IRC log of ws-addr on 2006-05-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:46:13 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
13:46:13 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:46:49 [pauld]
Chair: Bob_Freund
13:47:39 [pauld]
13:47:47 [pauld]
pauld has changed the topic to: Agenda:
13:49:02 [Paco]
13:49:32 [Paco]
Hugo: Brings up issue of leaving 2006/03 schema location
13:49:43 [Paco]
people agree
13:51:00 [Paco]
Bob:there is a porposal by Katy
13:51:15 [Paco]
Paco: just ot maintain the 2005/08 schema available at that location
13:51:23 [Paco]
Hugo: that is no problem
13:51:24 [pauld]
13:51:32 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
13:52:02 [Paco]
Hugo: no differences between normative and informative references in the specs; causes some confusion
13:52:28 [Paco]
Hugo: Distinction hekps understand dependencies
13:52:53 [Paco]
Hugo: Phillipe went over the doc and organized normative/informative refs
13:53:25 [pauld]
13:53:40 [Paco]
Hugo: reviews informative/nirmative refs in document
13:53:56 [Paco]
Jonathan: Why is the WWW architecture reference normative?
13:53:59 [Gil]
Gil has joined #ws-addr
13:54:22 [Paco]
Jonathan: there are no MUSTs there
13:54:34 [Paco]
Hugo: Right, that is arguable I guess
13:55:10 [Paco]
Hugo: is it because the use of "recommends"?
13:55:34 [Paco]
Jonathan: it is a WWW-A 'recommends', just advice
13:55:59 [Paco]
Jonathan: It is unclear what it means to conform to the WWW-A document
13:56:36 [Paco]
Hugo: goes over normative references; very few
13:57:10 [Paco]
Hugo: Let's review SOAP binding references
13:57:32 [Gilp]
Gilp has joined #ws-addr
13:58:38 [Paco]
Hugo: 2119, IRIs, SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.1 ROR (should not be there), SOAP 1.2, WSDL, XSD, namespaces are normative so far
13:59:02 [Paco]
DavidH: Why do we have WSDL 2.0
13:59:54 [Paco]
Hugo: WSA may be used with WSDL
14:00:06 [Paco]
DavidH: Security is not normative?
14:00:21 [Paco]
Hugo: We don't require compliance with WSSEC
14:00:52 [Paco]
DavidD: We use the notation
14:01:06 [Paco]
Hugo: But WSSEC is not about notations, is about security mechanisms
14:05:03 [Paco]
Jonathan: proposal is splitting the references in the two specs except for the architecture and SOAP 1.1 ROR note that are moved down to informative
14:05:50 [Paco]
Hugo: we should do this for the WSDL bindign document also
14:06:31 [Paco]
Bob: Resolved, we accept Hugo's proposal as modified by moving the AoWWW and SOAP 1.1 ROR to be informative references
14:06:42 [Paco]
TomR: When is this really a REC?
14:06:59 [Paco]
Hugo: Sometime, but there is nothing more we need to do
14:07:06 [Paco]
TomR: weeks?
14:07:16 [Paco]
Hugo: yes
14:08:25 [Paco]
Bob: Next agenda issue: final incorporation of lc-comments into WSDL binding document
14:08:37 [Paco]
Bob: we'll separate references in this document as well
14:09:27 [Paco]
Bob: (projects reference list) which are non-normative?
14:09:37 [Paco]
Bob: WSSEC again?
