13:46:13 RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr 13:46:13 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/05/03-ws-addr-irc 13:46:49 Chair: Bob_Freund 13:47:39 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006May/0001.html 13:47:47 pauld has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006May/0001.html 13:49:02 scribe:Paco 13:49:32 Hugo: Brings up issue of leaving 2006/03 schema location 13:49:43 people agree 13:51:00 Bob:there is a porposal by Katy 13:51:15 Paco: just ot maintain the 2005/08 schema available at that location 13:51:23 Hugo: that is no problem 13:51:24 http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/ws-addr.xsd 13:51:32 anish has joined #ws-addr 13:52:02 Hugo: no differences between normative and informative references in the specs; causes some confusion 13:52:28 Hugo: Distinction hekps understand dependencies 13:52:53 Hugo: Phillipe went over the doc and organized normative/informative refs 13:53:25 s/porposal/proposal/ 13:53:40 Hugo: reviews informative/nirmative refs in document 13:53:56 Jonathan: Why is the WWW architecture reference normative? 13:53:59 Gil has joined #ws-addr 13:54:22 Jonathan: there are no MUSTs there 13:54:34 Hugo: Right, that is arguable I guess 13:55:10 Hugo: is it because the use of "recommends"? 13:55:34 Jonathan: it is a WWW-A 'recommends', just advice 13:55:59 Jonathan: It is unclear what it means to conform to the WWW-A document 13:56:36 Hugo: goes over normative references; very few 13:57:10 Hugo: Let's review SOAP binding references 13:57:32 Gilp has joined #ws-addr 13:58:38 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 DavidH: Why do we have WSDL 2.0 13:59:54 Hugo: WSA may be used with WSDL 14:00:06 DavidH: Security is not normative? 14:00:21 Hugo: We don't require compliance with WSSEC 14:00:52 DavidD: We use the notation 14:01:06 Hugo: But WSSEC is not about notations, is about security mechanisms 14:05:03 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 Hugo: we should do this for the WSDL bindign document also 14:06:31 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 TomR: When is this really a REC? 14:06:59 Hugo: Sometime, but there is nothing more we need to do 14:07:06 TomR: weeks? 14:07:16 Hugo: yes 14:08:25 Bob: Next agenda issue: final incorporation of lc-comments into WSDL binding document 14:08:37 Bob: we'll separate references in this document as well 14:09:27 Bob: (projects reference list) which are non-normative? 14:09:37 Bob: WSSEC again? 14:09:52 Bob: same notational dependency 14:10:34 Anish: Mentions to SOAP in several places 14:11:18 Anish: references are to both SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 14:11:29 gil has joined #ws-addr 14:11:46 Jonathan: there are some MUSTs as well 14:11:49 -Paul_Downey 14:12:04 Anish: should we add SOAP 1.1 as well? "mU" means both 14:13:25 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 has joined #ws-addr 14:15:08 Bob: the proposal is to add a reference to SOAP 1.1 as nirmative, since it is not there now 14:15:45 +Mark_Little 14:15:47 -Mark_Little 14:15:50 +Mark_Little 14:16:48 Jonathan: WS-Policy is a note/member submission so it can be referenced now as informative 14:18:09 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 Bob: approved 14:18:50 Bob: Gil raises referencing WS-Policy (checks document references to policy) 14:19:43 Hugo: WS-Policy has been submitted but there has not been any change - it could be referenced before as well 14:20:07 Bob: would be non-normative (everyone agrees) 14:20:40 Hugo: good chance that when we republish there will be a draft out form the WG that can be referenced 14:21:27 pauld has joined #ws-addr 14:21:33 Bob: how about an editorial note directing to expand the existing reference into a referenceable verion 14:21:43 Anish: there was a referenceable version already 14:22:01 Paco: but now we don't have the changing versions problem 14:22:14 Jonathan: and the standardization intent is now clear 14:22:29 gil has joined #ws-addr 14:22:30 dhull has joined #ws-addr 14:22:58 TomR: the referenceable version will change as the WG start working 14:23:41 -Mark_Little 14:24:04 Anish: suggests we wait till the WG is formed and a draft is available 14:24:17 +Mark_Little 14:24:19 -Mark_Little 14:24:20 +Mark_Little 14:24:37 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 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 Bob: issue should be reopen at the conclusion of CR phase 14:25:48 rrsagent, where am i? 14:25:48 See http://www.w3.org/2006/05/03-ws-addr-irc#T14-25-48 14:26:13 Bob: approved: