12:52:19 RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr 12:52:19 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ws-addr-irc 12:52:28 Zakim has joined #ws-addr 12:52:45 zakim, this will be the "to nuts" WG 12:52:45 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, pauld 12:52:58 zakim, this will be sad 12:52:58 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, pauld 12:53:05 zakim, this will be s-ad 12:53:05 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, pauld 12:53:11 zakim, this will be ad 12:53:11 ok, pauld; I see WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes 12:53:45 rrsagent, make logs member-visible 13:00:28 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006May/0001.html 13:08:32 zakim, who is on the phone ? 13:08:32 WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has not yet started, marc 13:08:33 On IRC I see RRSAgent, marc, pauld, dhull, David_Illsley 13:10:13 zakim, don't get me started 13:10:13 I don't understand 'don't get me started', pauld 13:10:21 zakim, ? 13:10:22 I don't understand your question, pauld. 13:10:54 zakim, George_Bush is really an idiot 13:10:54 I don't understand 'George_Bush is really an idiot', pauld 13:11:03 zakim, George_Bush is really an_idiot 13:11:03 sorry, pauld, I do not recognize a party named 'George_Bush' 13:12:51 bob_ has joined #ws-addr 13:12:52 WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has now started 13:12:59 +[IBMCambridge] 13:13:08 we are working on the phone 13:14:06 +Paul_Downey 13:14:35 the axe seemed to work. 13:14:47 +Marc_Hadley 13:20:52 folks to send in testamonials ASAP like yesterday 13:21:35 anish has joined #ws-addr 13:22:31 Topic: test framework 13:23:37 points the WG at the SOAP/core WSDL documents as a starting point: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/documents/wsdl11/ 13:23:43 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/documents/wsdl20/ 13:23:54 tom: Will the test wsdl do all the way to the end services: 13:25:05 they're escaped inside this document: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/documents/ 13:25:32 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/documents/#wsdl11/wsaTestService.wsdl 13:26:25 Paco has joined #ws-addr 13:26:44 gil has joined #ws-addr 13:27:08 Bob: checking links sent by Paul 13:27:21 scribe:Paco 13:27:32 Bob: checking the links that Paul sent 13:28:27 Paul: wsdl describe an exchange and there is an expectation of certain messages/behaviors to take place 13:28:41 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/documents/epr/epr3.xml 13:29:35 Jonathan: we can take out Paul's document and throw our markup - in WSDL require tru and false flavors 13:29:56 Glen: Binding A/B/C have using addressing required/no or no marker 13:30:15 we also have testcases 1107 and 1207 which exchanged refps containing WSDL documents: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/testcases/#test1107 13:30:16 anish has joined #ws-addr 13:30:34 Jonathan: The WSDL we have implies addressing is required 13:30:49 -Paul_Downey 13:30:57 Hugo: this is WSDL 2.0 13:31:41 +Paul_Downey 13:31:43 Bob: (opens wsdl 1.1 document) 13:32:04 Jonathan: try to have the fewer # of WSDLs 13:33:10 (Philippe edits document) 13:34:52 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 exactly 13:36:08 Jonathan: a test maps to one message exchange, i.e. one operation 13:38:31 Anish: need to use separate endpoints, since incompatible bindings cannot live on the same endpoint. 13:39:24 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 -Paul_Downey 13:41:17 Anish: should not actually provide the service since the address depends on each implementation - just leave a pattern 13:41:51 Philippe: next, we put addressing on the port 13:42:22 Anish: markup cannot be in both the binding and the port 13:43:06 Anish: need 3 bindings - usingaddr required, usingaddr not required, and no usingaddr specified 13:43:56 Gil: can we import the binding used for the core tests? 