IRC log of ws-addr on 2006-05-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:52:19 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
12:52:19 [RRSAgent]
logging to
12:52:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-addr
12:52:45 [pauld]
zakim, this will be the "to nuts" WG
12:52:45 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, pauld
12:52:58 [pauld]
zakim, this will be sad
12:52:58 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, pauld
12:53:05 [pauld]
zakim, this will be s-ad
12:53:05 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, pauld
12:53:11 [pauld]
zakim, this will be ad
12:53:11 [Zakim]
ok, pauld; I see WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
12:53:45 [pauld]
rrsagent, make logs member-visible
13:00:28 [pauld]
13:08:32 [marc]
zakim, who is on the phone ?
13:08:32 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has not yet started, marc
13:08:33 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, marc, pauld, dhull, David_Illsley
13:10:13 [pauld]
zakim, don't get me started
13:10:13 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'don't get me started', pauld
13:10:21 [pauld]
zakim, ?
13:10:22 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, pauld.
13:10:54 [pauld]
zakim, George_Bush is really an idiot
13:10:54 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'George_Bush is really an idiot', pauld
13:11:03 [pauld]
zakim, George_Bush is really an_idiot
13:11:03 [Zakim]
sorry, pauld, I do not recognize a party named 'George_Bush'
13:12:51 [bob_]
bob_ has joined #ws-addr
13:12:52 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has now started
13:12:59 [Zakim]
13:13:08 [bob_]
we are working on the phone
13:14:06 [Zakim]
13:14:35 [bob_]
the axe seemed to work.
13:14:47 [Zakim]
13:20:52 [bob_]
folks to send in testamonials ASAP like yesterday
13:21:35 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
13:22:31 [bob_]
Topic: test framework
13:23:37 [pauld]
points the WG at the SOAP/core WSDL documents as a starting point:
13:23:43 [pauld]
13:23:54 [bob_]
tom: Will the test wsdl do all the way to the end services:
13:25:05 [pauld]
they're escaped inside this document:
13:25:32 [pauld]
13:26:25 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
13:26:44 [gil]
gil has joined #ws-addr
13:27:08 [Paco]
Bob: checking links sent by Paul
13:27:21 [Paco]
13:27:32 [Paco]
Bob: checking the links that Paul sent
13:28:27 [Paco]
Paul: wsdl describe an exchange and there is an expectation of certain messages/behaviors to take place
13:28:41 [pauld]
13:29:35 [Paco]
Jonathan: we can take out Paul's document and throw our markup - in WSDL require tru and false flavors
13:29:56 [Paco]
Glen: Binding A/B/C have using addressing required/no or no marker
13:30:15 [pauld]
we also have testcases 1107 and 1207 which exchanged refps containing WSDL documents:
13:30:16 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
13:30:34 [Paco]
Jonathan: The WSDL we have implies addressing is required
13:30:49 [Zakim]
13:30:57 [Paco]
Hugo: this is WSDL 2.0
13:31:41 [Zakim]
13:31:43 [Paco]
Bob: (opens wsdl 1.1 document)
13:32:04 [Paco]
Jonathan: try to have the fewer # of WSDLs
13:33:10 [Paco]
(Philippe edits document)
13:34:52 [Paco]
Gil: remember that we don't want to modify a binding of the protocol test files, this needs to be a new binding
13:35:02 [gil]
13:36:08 [Paco]
Jonathan: a test maps to one message exchange, i.e. one operation
13:38:31 [Paco]
Anish: need to use separate endpoints, since incompatible bindings cannot live on the same endpoint.
13:39:24 [Paco]
Philippe: we added UsingAddressing to the binding with wsdl:require=true; now we add a second one with required=false, adding a new port
13:39:51 [Zakim]
13:41:17 [Paco]
Anish: should not actually provide the service since the address depends on each implementation - just leave a pattern
13:41:51 [Paco]
Philippe: next, we put addressing on the port
13:42:22 [Paco]
Anish: markup cannot be in both the binding and the port
13:43:06 [Paco]
Anish: need 3 bindings - usingaddr required, usingaddr not required, and no usingaddr specified
13:43:56 [Paco]
Gil: can we import the binding used for the core tests?