open issue, and refer till end of CR 14:26:18 rrsagent, make logs member-visible 14:26:49 Bob: other items under lc-incorporate draft issue 14:27:20 Tom: Hugo's comment on reomoving editorial note in 3.1.1 14:27:36 gil has joined #ws-addr 14:27:36 Bob: was not acted upon, so it will be removed by editors 14:27:43 Bob: agreed 14:29:19 Bob: 3.2 anonymous element, first sentence. Has a reference to the SOAP module that may be a bit confusing 14:29:23 -Mark_Little 14:30:12 Hugo: suggest add clarification "see Section 3.3"; also, introducing the wsoap prefix 14:30:21 Bob: agreed. Anything else? 14:30:46 Bob: has people checked that their lc issues are correctly incorporated in the document? 14:30:54 (people say yes) 14:31:29 Hugo: there is an uncapitalized must in Seciton 4.1. Actually two occurrences 14:31:35 (people agree) 14:32:43 (more discussion) 14:32:59 Bob: should the 1st must in 4.1 be capitalized? 14:33:11 Bob: agreed 14:34:18 Bob: 2nd use? 14:34:37 TonyR: would be a 'would' since is an example 14:34:52 Bob: agreed 14:35:11 Bob: is this document ready? 14:35:32 Bob: group agrees that the document is completed 14:35:39 TonyR: do we need to vote? 14:35:51 Bob:only if there is dissent 14:36:48 Bob: taking a break until 11 14:37:00 -Prasad_Yendluri 14:55:52 David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr 14:56:27 +David_Illsley 14:56:28 -David_Illsley 14:56:29 +David_Illsley 15:03:06 prasad has joined #ws-addr 15:03:43 +??P28 15:03:49 zakim, ??P28 is prasad 15:03:49 +prasad; got it 15:04:44 bob has joined #ws-addr 15:05:24 Bob: next issue: decide CR exit conditions 15:05:46 Bob: requirement of 4 interop implementations was removed to WSDL binding 15:06:01 gil has joined #ws-addr 15:06:07 Bob: a minimun of 2 is what we prefer and would be an adequate criterion 15:06:31 Bob: issue is that the doc covers two versions of WSDL so we depend on interopeable WSDL 2.0 15:06:58 Jonathan: currently in CR, a bit deapairing of getting implementers to step up; more optimistic now 15:07:20 Jonathan: there is Woden with a WSDL validator and a paring WSDL into the component model 15:07:47 Jonathan: lookint at doing useful stuff with that component model representation - signatures etc. 15:08:07 GlenD: Axis 1 + Woden is unlikely, Axis 2 + Woden is being worked on 15:08:23 Dims: yes, we're working onit 15:08:51 Jonathan: between IBM and OS, WSO2 there will be an implementation based on OS 15:09:21 Jonathan: Canon has an implementation as well, so we seem to have 2 implementations or the expectation of having them 15:09:36 +Paul_Downey 15:09:58 Jonathan: we we may meet the 2 implementation req this year, but not by the September timeframe 15:10:26 Jonathan: many vendors work on Woden but it counts as a sinlge implementation for WSDL 2.0 15:10:49 Jonathan: for WSA testing, there will not be enough infrastructure before the Fall 15:12:19 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 Bob: so we could take the document and publish as a note - does not require interoperablity 15:13:12 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 Bob: they are not excusive options 15:14:01 Marc: if we leave it at CR there is no need for a note 15:14:34 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 Hugo: publishing a CR means you intend to go to REC, chances are low in our timeframe 15:15:51 Bob: what is the best guess for having 2 WSDL 2.0 implementations? 15:16:00 Jonathan: end of the year 15:16:39 Jonathan: I am using the time it took us (WSA) as a reference 15:17:11 Jonathan: that is 6 months for a much less complex spec with more participants 15:18:26 Dims: Axis 2 C is also coming out and counts as a second implementation 15:19:30 Philippe: people are waiting to see if WSDL 2 is real, so they are not pushing implementation work 15:19:49 Jonathan: issues are FP and http binding 15:21:40 Jonathan: will probably pick up slowly as IBM, WSO2 implement it and customers start asking for it to other vendors 15:22:08 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 Anish: if WSLD 2.0 CR to 2.0 is delayed we also delay the WSDL 1.1 binding 15:23:18 Jonathan: if we do the WSDL 1.1 testing we'll give that part of the spec a lot more stability 15:24:28 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 GlenD: no different with a note 15:25:37 Paco: the concern is the perception of stability of a document in CR 15:27:52 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 TomR: nice to have something refereceable and stable, for example for WS-I 15:28:55 Jonathan: the CR will have a dated URI and a change will require a