD change. Agree w/ MArcH also
21:09:39 <prasad> Marc: Prefer to change SHOULD to Can, not implying any conformance requirement
21:09:49 <gpilz> gpilz has joined #ws-addr
21:10:14 <prasad> s/Can/Can (or something)/
21:10:24 <TRutt_> TRutt_ has joined #ws-addr
21:10:25 <PaulKnight> PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
21:11:22 <prasad> s/Davis/David Illsley/
21:11:47 <TRutt_> q+
21:12:08 <prasad> Paco: I am ok with lower case should etc. if most people think so
21:12:09 <bob> ack tr
21:12:41 <prasad> Tom: I agree we should use english Can or something like that
21:13:32 <TRutt_> i like "have to rely on"
21:14:18 <Paco> "A WSDL or policy based service description that includes the 
21:14:18 <Paco> wsaw:UsingAddressing but no a wsaw:Anonymous marker makes no assertion
21:14:18 <Paco> regarding a requirement or a constraint in the use of the anonymous URI in
21:14:18 <Paco> EPRs contained in messages sent to the endpoint. In this cases, endpoint
21:14:18 <Paco> service descriptions have to rely on additional metadata,
21:14:19 <Paco> such as WSDL bindings or additional policy assertions, to indicate any requirements or
21:14:21 <Paco> restrictions on the use of the anonymous URI by clients. However, in the
21:14:23 <Paco> absence of additional metadata, clients of the endpoint MAY assume that the
21:14:25 <Paco> service endpoint follows the behavior indicated by the 'optional' value of
21:14:27 <Paco> the wsaw:Anonymous marker. An endpoint SHOULD send a 
21:14:29 <Paco> wsa:OnlyAnonymousAddressSupported or a wsa:OnlyNonAnonymousAddressSupported
21:14:31 <Paco> fault back to the client if a message received uses the anonymous URI 
21:14:33 <Paco> in a way that is unsupported by the endpoint."
21:18:41 <bob> new proposed final version follos:
21:18:55 <bob> s/follo/follow
21:19:03 <Paco> "A WSDL or policy based service description that includes the 
21:19:03 <Paco> wsaw:UsingAddressing but no a wsaw:Anonymous marker makes no assertion
21:19:03 <Paco> regarding a requirement or a constraint in the use of the anonymous URI in
21:19:03 <Paco> EPRs contained in messages sent to the endpoint. In this cases, endpoint
21:19:03 <Paco> service descriptions have to rely on additional metadata,
21:19:04 <Paco> such as WSDL bindings or additional policy assertions, to indicate any requirements or
21:19:06 <Paco> restrictions on the use of the anonymous URI by clients. However, in the
21:19:08 <Paco> absence of additional metadata, clients of the endpoint MAY assume that the
21:19:10 <Paco> service endpoint follows the behavior indicated by the 'optional' value of
21:19:13 <Paco> the wsaw:Anonymous marker. An endpoint SHOULD send a 
21:19:14 <Paco> wsa:OnlyAnonymousAddressSupported or a wsa:OnlyNonAnonymousAddressSupported
21:19:17 <Paco> fault back to the client if a message received includes a response epr 
21:19:18 <Paco> with an [address] that is unsupported by the endpoint.
21:19:32 <prasad> Bob: Extra 'a' in 2nd line to be removed by editors
21:19:43 <TRutt_> s/in this cases/in this case/
21:20:58 <prasad> Paco: Above Text resolves part of LC 129
21:21:36 <prasad> Jonathan; Was there a concrete proposal for the rest?
21:21:48 <prasad> Paco: We were expanding Proposal 4 (original)
21:22:25 <PaulKnight_> PaulKnight_ has joined #ws-addr
21:22:51 <prasad> Jonathan: "Remove the
21:22:51 <prasad>             default. Lack of wsaw:Anonymous means there are no claims about Anonymous
21:22:51 <prasad>             support.")
21:23:38 <prasad> RESOLUTION: Closed Issue 129 with the above resolutions
21:24:20 <prasad> TOPIC: LC 131 UsingAddressing and soap:mustUnderstand
21:24:32 <gpilz> when can I get that new version?!?