14:09:52 [Paco]
Bob: same notational dependency
14:10:34 [Paco]
Anish: Mentions to SOAP in several places
14:11:18 [Paco]
Anish: references are to both SOAP 1.1 and 1.2
14:11:29 [gil]
gil has joined #ws-addr
14:11:46 [Paco]
Jonathan: there are some MUSTs as well
14:11:49 [Zakim]
14:12:04 [Paco]
Anish: should we add SOAP 1.1 as well? "mU" means both
14:13:25 [Paco]
JOnathan: propose to split Section 7 in 2 parts, along the same lines as the other docs; keep SOAP 1.1 as normative in this case
14:14:45 [Gilp]
Gilp has joined #ws-addr
14:15:08 [Paco]
Bob: the proposal is to add a reference to SOAP 1.1 as nirmative, since it is not there now
14:15:45 [Zakim]
14:15:47 [Zakim]
14:15:50 [Zakim]
14:16:48 [Paco]
Jonathan: WS-Policy is a note/member submission so it can be referenced now as informative
14:18:09 [Paco]
Bob:I'd like to agree in what we got first: we are dividing, adding SOAP 1.1, putting WSSEC as non-normative, and adding a clarification that the use of "SOAP" w/o version means both 1.1 and 1.2 versions
14:18:15 [Paco]
Bob: approved
14:18:50 [Paco]
Bob: Gil raises referencing WS-Policy (checks document references to policy)
14:19:43 [Paco]
Hugo: WS-Policy has been submitted but there has not been any change - it could be referenced before as well
14:20:07 [Paco]
Bob: would be non-normative (everyone agrees)
14:20:40 [Paco]
Hugo: good chance that when we republish there will be a draft out form the WG that can be referenced
14:21:27 [pauld]
pauld has joined #ws-addr
14:21:33 [Paco]
Bob: how about an editorial note directing to expand the existing reference into a referenceable verion
14:21:43 [Paco]
Anish: there was a referenceable version already
14:22:01 [Paco]
Paco: but now we don't have the changing versions problem
14:22:14 [Paco]
Jonathan: and the standardization intent is now clear
14:22:29 [gil]
gil has joined #ws-addr
14:22:30 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
14:22:58 [Paco]
TomR: the referenceable version will change as the WG start working
14:23:41 [Zakim]
14:24:04 [Paco]
Anish: suggests we wait till the WG is formed and a draft is available
14:24:17 [Zakim]
14:24:19 [Zakim]
14:24:20 [Zakim]
14:24:37 [Paco]
Bob: so it does not fall through the cracks, we record as an issue and will dispose of with our regular process
14:25:21 [Paco]
Bob: we can create and deferr the issue, then revisit; thta may be the best thing to do given the controversy, and the fact that there are no consequences on testing etc.
14:25:42 [Paco]
Bob: issue should be reopen at the conclusion of CR phase
14:25:48 [pauld]
rrsagent, where am i?
14:25:48 [RRSAgent]
14:26:13 [Paco]
Bob: approved: open issue, and refer till end of CR
14:26:18 [pauld]
rrsagent, make logs member-visible
14:26:49 [Paco]
Bob: other items under lc-incorporate draft issue
14:27:20 [Paco]
Tom: Hugo's comment on reomoving editorial note in 3.1.1
14:27:36 [gil]
gil has joined #ws-addr
14:27:36 [Paco]
Bob: was not acted upon, so it will be removed by editors
14:27:43 [Paco]
Bob: agreed
14:29:19 [Paco]
Bob: 3.2 anonymous element, first sentence. Has a reference to the SOAP module that may be a bit confusing
14:29:23 [Zakim]
14:30:12 [Paco]
Hugo: suggest add clarification "see Section 3.3"; also, introducing the wsoap prefix
14:30:21 [Paco]
Bob: agreed. Anything else?
14:30:46 [Paco]
Bob: has people checked that their lc issues are correctly incorporated in the document?
14:30:54 [Paco]
(people say yes)
14:31:29 [Paco]
Hugo: there is an uncapitalized must in Seciton 4.1. Actually two occurrences
14:31:35 [Paco]
(people agree)
14:32:43 [Paco]
(more discussion)
14:32:59 [Paco]
Bob: should the 1st must in 4.1 be capitalized?
14:33:11 [Paco]
Bob: agreed
14:34:18 [Paco]
Bob: 2nd use?