13:45:26 Anish: better have self contained wsdl documents, importing gets complex 13:46:06 Jonathan: there are message artifacts defined, we need to check those 13:47:07 gil has joined #ws-addr 13:49:49 avoiding import/include is worth going for - if necessary I suggest use XSLT/Perl to assemble test documents from parts 13:49:58 s/use/using/ 13:50:27 Jonathan: the overview document in the testcases folder may have the list of messages and tests 13:51:10 Jonathan: the "message" links in each test point to the right messages 13:52:25 Anish: wsdl required=false needs two messages, w/ and w/o wsa headers 13:53:21 Anish: we can use the same messages with the right modification in all cases 13:54:02 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 Bob: we should create a new tree, testsuitewsdl 13:56:20 Bob: similar structure as with testcases 13:56:29 Jonathan: not everything is needed however 13:57:27 Bob: makes a testcases, documents subdirectories 14:00:15 Bob: breaking now, back at 10:30 14:04:48 -Marc_Hadley 14:38:43 +Marc_Hadley 14:38:46 -[IBMCambridge] 14:38:47 +[IBMCambridge] 14:42:02 +Paul_Downey 14:42:51 hi foilks, lets restart 14:43:41 Bob:we have a first cut at a test WSDL into the documents directory 14:44:01 Bob: how do we get to a more complete expansion of these test cases and parse the work out 14:44:16 Bob: back to the features table from yesterday 14:45:45 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 Bob: I would like to see someone volunteer to lead the test work; otherwise we'll do it in committee 14:47:06 Bob: no one here 14:48:36 Bob: I asked Paul, who did an excellent work last time. But it is unfair to ask him again 14:48:47 Bob: we thank Paul once again 14:50:09 Gil: item #1 is to find the resource 14:50:36 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 Bob: by next call, each company participating in the implementation will identify the person leading their implementation work 14:52:59 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 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 I note the interop event drove the last round, more than my personal involvement, fwiw 14:54:24 bob_ has joined #ws-addr 14:56:35 action: companies participating in the testing identify their implementation leaders 14:58:45 Paul: in addition to the AI, we can construct a representative test to seed people's work 14:58:47 Jonathan: we need to be more orgazided that in other cases (XQuery) where different people submit test cases 14:59:44 Bob: let's set 5/15 to be the due date for the action item above 15:00:18 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:00:18 On the phone I see [IBMCambridge], Marc_Hadley, Paul_Downey 15:01:25 Bob:we identified the end date of the CR period as 7/7 15:02:48 Bob: can we have a date for the interop event? 15:03:03 Philippe: can we colocate with the WSDL meeting? 15:04:49 (discussion on possible locations) 15:06:31 Bob: possibility is MIT, the week of 7/10 15:09:23 Bob: location is MIT, 18, 19 of July 15:10:31 action: Philippe to confirm availability of MIT location 15:11:20 Glen: let's dig deeper into one test 15:11:51 Glen: WSDL has usingaddressing, client sends the wsa headers, server responds with wsa headers 15:12:33 Glen: we can take the ame we were editing 15:12:57 Glen: binding has usingaddr with wsdlrequired=true 15:13:41 Glen: question - do we have a canned server? 15:13:56 Paco: depends what are we testing, client, server or both 15:14:02 Glen: Both 15:14:47 Anish: server implementors publish their WSDL with specific endpoints 15:15:12 Glen: WSDl is generic except for endpoitns 15:15:34 Glen: test presence of WSA headers in request and response 15:15:46 -Paul_Downey 15:16:22 Gil: next is the same testing for the negative case - client sends no headers, server sends back the right fault 15:17:10 Glen: requires a 'broken' client - send same message w/o wsa headers 15:18:00 Anish: message is not arbitrary, it is the same headers w/o wsa headers 15:19:07 Anish: next (3) same as 1 with usingaddr on the port/endpoint 15:19:24 Bob: (4) is like 2 with usingaddr on port/endpoint 15:21:25 TonyR: (5) is as 1 with wsdlrequired=false; client sends wsa headers, server sends back wsa headers 15:22:07 Glen: headers sent back from server have mU=false 15:23:15 Gil: (6) is same. client includes no wsa headers, server returns valid response w/o mU=true wsa headers 15:24:20 Anish: in 5, server can send mU=true in response 15:27:51 Anish: we need 7, 8 with flip sides of 5 and 6 15:28:11 TonyR: there is no flipside, server must obey contract 15:28:49 TonyR: (7), port indicates using addr with wsdlrequired=true 15:29:10 TontR: (8) is as (7) with wsdlrequired=false 15:29:34 Bob: this gives us a first test pattern 15:30:31 prasad has joined #ws-addr 15:30:35 Bob: recessing till 1pm 15:32:00 -[IBMCambridge] 15:32:08 -Marc_Hadley 15:32:09 WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has ended 15:32:10 Attendees were [IBMCambridge], Paul_Downey, Marc_Hadley 15:55:43 WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has now started 15:55:50 +Prasad_Yendluri 15:56:20 -Prasad_Yendluri 15:56:21 WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has ended 15:56:23 Attendees were Prasad_Yendluri 16:49:52 prasad has joined #ws-Addr 17:13:04 WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has now started 17:13:11 +[IBMCambridge] 17:14:05 Paco has joined #ws-addr 17:14:34 Bob: do we need WSDL test cases for all the MEPs in Section 5? 