21:25:17 <Zakim> +Paul_Knight
21:28:01 <prasad> Jonathan: Describes his proposal
21:28:13 <prasad> Paco: Agree w/ Jonathan on 3rd column
21:30:25 <PaulKnight_> PaulKnight_ has joined #ws-addr
21:30:54 <prasad> RESOLUTION: LC 131 Closed w/ resolution to remove 3rd column in tbl 3-1 and collapse col 1&2
21:31:09 <prasad> TOPIC: LC 132
21:31:53 <prasad> Reference Parameters vs. complete EPRs Owner
21:32:06 <prasad> s/Owner//
21:33:01 <Zakim> -Paul_Knight
21:34:26 <Zakim> +Paul_Knight
21:35:38 <bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Apr/0030.html
21:36:01 <prasad> Jonathan: Describes proposal
21:36:02 <prasad> MarcH: I sent some change suggestions
21:36:15 <prasad> Jonthan: Take those as friendly amendments
21:38:07 <bob> "A wsdl20:endpoint or wsdl11:port element MAY be extended using a   
21:38:07 <bob> child wsa:EndpointReference element. When extended this way, the   
21:38:07 <bob> [address] property of the child EPR must match the {address} property   
21:38:07 <bob> of the endpoint component (WSDL 2.0) or the address value provided by   
21:38:07 <bob> the relevant port extension (WSDL 1.1). For example, in a SOAP 1.1   
21:38:08 <bob> port described using WSDL 1.1, the location attribute of the   
21:38:10 <bob> soap11:address element must have the same value as the wsa:Address   
21:38:12 <bob> element."
21:41:04 <prasad> RESOLUTION: LC 132 Closed with Jonthan's Proposal, w/ amendments in MarcH's email (URL above) \ 
21:41:05 <prasad> as shown in-line above in the last paragraph
21:41:18 <prasad> ACTION: Bob to update the issues list with the consolidated proposal
21:42:01 <TRutt_> TRutt_ has left #ws-addr
21:44:18 <prasad> ACTION: MarcH to coordinate w/ Tony to produce updated WSDL bindig Doc final text by April 28 06
21:47:11 <prasad> Discussion reg. upcoming F2F
21:48:05 <prasad> Bob: AOB?
21:48:17 <Zakim> -yinleng
21:48:18 <prasad> Meeting Adjourned
21:48:19 <Zakim> -David_Illsley
21:48:19 <Zakim> -Dave_Orchard
21:48:20 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
21:48:21 <Zakim> -Jonathan_Marsh
21:48:21 <Zakim> -Dave_Hull
21:48:22 <Zakim> -paco
21:48:23 <Zakim> -marc
21:48:24 <yinleng> yinleng has left #ws-addr
21:48:24 <Zakim> -Hugo
21:48:26 <Zakim> -GlenD
21:48:28 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
21:48:30 <Zakim> -Paul_Downey
21:48:32 <Zakim> -Bob_Freund
21:48:32 <bob> zakim, who was here?
21:48:34 <Zakim> -katy
21:48:36 <Zakim> -Andreas_Bjarlestam
21:48:37 <gpilz> gpilz has left #ws-addr
21:48:38 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, bob.
21:48:52 <bob> zakim, phillibt!
21:48:52 <Zakim> I don't understand 'phillibt!', bob
21:49:47 <prasad> prasad has left #ws-Addr
21:50:09 <bob> rrsagent, make logs public
21:50:31 <bob> rrsagent, generate minutes
21:50:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/04/24-ws-addr-minutes.html bob
21:52:55 <Zakim> -Nilo_Mitra
22:07:14 <TonyR> TonyR has joined #ws-addr
22:09:04 <TonyR> TonyR has left #ws-addr
22:12:15 <Zakim> -Prasad_Yendluri
22:17:16 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, Paul_Knight, in WS_AddrWG()4:00PM
22:17:18 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
22:17:22 <Zakim> Attendees were Bob_Freund, Gilbert_Pilz, katy, David_Illsley, Hugo, Prasad_Yendluri, Mark_Little, Nilo_Mitra, Jonathan_Marsh, Tom_Rutt, Andreas_Bjarlestam, Dave_Hull, Dave_Orchard,
22:17:25 <Zakim> ... +1.781.442.aaaa, marc, GlenD, paco, Paul_Knight, Paul_Downey, yinleng