14:34:37 [Paco]
TonyR: would be a 'would' since is an example
14:34:52 [Paco]
Bob: agreed
14:35:11 [Paco]
Bob: is this document ready?
14:35:32 [Paco]
Bob: group agrees that the document is completed
14:35:39 [Paco]
TonyR: do we need to vote?
14:35:51 [Paco]
Bob:only if there is dissent
14:36:48 [Paco]
Bob: taking a break until 11
14:37:00 [Zakim]
14:55:52 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
14:56:27 [Zakim]
14:56:28 [Zakim]
14:56:29 [Zakim]
15:03:06 [prasad]
prasad has joined #ws-addr
15:03:43 [Zakim]
15:03:49 [prasad]
zakim, ??P28 is prasad
15:03:49 [Zakim]
+prasad; got it
15:04:44 [bob]
bob has joined #ws-addr
15:05:24 [Paco]
Bob: next issue: decide CR exit conditions
15:05:46 [Paco]
Bob: requirement of 4 interop implementations was removed to WSDL binding
15:06:01 [gil]
gil has joined #ws-addr
15:06:07 [Paco]
Bob: a minimun of 2 is what we prefer and would be an adequate criterion
15:06:31 [Paco]
Bob: issue is that the doc covers two versions of WSDL so we depend on interopeable WSDL 2.0
15:06:58 [Paco]
Jonathan: currently in CR, a bit deapairing of getting implementers to step up; more optimistic now
15:07:20 [Paco]
Jonathan: there is Woden with a WSDL validator and a paring WSDL into the component model
15:07:47 [Paco]
Jonathan: lookint at doing useful stuff with that component model representation - signatures etc.
15:08:07 [Paco]
GlenD: Axis 1 + Woden is unlikely, Axis 2 + Woden is being worked on
15:08:23 [Paco]
Dims: yes, we're working onit
15:08:51 [Paco]
Jonathan: between IBM and OS, WSO2 there will be an implementation based on OS
15:09:21 [Paco]
Jonathan: Canon has an implementation as well, so we seem to have 2 implementations or the expectation of having them
15:09:36 [Zakim]
15:09:58 [Paco]
Jonathan: we we may meet the 2 implementation req this year, but not by the September timeframe
15:10:26 [Paco]
Jonathan: many vendors work on Woden but it counts as a sinlge implementation for WSDL 2.0
15:10:49 [Paco]
Jonathan: for WSA testing, there will not be enough infrastructure before the Fall
15:12:19 [Paco]
Bob: looks like the WSA chances of WSDL 2.0 testing are remote. What to do? We can go w/o WSDL 2.0 but that will not exercise many aspects of the doc
15:12:38 [Paco]
Bob: so we could take the document and publish as a note - does not require interoperablity
15:13:12 [Paco]
Bob: we can also seek an extension of the charter, wait to the WSDL infrastructure and get back on the rec track
15:13:26 [Paco]
Bob: they are not excusive options
15:14:01 [Paco]
Marc: if we leave it at CR there is no need for a note
15:14:34 [Paco]
Anish: we can split the document and publish the 1.1 part as a note, leave 2.0 in CR for later
15:15:00 [Paco]
Hugo: publishing a CR means you intend to go to REC, chances are low in our timeframe
15:15:51 [Paco]
Bob: what is the best guess for having 2 WSDL 2.0 implementations?