13:45:26 [Paco]
Anish: better have self contained wsdl documents, importing gets complex
13:46:06 [Paco]
Jonathan: there are message artifacts defined, we need to check those
13:47:07 [gil]
gil has joined #ws-addr
13:49:49 [pauld]
avoiding import/include is worth going for - if necessary I suggest use XSLT/Perl to assemble test documents from parts
13:49:58 [pauld]
13:50:27 [Paco]
Jonathan: the overview document in the testcases folder may have the list of messages and tests
13:51:10 [Paco]
Jonathan: the "message" links in each test point to the right messages
13:52:25 [Paco]
Anish: wsdl required=false needs two messages, w/ and w/o wsa headers
13:53:21 [Paco]
Anish: we can use the same messages with the right modification in all cases
13:54:02 [Paco]
Bob: at this point it is clear that we need to pick someone to lead the testing activity, be the point of coordination as Paul and friends did before
13:55:38 [Paco]
Bob: we should create a new tree, testsuitewsdl
13:56:20 [Paco]
Bob: similar structure as with testcases
13:56:29 [Paco]
Jonathan: not everything is needed however
13:57:27 [Paco]
Bob: makes a testcases, documents subdirectories
14:00:15 [Paco]
Bob: breaking now, back at 10:30
14:04:48 [Zakim]
14:38:43 [Zakim]
14:38:46 [Zakim]
14:38:47 [Zakim]
14:42:02 [Zakim]
14:42:51 [bob_]
hi foilks, lets restart
14:43:41 [Paco]
Bob:we have a first cut at a test WSDL into the documents directory
14:44:01 [Paco]
Bob: how do we get to a more complete expansion of these test cases and parse the work out
14:44:16 [Paco]
Bob: back to the features table from yesterday
14:45:45 [Paco]
Bob: seems that the MEPs section in there needs to be expanded; each MEP will be as much work as some other features
14:46:21 [Paco]
Bob: I would like to see someone volunteer to lead the test work; otherwise we'll do it in committee
14:47:06 [Paco]
Bob: no one here
14:48:36 [Paco]
Bob: I asked Paul, who did an excellent work last time. But it is unfair to ask him again
14:48:47 [Paco]
Bob: we thank Paul once again
14:50:09 [Paco]
Gil: item #1 is to find the resource
14:50:36 [Paco]
Bob: it is actually to find out who will be participating in the testing from each company, then pick the primary lead from that set
14:51:34 [Paco]
Bob: by next call, each company participating in the implementation will identify the person leading their implementation work
14:52:59 [pauld]
agree with Glen that setting the bar to be 'provide a complete testcase' is a good goal, but that puts people off submitting testcases
14:53:21 [Paco]
Bob: even if we have people contributing pat of their time, we need someone to make sure the quality and completeness of the work is good enough
14:54:17 [pauld]
I note the interop event drove the last round, more than my personal involvement, fwiw
14:54:24 [bob_]
bob_ has joined #ws-addr
14:56:35 [Paco]
action: companies participating in the testing identify their implementation leaders
14:58:45 [Paco]
Paul: in addition to the AI, we can construct a representative test to seed people's work
14:58:47 [Paco]
Jonathan: we need to be more orgazided that in other cases (XQuery) where different people submit test cases
14:59:44 [Paco]
Bob: let's set 5/15 to be the due date for the action item above
15:00:18 [pauld]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IBMCambridge], Marc_Hadley, Paul_Downey
15:01:25 [Paco]
Bob:we identified the end date of the CR period as 7/7
15:02:48 [Paco]
Bob: can we have a date for the interop event?
15:03:03 [Paco]
Philippe: can we colocate with the WSDL meeting?
15:04:49 [Paco]
(discussion on possible locations)
15:06:31 [Paco]
Bob: possibility is MIT, the week of 7/10
15:09:23 [Paco]
Bob: location is MIT, 18, 19 of July
15:10:31 [Paco]
action: Philippe to confirm availability of MIT location
15:11:20 [Paco]
Glen: let's dig deeper into one test
15:11:51 [Paco]
Glen: WSDL has usingaddressing, client sends the wsa headers, server responds with wsa headers
15:12:33 [Paco]
Glen: we can take the ame we were editing
15:12:57 [Paco]
Glen: binding has usingaddr with wsdlrequired=true
15:13:41 [Paco]
Glen: question - do we have a canned server?