namespace change 15:29:59 Marc: a CRC document is perfectly referenceable 15:30:38 Hugo: if we test with 1.1 as 2.0 comes along it is unlikely that major changes will be required 15:30:59 Hugo: we should also be very clear about what are the long term plans 15:31:51 Glen: we don;t really need to decide now. We should still go to CR and see what happens 15:32:16 Anish: problem is the perception people have of a CR document 15:33:02 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 Gil: no need to rush a decision now 15:34:51 Marc: it is actually 'us' who is going to have the problem 15:35:04 Philippe: it is enough if vendors implement it 15:35:27 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 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 WSDL 1.1 and SOAP 1.1 as notes lead to the formation of the WS-I to manage errata etc 15:36:16 Bob: no need to decide now 15:37:03 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 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 Bob: we should have more information by then 15:39:57 Dims: can we do the test cass at the same time for 1.1 and 2.0? 15:40:06 Bob: good thing to do 15:40:51 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 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 Bob: that is what we'll try do 15:42:34 Jonathan: what parts will be implemented - can we get a matrix on who plans to oimplement what 15:43:48 Bob: can we delay lunch break to 12:45 and do this? 15:43:59 Glen: better start early and come back 15:44:43 Bob: breaking till 12:45 15:44:48 -prasad 15:45:19 -Paul_Downey 15:49:14 -David_Illsley 15:49:28 -[IBMCambridge] 15:49:29 WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has ended 15:49:30 Attendees were Prasad_Yendluri, Mark_Little, [IBMCambridge], Paul_Downey, David_Illsley, prasad 16:07:49 dorchard has joined #ws-addr 16:09:30 gilp has joined #ws-addr 16:10:29 folks, we are on lunch break, plan to be back at 12:45 or so 16:43:09 pauld has joined #ws-addr 16:57:12 WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has now started 16:57:19 +[IBMCambridge] 16:59:31 Paco has joined #ws-addr 17:00:37 +David_Illsley 17:00:42 +??P6 17:00:46 zakim, ??P6 is prasad 17:00:46 +prasad; got it 17:03:19 bob has joined #ws-addr 17:06:28 +Paul_Downey 17:06:42 bob has joined #ws-addr 17:14:29 we resume 17:15:06 Bob: plan was to create the feature/support matrix to inform our test development decisions 17:15:48 Geln: what is the purpose of this? 17:16:29 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 for SOAP/Core CR testing we used the 'features' list to work out how many test cases we needed: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/features/ 17:16:52 .. these were used to build the implementation report 17:17:12 Paco: the idea is to know what is the intent of each company 17:17:42 Glen: need to build a feature list 17:19:09 seems likely that beyond UsingAddressing and wsaw:Action not much is of interest to many 17:19:21 that still explodes to a few WSDLs 17:19:30 Bob: projecting a copy of the editor's draft 17:19:44 x SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 x WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 17:20:10 pauld, I'd expect the Default Action Pattern to be important to most too 17:20:24 Jonathan: went over the spec for conformance statements. First the WSDL markup came up - how do we implement this? 17:21:06 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 Jonathan: can you serialize an EPR with embedded WSDL would be a simple test 17:22:42 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 has joined #ws-addr 17:24:27 Glen: decide what interface to call assuming there are two interfaces for the service, described in the embedded WSDL 17:27:56 (discussion of several options) 17:29:13 Jonathan: this eesm circular - this is metadata after all 17:30:14 Jonathan: does testing one of may possible scenarios mean this feature is good? 17:30:19 Gln: yes 17:31:00 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 DavidH: there is no MUST, what is the testable assertion? 17:32:22 Jonathan: conformance implies structural correctness 17:32:46 David: I cannot write a conformance test 17:32:51 conformance section: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr-wsdl.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#conformance 17:33:03 Glen: you can if you design a scenario in which this mechanism is used 17:33:20 DavidH: you cannot test w/o further assumptions 17:33:30 scenario is effectively a Turing test 17:33:33 Geln: you must make assumptions to test 17:33:53 DavidH: the reason to o this is to make sure it is implementable 17:33:57 s/Turing/reverse Turing/ 17:34:09 dorchard has joined #ws-addr 17:34:14 Jonathan: and also that it is sufficiently interesting to make it worth keeping in the spec 17:34:48 zakim, who is on the phone? 