15:16:00 [Paco]
Jonathan: end of the year
15:16:39 [Paco]
Jonathan: I am using the time it took us (WSA) as a reference
15:17:11 [Paco]
Jonathan: that is 6 months for a much less complex spec with more participants
15:18:26 [Paco]
Dims: Axis 2 C is also coming out and counts as a second implementation
15:19:30 [Paco]
Philippe: people are waiting to see if WSDL 2 is real, so they are not pushing implementation work
15:19:49 [Paco]
Jonathan: issues are FP and http binding
15:21:40 [Paco]
Jonathan: will probably pick up slowly as IBM, WSO2 implement it and customers start asking for it to other vendors
15:22:08 [Paco]
Philippe: why not leave the document in CR and do the WSDL 1.1 testing - go to sleep and do the 2.0 testing what possible
15:22:45 [Paco]
Anish: if WSLD 2.0 CR to 2.0 is delayed we also delay the WSDL 1.1 binding
15:23:18 [Paco]
Jonathan: if we do the WSDL 1.1 testing we'll give that part of the spec a lot more stability
15:24:28 [Paco]
Anish: not suggesting going to PR w/o 2.0; two posisbilities: do 1.1 testing, no 2.0; or do both 1.1 and 2.0. In either case WSLD 1.1 will be stuck in PR
15:24:43 [Paco]
GlenD: no different with a note
15:25:37 [Paco]
Paco: the concern is the perception of stability of a document in CR
15:27:52 [Paco]
Jonathan: I don't really know how to do the split. For example, we are using the same namespace for the two WSDL versions
15:28:14 [Paco]
TomR: nice to have something refereceable and stable, for example for WS-I
15:28:55 [Paco]
Jonathan: the CR will have a dated URI and a change will require a namespace change
15:29:59 [Paco]
Marc: a CRC document is perfectly referenceable
15:30:38 [Paco]
Hugo: if we test with 1.1 as 2.0 comes along it is unlikely that major changes will be required
15:30:59 [Paco]
Hugo: we should also be very clear about what are the long term plans
15:31:51 [Paco]
Glen: we don;t really need to decide now. We should still go to CR and see what happens
15:32:16 [Paco]
Anish: problem is the perception people have of a CR document
15:33:02 [Paco]
Anish: how do we get people the perception that we are done with the WSDL 1.1 part - a status note will not do it
15:33:25 [Paco]
Gil: no need to rush a decision now
15:34:51 [Paco]
Marc: it is actually 'us' who is going to have the problem
15:35:04 [Paco]
Philippe: it is enough if vendors implement it
15:35:27 [Paco]
Bob: net is we want to keep the spec on the rec track and that means we need to progress on what can be tested
15:36:03 [Paco]
Bob: other option: once 1.1 is tested, we can go to REC if 2.0 seems far out, then rev the REC when 2.0 is done
15:36:04 [pauld]
WSDL 1.1 and SOAP 1.1 as notes lead to the formation of the WS-I to manage errata etc
15:36:16 [Paco]
Bob: no need to decide now
15:37:03 [pauld]
sees little need to rush on this specification, it's going to look very different as soon as a WS-Policy WG kicks off anyway
15:37:49 [Paco]
Bob:propose a hiatus for the month of August and target to complete 1.1 testing before then; at that point we decide how to status the document, note etc.
15:38:14 [Paco]
Bob: we should have more information by then
15:39:57 [Paco]
Dims: can we do the test cass at the same time for 1.1 and 2.0?
15:40:06 [Paco]
Bob: good thing to do
15:40:51 [Paco]
Bob: thinking about WS-I profiles, evidence of sucess in testing will add credibility, much more than what we 'call' the document
15:41:49 [Paco]
Bob: call for implementations, complete all that shakes out, incorporate issues and have a doc that has been partially tested; reissue CR for 2.0 implementations
15:42:02 [Paco]
Bob: that is what we'll try do
15:42:34 [Paco]
Jonathan: what parts will be implemented - can we get a matrix on who plans to oimplement what
15:43:48 [Paco]
Bob: can we delay lunch break to 12:45 and do this?