15:13:56 [Paco]
Paco: depends what are we testing, client, server or both
15:14:02 [Paco]
Glen: Both
15:14:47 [Paco]
Anish: server implementors publish their WSDL with specific endpoints
15:15:12 [Paco]
Glen: WSDl is generic except for endpoitns
15:15:34 [Paco]
Glen: test presence of WSA headers in request and response
15:15:46 [Zakim]
15:16:22 [Paco]
Gil: next is the same testing for the negative case - client sends no headers, server sends back the right fault
15:17:10 [Paco]
Glen: requires a 'broken' client - send same message w/o wsa headers
15:18:00 [Paco]
Anish: message is not arbitrary, it is the same headers w/o wsa headers
15:19:07 [Paco]
Anish: next (3) same as 1 with usingaddr on the port/endpoint
15:19:24 [Paco]
Bob: (4) is like 2 with usingaddr on port/endpoint
15:21:25 [Paco]
TonyR: (5) is as 1 with wsdlrequired=false; client sends wsa headers, server sends back wsa headers
15:22:07 [Paco]
Glen: headers sent back from server have mU=false
15:23:15 [Paco]
Gil: (6) is same. client includes no wsa headers, server returns valid response w/o mU=true wsa headers
15:24:20 [Paco]
Anish: in 5, server can send mU=true in response
15:27:51 [Paco]
Anish: we need 7, 8 with flip sides of 5 and 6
15:28:11 [Paco]
TonyR: there is no flipside, server must obey contract
15:28:49 [Paco]
TonyR: (7), port indicates using addr with wsdlrequired=true
15:29:10 [Paco]
TontR: (8) is as (7) with wsdlrequired=false
15:29:34 [Paco]
Bob: this gives us a first test pattern
15:30:31 [prasad]
prasad has joined #ws-addr
15:30:35 [Paco]
Bob: recessing till 1pm
15:32:00 [Zakim]
15:32:08 [Zakim]
15:32:09 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has ended
15:32:10 [Zakim]
Attendees were [IBMCambridge], Paul_Downey, Marc_Hadley
15:55:43 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has now started
15:55:50 [Zakim]
15:56:20 [Zakim]
15:56:21 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has ended
15:56:23 [Zakim]
Attendees were Prasad_Yendluri
16:49:52 [prasad]
prasad has joined #ws-Addr
17:13:04 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has now started
17:13:11 [Zakim]
17:14:05 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
17:14:34 [Paco]
Bob: do we need WSDL test cases for all the MEPs in Section 5?
17:15:03 [Paco]
Glen: You can test solicit response and notification in WSA
17:15:26 [Paco]
action: Bob to flesh out MEPs into features table
17:16:06 [Zakim]
17:16:19 [Paco]
Bob: we may discover gaps as we go over the MEPs, don't want to go back to WD
17:17:04 [Paco]
Anish: we can compose common MEPs to do the more sophisticated ones
17:17:22 [Paco]
Jonathan: there are several possible cases among the WSDL 2.0 MEPs
17:18:16 [Paco]
Bob: we'll see how out-only MEPs go - but I would liek to make the argument that WSDL 1.1 is well understand once wefinish the 1.1 tests, and say we are waiting for more 2.0 implementations
17:18:40 [Paco]
Bob: take a 2 step approach, with a status statement atthe end of the 1st one
17:18:51 [Paco]
Jonathan: can we mark some MEPs 'at risk'?
17:19:15 [Paco]
Hugo: no need to - it already says that MEPs are removed if not enough implementations are produced
17:19:58 [Paco]
Jonathan: then we should mark MEPs at risk in WSA as well
17:20:19 [Paco]
Hugo: we get rid of MEPs people don't implement
17:20:39 [Paco]
Bob: can we make this statement in teh status portion of the document?
17:21:20 [Paco]
action: at the point of progression to CR, need to put words saying that MEPs at risk in the WSDL 2.0 document are also at risk in this document
17:23:13 [Paco]
Anish: is the SOAp response MEP a way to to out-only?
17:23:22 [Paco]
Glen: not the same, out is not a response
17:23:43 [Paco]
Paco: the SOAP MEP is like a client pulling a message, not a message push
17:24:29 [Paco]
Bob: question of Philippe regarding addressing 1.1. I am not for keeping WGs around w/o good justification
17:25:12 [Paco]
Bob: is there value in extending to a future edition of WSA. Please all start considering that, put strawman concepts that we can discuss
17:27:01 [Paco]
Bob: an extension to the charter could be the mechanisms to accomodate this requirements
17:28:55 [Paco]
Philippe: we ask this ot all WGs at this stage. there is also the question of how to deal with errata
17:30:03 [Paco]
Jonathan; having a group to to errata for WS specs gets more interesting as more WGs close down
17:30:31 [pauld]
suggests colapsing Addressing errata into XMLP
17:30:59 [pauld]
17:31:07 [Paco]
TonyR: let the dust settle before moving ahead
17:31:32 [Zakim]
17:31:45 [Paco]
Bob: back to the test cases
17:32:01 [Paco]
Bob: we should go over Action
17:32:28 [Paco]
Anish simple - just stick the right value, either default or not
17:34:35 [Paco]
Anish: test (9) WSDL specifies wsaw:Action in messages, client sends action and gets the right message
17:35:08 [rsalz]
rsalz has joined #ws-addr
17:35:16 [rsalz]
17:35:29 [Zakim]
17:36:24 [rsalz]
rsalz has joined #ws-addr
17:36:59 [rsalz]
rsalz has left #ws-addr
17:38:05 [Paco]
Paco: we need different operations to test server side dispatching
17:39:52 [Paco]
Anish: let's take a wsdl with 2 request response operations, same input message body and different Action values, returning different response message body and actions
17:40:25 [Paco]
Bob: that is test 11
17:41:25 [Paco]
Anish: for test 10, client sends default Action, server expects non-default one, sends specified fault back
17:41:54 [Paco]
Anish: test 12, same as 11, using default action values
17:44:20 [Paco]
Glen: do we need to test that defaulting works?