17:34:48 On the phone I see [IBMCambridge], David_Illsley, prasad, Paul_Downey 17:34:59 Jonathan: what about putting a bunch of EPRs with embedded metadata in our test documents 17:35:07 Glen: then what? 17:35:17 -David_Illsley 17:35:23 Marc: does not seem too useful 17:35:51 +David_Illsley 17:38:10 Bob: how many test here, 1 or 2 (interface, and service, endpoint)? 17:40:28 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: also validating that the interface supported by the EPR is the one the client expects 17:41:07 Jonathan: we can implement scenarios on WCF even if we don;t have much use for them 17:43:15 Jonathan: we are really testing the richness of the framework to insert and extract metadata in EPRs 17:43:43 Glen: there is no requirement ot use these fields - if they are used you should understand what that information means 17:47:12 DavidH: concerned about having to build a non-tribila applicaiton to test this 17:47:32 Paco: validation is trivial to implement but is a very real use case 17:48:02 Jonathan: Section 2.2 is the same as 2.1, just embedded by value 17:48:21 -Paul_Downey 17:49:48 Bob: looks at section 3.1 UsingAddressing extension 17:49:59 Bob: several MUST here 17:50:18 Jonathan: 3 flavors: extension, policy assertion and SOAP module 17:50:46 Jonathan: not requiring that you understand all 17:51:27 Jonathan: want to see whether people uses WSDL extension versus SOAP module 17:51:40 -prasad 17:51:41 Glen: I know what to do when I see the module in the WSDL 17:51:55 Jonathan: your code needs to recognize the module 17:52:20 Glen: behavior is already defined 17:52:59 Jonathan: here we have to understand the syntax 17:54:15 Anish: what is the policy assertion, WS-Policy? 17:55:34 Bob:this is the unnamed policy framework 17:55:43 Jonathan: then we have anonymous 17:56:48 Bob: Section 4: extensions ot WSDL - checking conformance section 17:57:09 Jonathan: falls under endpoint conformance whihc we can test 18:00:55 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 Marc: need to test the algorithm for default action values 18:02:15 Jonathan: is this a separate feature from conformance point of view, not wrt having separate use cases 18:02:49 Jonathan: writes possible tests/features from section 4 on board 18:03:06 -David_Illsley 18:04:07 Jonathan: lists: embedded EPRs, destibation, ref. parameters, Action, default action algorithm 18:04:42 Jonathan: Section 5, we can write tests for each MEP 18:07:58 Jonathan: marks what MS will likely support on the table in the whiteboard 18:10:20 Marc: indicates what Sun is likely to support 18:10:26 Paco: same for IBM 18:12:58 Dims: considering maybe not as product but would include all in a test suite 18:15:01 Gil: BEA interested in supporting all features, but may not be ready by this Summer 18:17:21 Anish: Oracle is a 'maybe' for all features 18:20:25 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 Bob 18:32:48 Bob: should we marke these metadata related features at risk? 18:33:10 Paco: I would not; we have at least 2 possible implementations and they are easily tested 18:33:36 Bob: there is a difference in that failing to support them would then send us back to WD 18:34:29 Bob: checking the charter to understand the impact of this decision 18:35:22 Hugo: WSDL metadata is mentioned in the charter but corresponds to WSDL 2.0 support 18:36:17 Jonathan: other CR criteria issues is the dependency other groups take on this specifications 18:37:08 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 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 Bob: on the way some of them are tested 18:38:56 Paco: I would not say that we don't know how to test 18:39:02 Bob: we have too many options 18:39:13 Anish: it is easy to define a minimal bar on which all agree 18:40:07 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 Anish: the minimal is being able to include and parse the metadata in the EPR 18:41:22 Gil: but that does not test anything 18:43:30 Bob: displays the summary table; metadata features have 3 possible imple; soap module none so far; rest have 5 18:43:53 Bob: we will revisit the table and add a second column after the July tests 18:45:14 Bob: we have the table and a target timeframe. We now need to figure the test cases, test harness etc. 18:45:46 Jonathan: an exit criteria is the existence of a test suite 18:45:59 Bob: breaking for 15 minutes 19:05:21 Bob: back in business 19:05:35 Bob: so we mark no feature to be at risk 19:06:02 anish has joined #ws-addr 19:06:22 Bob: discuss progression to CR. We already agreed on the document we can move ahead, Marc will commit changes tonight 19:06:52 gil has joined #ws-addr 19:07:30 Bob: anything else we need to doto the document? 