15:43:59 [Paco]
Glen: better start early and come back
15:44:43 [Paco]
Bob: breaking till 12:45
15:44:48 [Zakim]
15:45:19 [Zakim]
15:49:14 [Zakim]
15:49:28 [Zakim]
15:49:29 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has ended
15:49:30 [Zakim]
Attendees were Prasad_Yendluri, Mark_Little, [IBMCambridge], Paul_Downey, David_Illsley, prasad
16:07:49 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-addr
16:09:30 [gilp]
gilp has joined #ws-addr
16:10:29 [bob]
folks, we are on lunch break, plan to be back at 12:45 or so
16:43:09 [pauld]
pauld has joined #ws-addr
16:57:12 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has now started
16:57:19 [Zakim]
16:59:31 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
17:00:37 [Zakim]
17:00:42 [Zakim]
17:00:46 [prasad]
zakim, ??P6 is prasad
17:00:46 [Zakim]
+prasad; got it
17:03:19 [bob]
bob has joined #ws-addr
17:06:28 [Zakim]
17:06:42 [bob]
bob has joined #ws-addr
17:14:29 [bob]
we resume
17:15:06 [Paco]
Bob: plan was to create the feature/support matrix to inform our test development decisions
17:15:48 [Paco]
Geln: what is the purpose of this?
17:16:29 [Paco]
Jonathan: we are not implementing parts of the spec. we'd like to know what others are intending to test so we can consider the status of different features (at risk?)
17:16:36 [pauld]
for SOAP/Core CR testing we used the 'features' list to work out how many test cases we needed:
17:16:52 [pauld]
.. these were used to build the implementation report
17:17:12 [Paco]
Paco: the idea is to know what is the intent of each company
17:17:42 [Paco]
Glen: need to build a feature list
17:19:09 [pauld]
seems likely that beyond UsingAddressing and wsaw:Action not much is of interest to many
17:19:21 [pauld]
that still explodes to a few WSDLs
17:19:30 [Paco]
Bob: projecting a copy of the editor's draft
17:19:44 [pauld]
x SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 x WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0
17:20:10 [David_Illsley]
pauld, I'd expect the Default Action Pattern to be important to most too
17:20:24 [Paco]
Jonathan: went over the spec for conformance statements. First the WSDL markup came up - how do we implement this?
17:21:06 [Paco]
Glen: you may be asking for a generic EPR as a result of a query - based on embedded WSDL I decide if I can talk to it
17:21:45 [Paco]
Jonathan: can you serialize an EPR with embedded WSDL would be a simple test
17:22:42 [Paco]
Glen: a good test is: presupose a WSLD with 2 services; hand an EPR that at runtime selects one of the two services and the message gets to the correct place
17:23:48 [gil]
gil has joined #ws-addr
17:24:27 [Paco]
Glen: decide what interface to call assuming there are two interfaces for the service, described in the embedded WSDL
17:27:56 [Paco]
(discussion of several options)
17:29:13 [Paco]
Jonathan: this eesm circular - this is metadata after all
17:30:14 [Paco]
Jonathan: does testing one of may possible scenarios mean this feature is good?
17:30:19 [Paco]
Gln: yes
17:31:00 [Paco]
Gil: you want to do the minimun to show that the metadata was communicated - if you don't act on the metadata you cannot see if it was effectively communicated
17:31:26 [Paco]
DavidH: there is no MUST, what is the testable assertion?
17:32:22 [Paco]
Jonathan: conformance implies structural correctness
17:32:46 [Paco]
David: I cannot write a conformance test
17:32:51 [pauld]
conformance section:;%20charset=utf-8#conformance
17:33:03 [Paco]
Glen: you can if you design a scenario in which this mechanism is used
17:33:20 [Paco]
DavidH: you cannot test w/o further assumptions
17:33:30 [pauld]
scenario is effectively a Turing test
17:33:33 [Paco]
Geln: you must make assumptions to test
17:33:53 [Paco]
DavidH: the reason to o this is to make sure it is implementable
17:33:57 [pauld]
s/Turing/reverse Turing/
17:34:09 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-addr
17:34:14 [Paco]
Jonathan: and also that it is sufficiently interesting to make it worth keeping in the spec
17:34:48 [pauld]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:34:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IBMCambridge], David_Illsley, prasad, Paul_Downey
17:34:59 [Paco]
Jonathan: what about putting a bunch of EPRs with embedded metadata in our test documents
17:35:07 [Paco]
Glen: then what?