17:46:08 [Paco]
Jonathan: we should isolate the correct generation of correct default action values so an error in this does not make all other tests fail
17:47:50 [Paco]
Bob: test (13) no explicit action value in WSDL, client generates messages with correct action values
17:49:00 [Paco]
Bob: in 13, server responds with default action as well
17:49:51 [Paco]
Bob: 14 is negative of 13: clent sends an actoin different from default, server faults
17:50:37 [Paco]
Hugo: are we testing Action returned by server?
17:51:58 [Paco]
Anish: yes, we do in all cases
17:53:00 [Paco]
Hugo: question is explicitly stating what form of action (explicit, default) is sent back by server. We need to clarify that the statements we make in the test case description applies to both client and server (default, non default)
17:53:57 [Paco]
Bob: coming to anonymous now
17:54:29 [Paco]
Anish: anonymous requires that usingAddressing is being used
17:55:41 [Paco]
Glen: we don't specify in the tests whether anonymous is being used or not
17:57:11 [Paco]
Anish: three values, required, optinal, prohibited; not-specified implies no behavior
17:57:30 [Paco]
Jonathan: send the right or wrong value, get the right response
18:01:27 [Paco]
Bob: (15) is UsingAnonymous=required, client sends and anonymous replyTo, gets response on back-channel
18:03:03 [Paco]
Anish: 16 is the same, negative test, non anonymous reply and fault is sent back in back channel
18:04:34 [Paco]
Anish: 17, 18 are same, adding the markup on the binding/operation element
18:05:36 [Paco]
Anish: actually, we don;t need 15, 16, anonymous marker can only go on the operation
18:07:06 [Paco]
Bob: 17 says anonymous is prohibited; 18 is the negative of that
18:07:34 [Paco]
Anish: this is the weird one, where you send the fault back other than the back channel
18:11:43 [Paco]
TonyR: test needs to say the fault is sent to the ERP encoded on the faultTo EPR; assume non-anonymous faultTo
18:13:36 [Paco]
Tony: do we need a 19 for case when faultTo is anonymous?
18:13:48 [Paco]
Anish: no, behavior is unspecified
18:13:55 [Paco]
Paco: but it is the most common error
18:14:54 [Paco]
Anish: but is not specified in the spec
18:15:05 [Paco]
Paco: then we need to go beyond spec text?
18:15:48 [Paco]
TonyR: test says client must not receive response message in this case (faultTo is anon) - this is test 19
18:15:50 [Zakim]
18:16:29 [Paco]
Paco: doing optional
18:17:46 [Paco]
Bob: 20, 21 will be like 17, 18 - anonymous marker is optional now, behavior in 20 is like in 17; in 21 server sends back response on back channel
18:19:55 [Paco]
Paco: we can test the case when anonymous is absent - client can assume optional behavior and server faults if it cannot support the EPRs selected
18:20:04 [Paco]
Anish: what is the value of doing that
18:20:10 [Paco]
Glen: right
18:20:38 [Paco]
TonyR: let's leave it at 21
18:21:04 [Paco]
Jonathan: let's put this in some XML format
18:21:16 [Paco]
Bob: I will stick it somewhere in the new tree
18:21:38 [Paco]
Bob: keypoint is to identify the people doing the testing
18:22:21 [Paco]
Anish: Both MEPs and metadata are left to do
18:24:00 [Paco]
Bob: we are then done for the day
18:26:09 [pauld]
thanks to Paco for some excellent scribing!
18:26:23 [bob_]
rrsagent, make logs public
18:26:41 [bob_]
rrsagent, generate minutes
18:26:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob_
18:27:01 [bob_]
we have 21 of them!
18:27:14 [bob_]
I guess being scrummaster worked out
18:28:18 [Zakim]
18:28:20 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has ended
18:28:21 [Zakim]
Attendees were [IBMCambridge], Prasad_Yendluri, Paul_Downey
18:33:03 [bob_]
bob_ has left #ws-addr
18:45:46 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-addr
19:02:54 [pauld]
rrsagent, bye
19:02:54 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items saved in :
19:02:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: companies participating in the testing identify their implementation leaders [1]
19:02:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
19:02:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Philippe to confirm availability of MIT location [2]
19:02:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
19:02:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Bob to flesh out MEPs into features table [3]
19:02:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
19:02:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: at the point of progression to CR, need to put words saying that MEPs at risk in the WSDL 2.0 document are also at risk in this document [4]
19:02:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in