19:08:12 Bob: what is the end date for CR? 19:08:13 +??P1 19:08:16 zakim, ??P1 is prasad 19:08:16 +prasad; got it 19:08:32 Hugo: it is to state a date before which we don't go out of CR 19:08:46 Bob: how it relates to the testing calendar? 19:08:58 Hugo: a little before the end of the testing period 19:10:27 Bob: checks calendar, around end of June - how about June 30 or July 7? 19:10:47 Paco: let's do June 30. 19:12:19 Bob: Since a call on July 3 would be difficult, there is no essentially loss in taking July 7 instead 19:12:49 Bob: July 7 will then be the end of CR interval 19:14:04 Bob: Minutes of the last minutes are approved 19:14:51 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 Jonathan: will we have a test assertions documents so tests can be generated automatically? 19:16:35 Jonathan: methodology: get a log out of the test case run, check the log against assertion document 19:18:03 Glen: adding any kind of metadata requires someone to consume the metadata 19:19:06 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 Bob: projecting assertion document from prior test suite 19:20:21 Bob: we extracted the MUSTs, etc into a set of explicit assertions 19:20:33 Jonathan: we had soem XPath testable expressions too 19:20:48 Bob: not in this document, possibly somewhere else 19:23:28 Bob: the assertions document looks very good. What next? 19:24:07 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 has joined #ws-addr 19:27:57 Bob: opens testcases.xml, shows specific document names, MEPs, XPaths to check 19:28:10 Hugo: there is testcases.html also 19:29:32 +Paul_Downey 19:29:46 (checking the file...) 19:32:42 Paul: explains how the file was built, answers questions, provides details 19:33:06 bob has joined #ws-addr 19:38:04 Glen: you can do al lwith one WSDL; question is whether you need to exchnage messages also 19:39:19 first round was driven by 'features' higher level than 'assertions' (generated from MUST/SHOULD statements) 19:39:35 goal was to test the spec, not implementations 19:40:09 Paco: Do you check assertions against both the WSDL and the messages? they are supposed to be ocrrelated. 19:40:34 Jonathan: we already truted people to do the right thing we can do that now again 19:40:55 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 zakim, who is on the phone? 19:41:16 On the phone I see [IBMCambridge], prasad, Paul_Downey 19:41:40 Jonathan: the WSDL will be static so the only error is if people mistype the Actions, etc. 19:43:01 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: how we decide feature/test granularity -affects the feature at risk decision 19:46:01 Jonathan: it also helsp us partition the job 19:46:36 Bob: regarding the structure, not all are equally tempered from the point of view of working the details and the granularity 19:47:14 Bob: can we take the next step from the first set we have identified in the implementation table 19:48:30 Bob: the goal (as Paul said) is to validate the spec, not the implementations 19:48:41 Jonathan: we care less about the edge cases 19:49:24 Jonathan: once we have a framework hings accelerate very much, it gets easy to extend and add new tests 19:50:55 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 Paul: that detrmines if a we pass CR 19:52:10 Bob: can we move this first list to the assertion level? have the next level ready tomorrow or the next call 19:52:27 Glen: we should do 2-3 soup-to-nut test cases 19:52:53 Jonathan: we can split into subroups that take different features and get it refined 19:54:16 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 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 -Paul_Downey 19:58:30 -prasad 20:07:17 rrsagent make logs public 20:08:13 rrsagent, make logs public 20:08:45 rrsagent, generate minutes 20:08:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/05/03-ws-addr-minutes.html bob 20:15:31 bob has left #ws-addr 20:18:37 -[IBMCambridge] 20:18:38 WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has ended 20:18:40 Attendees were [IBMCambridge], David_Illsley, prasad, Paul_Downey 20:22:36 dorchard has joined #ws-addr 21:16:31 dhull has joined #ws-addr 22:07:44 Zakim has left #ws-addr