17:35:17 [Zakim]
17:35:23 [Paco]
Marc: does not seem too useful
17:35:51 [Zakim]
17:38:10 [Paco]
Bob: how many test here, 1 or 2 (interface, and service, endpoint)?
17:40:28 [Paco]
Anish: interface narrowing is a use case: service suports many interfaces, but this EPR is used with only one of them
17:40:44 [Paco]
Paco: also validating that the interface supported by the EPR is the one the client expects
17:41:07 [Paco]
Jonathan: we can implement scenarios on WCF even if we don;t have much use for them
17:43:15 [Paco]
Jonathan: we are really testing the richness of the framework to insert and extract metadata in EPRs
17:43:43 [Paco]
Glen: there is no requirement ot use these fields - if they are used you should understand what that information means
17:47:12 [Paco]
DavidH: concerned about having to build a non-tribila applicaiton to test this
17:47:32 [Paco]
Paco: validation is trivial to implement but is a very real use case
17:48:02 [Paco]
Jonathan: Section 2.2 is the same as 2.1, just embedded by value
17:48:21 [Zakim]
17:49:48 [Paco]
Bob: looks at section 3.1 UsingAddressing extension
17:49:59 [Paco]
Bob: several MUST here
17:50:18 [Paco]
Jonathan: 3 flavors: extension, policy assertion and SOAP module
17:50:46 [Paco]
Jonathan: not requiring that you understand all
17:51:27 [Paco]
Jonathan: want to see whether people uses WSDL extension versus SOAP module
17:51:40 [Zakim]
17:51:41 [Paco]
Glen: I know what to do when I see the module in the WSDL
17:51:55 [Paco]
Jonathan: your code needs to recognize the module
17:52:20 [Paco]
Glen: behavior is already defined
17:52:59 [Paco]
Jonathan: here we have to understand the syntax
17:54:15 [Paco]
Anish: what is the policy assertion, WS-Policy?
17:55:34 [Paco]
Bob:this is the unnamed policy framework
17:55:43 [Paco]
Jonathan: then we have anonymous
17:56:48 [Paco]
Bob: Section 4: extensions ot WSDL - checking conformance section
17:57:09 [Paco]
Jonathan: falls under endpoint conformance whihc we can test
18:00:55 [Paco]
Jonathan: are there any features in addition to the UsingAddressing one? Action is not really testable w/o it; embedding EPRs may be testable w/o UsingAddressing but that does not seem to add much value
18:01:32 [Paco]
Marc: need to test the algorithm for default action values
18:02:15 [Paco]
Jonathan: is this a separate feature from conformance point of view, not wrt having separate use cases
18:02:49 [Paco]
Jonathan: writes possible tests/features from section 4 on board
18:03:06 [Zakim]
18:04:07 [Paco]
Jonathan: lists: embedded EPRs, destibation, ref. parameters, Action, default action algorithm
18:04:42 [Paco]
Jonathan: Section 5, we can write tests for each MEP
18:07:58 [Paco]
Jonathan: marks what MS will likely support on the table in the whiteboard
18:10:20 [Paco]
Marc: indicates what Sun is likely to support
18:10:26 [Paco]
Paco: same for IBM
18:12:58 [Paco]
Dims: considering maybe not as product but would include all in a test suite
18:15:01 [Paco]
Gil: BEA interested in supporting all features, but may not be ready by this Summer
18:17:21 [Paco]
Anish: Oracle is a 'maybe' for all features
18:20:25 [Paco]
Jonathan: output of this meeting should be the list of features and whether there is any at risk - none seems so far
18:32:30 [Paco]
18:32:48 [Paco]
Bob: should we marke these metadata related features at risk?
18:33:10 [Paco]
Paco: I would not; we have at least 2 possible implementations and they are easily tested
18:33:36 [Paco]
Bob: there is a difference in that failing to support them would then send us back to WD
18:34:29 [Paco]
Bob: checking the charter to understand the impact of this decision
18:35:22 [Paco]
Hugo: WSDL metadata is mentioned in the charter but corresponds to WSDL 2.0 support
18:36:17 [Paco]
Jonathan: other CR criteria issues is the dependency other groups take on this specifications
18:37:08 [Paco]
Bob: current version of W3C process document: CR exit does not require an implementation, but it is up to the director to approve if a convincing argument is made
18:37:41 [Paco]
Bob: since our charter sets no specific requirements either, I suggest we go ahead with the full feature set regardless of the questions
18:38:40 [Paco]
Bob: on the way some of them are tested
18:38:56 [Paco]
Paco: I would not say that we don't know how to test
18:39:02 [Paco]
Bob: we have too many options
18:39:13 [Paco]
Anish: it is easy to define a minimal bar on which all agree
18:40:07 [Paco]
Anish: there is a minimal set and there are more sophisticated testing methods; the discussion is what of those tests to select
18:40:27 [Paco]
Anish: the minimal is being able to include and parse the metadata in the EPR
18:41:22 [Paco]
Gil: but that does not test anything
18:43:30 [Paco]
Bob: displays the summary table; metadata features have 3 possible imple; soap module none so far; rest have 5
18:43:53 [Paco]
Bob: we will revisit the table and add a second column after the July tests
18:45:14 [Paco]
Bob: we have the table and a target timeframe. We now need to figure the test cases, test harness etc.
18:45:46 [Paco]
Jonathan: an exit criteria is the existence of a test suite
18:45:59 [Paco]
Bob: breaking for 15 minutes
19:05:21 [Paco]
Bob: back in business
19:05:35 [Paco]
Bob: so we mark no feature to be at risk
19:06:02 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
19:06:22 [Paco]
Bob: discuss progression to CR. We already agreed on the document we can move ahead, Marc will commit changes tonight
19:06:52 [gil]
gil has joined #ws-addr
19:07:30 [Paco]
Bob: anything else we need to doto the document?
19:08:12 [Paco]
Bob: what is the end date for CR?
19:08:13 [Zakim]
19:08:16 [prasad]
zakim, ??P1 is prasad
19:08:16 [Zakim]
+prasad; got it
19:08:32 [Paco]
Hugo: it is to state a date before which we don't go out of CR
19:08:46 [Paco]
Bob: how it relates to the testing calendar?
19:08:58 [Paco]
Hugo: a little before the end of the testing period
19:10:27 [Paco]
Bob: checks calendar, around end of June - how about June 30 or July 7?
19:10:47 [Paco]
Paco: let's do June 30.
19:12:19 [Paco]
Bob: Since a call on July 3 would be difficult, there is no essentially loss in taking July 7 instead
19:12:49 [Paco]
Bob: July 7 will then be the end of CR interval
19:14:04 [Paco]
Bob: Minutes of the last minutes are approved
19:14:51 [Paco]
Bob: back to the table - how to generate test cases for the features on the table - let's start with Section 4, should be easier
19:15:59 [Paco]
Jonathan: will we have a test assertions documents so tests can be generated automatically?
19:16:35 [Paco]
Jonathan: methodology: get a log out of the test case run, check the log against assertion document
19:18:03 [Paco]
Glen: adding any kind of metadata requires someone to consume the metadata
19:19:06 [Paco]
Jonathan: assume there is a WSDL with different Actions, you test that the WSDL is read and the right Actions go into the right messages
19:19:39 [Paco]
Bob: projecting assertion document from prior test suite
19:20:21 [Paco]
Bob: we extracted the MUSTs, etc into a set of explicit assertions
19:20:33 [Paco]
Jonathan: we had soem XPath testable expressions too
19:20:48 [Paco]
Bob: not in this document, possibly somewhere else
19:23:28 [Paco]
Bob: the assertions document looks very good. What next?
19:24:07 [Paco]
Jonathan: we had a set of XPaths, MEPs, etc that state specific properties that drive form the assertions and can be tested agains the run logs
19:24:19 [pauld]
pauld has joined #ws-addr
19:27:57 [Paco]
Bob: opens testcases.xml, shows specific document names, MEPs, XPaths to check
19:28:10 [Paco]
Hugo: there is testcases.html also
19:29:32 [Zakim]
19:29:46 [Paco]
(checking the file...)
19:32:42 [Paco]
Paul: explains how the file was built, answers questions, provides details
19:33:06 [bob]
bob has joined #ws-addr
19:38:04 [Paco]
Glen: you can do al lwith one WSDL; question is whether you need to exchnage messages also
19:39:19 [pauld]
first round was driven by 'features' higher level than 'assertions' (generated from MUST/SHOULD statements)
19:39:35 [pauld]
goal was to test the spec, not implementations
19:40:09 [Paco]
Paco: Do you check assertions against both the WSDL and the messages? they are supposed to be ocrrelated.
19:40:34 [Paco]
Jonathan: we already truted people to do the right thing we can do that now again
19:40:55 [pauld]
I'm not proposing we don't exchange messages, just exploring methods of reducing the number of WSDLs needed to test, which is the expensive bit
19:41:16 [pauld]
zakim, who is on the phone?
19:41:16 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IBMCambridge], prasad, Paul_Downey
19:41:40 [Paco]
Jonathan: the WSDL will be static so the only error is if people mistype the Actions, etc.
19:43:01 [Paco]
Glen: we can put forward a few tests and see of we can have a single WSDL for all. We may be able to have a single WSLD document but you need several services so we may as well have several documents
19:45:18 [Paco]
Paco: how we decide feature/test granularity -affects the feature at risk decision
19:46:01 [Paco]
Jonathan: it also helsp us partition the job
19:46:36 [Paco]
Bob: regarding the structure, not all are equally tempered from the point of view of working the details and the granularity
19:47:14 [Paco]
Bob: can we take the next step from the first set we have identified in the implementation table
19:48:30 [Paco]
Bob: the goal (as Paul said) is to validate the spec, not the implementations
19:48:41 [Paco]
Jonathan: we care less about the edge cases
19:49:24 [Paco]
Jonathan: once we have a framework hings accelerate very much, it gets easy to extend and add new tests
19:50:55 [Paco]
Paul: a feature list does not say all test we need, just which ones we need at least; more can be added
19:51:16 [Paco]
Paul: that detrmines if a we pass CR
19:52:10 [Paco]
Bob: can we move this first list to the assertion level? have the next level ready tomorrow or the next call
19:52:27 [Paco]
Glen: we should do 2-3 soup-to-nut test cases
19:52:53 [Paco]
Jonathan: we can split into subroups that take different features and get it refined
19:54:16 [Paco]
Bob: to do tomorrow: break down the feature list one morelevel of detail, annotated with what the spec requires we test. Define what kind of stress to put on the infrastructure
19:55:20 [Paco]
Bob: goal is to answer those questions tomorrow. Some is simple, but the soup to nuts test structure is the harder, we should focus on that first thing tomorrow
19:55:40 [Zakim]
19:58:30 [Zakim]
20:07:17 [bob]
rrsagent make logs public
20:08:13 [bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
20:08:45 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
20:08:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
20:15:31 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr
20:18:37 [Zakim]
20:18:38 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has ended
20:18:40 [Zakim]
Attendees were [IBMCambridge], David_Illsley, prasad, Paul_Downey
20:22:36 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-addr
21:16:31 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
22:07:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-addr