17:15:03 Glen: You can test solicit response and notification in WSA 17:15:26 action: Bob to flesh out MEPs into features table 17:16:06 +Prasad_Yendluri 17:16:19 Bob: we may discover gaps as we go over the MEPs, don't want to go back to WD 17:17:04 Anish: we can compose common MEPs to do the more sophisticated ones 17:17:22 Jonathan: there are several possible cases among the WSDL 2.0 MEPs 17:18:16 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 Bob: take a 2 step approach, with a status statement atthe end of the 1st one 17:18:51 Jonathan: can we mark some MEPs 'at risk'? 17:19:15 Hugo: no need to - it already says that MEPs are removed if not enough implementations are produced 17:19:58 Jonathan: then we should mark MEPs at risk in WSA as well 17:20:19 Hugo: we get rid of MEPs people don't implement 17:20:39 Bob: can we make this statement in teh status portion of the document? 17:21:20 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 Anish: is the SOAp response MEP a way to to out-only? 17:23:22 Glen: not the same, out is not a response 17:23:43 Paco: the SOAP MEP is like a client pulling a message, not a message push 17:24:29 Bob: question of Philippe regarding addressing 1.1. I am not for keeping WGs around w/o good justification 17:25:12 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 Bob: an extension to the charter could be the mechanisms to accomodate this requirements 17:28:55 Philippe: we ask this ot all WGs at this stage. there is also the question of how to deal with errata 17:30:03 Jonathan; having a group to to errata for WS specs gets more interesting as more WGs close down 17:30:31 suggests colapsing Addressing errata into XMLP 17:30:59 WS-Core? 17:31:07 TonyR: let the dust settle before moving ahead 17:31:32 +Paul_Downey 17:31:45 Bob: back to the test cases 17:32:01 Bob: we should go over Action 17:32:28 Anish simple - just stick the right value, either default or not 17:34:35 Anish: test (9) WSDL specifies wsaw:Action in messages, client sends action and gets the right message 17:35:08 rsalz has joined #ws-addr 17:35:16 leave 17:35:29 -Paul_Downey 17:36:24 rsalz has joined #ws-addr 17:36:59 rsalz has left #ws-addr 17:38:05 Paco: we need different operations to test server side dispatching 17:39:52 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 Bob: that is test 11 17:41:25 Anish: for test 10, client sends default Action, server expects non-default one, sends specified fault back 17:41:54 Anish: test 12, same as 11, using default action values 17:44:20 Glen: do we need to test that defaulting works? 17:46:08 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 Bob: test (13) no explicit action value in WSDL, client generates messages with correct action values 17:49:00 Bob: in 13, server responds with default action as well 17:49:51 Bob: 14 is negative of 13: clent sends an actoin different from default, server faults 17:50:37 Hugo: are we testing Action returned by server? 17:51:58 Anish: yes, we do in all cases 17:53:00 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 Bob: coming to anonymous now 17:54:29 Anish: anonymous requires that usingAddressing is being used 17:55:41 Glen: we don't specify in the tests whether anonymous is being used or not 17:57:11 Anish: three values, required, optinal, prohibited; not-specified implies no behavior 17:57:30 Jonathan: send the right or wrong value, get the right response 18:01:27 Bob: (15) is UsingAnonymous=required, client sends and anonymous replyTo, gets response on back-channel 18:03:03 Anish: 16 is the same, negative test, non anonymous reply and fault is sent back in back channel 18:04:34 Anish: 17, 18 are same, adding the markup on the binding/operation element 18:05:36 Anish: actually, we don;t need 15, 16, anonymous marker can only go on the operation 18:07:06 Bob: 17 says anonymous is prohibited; 18 is the negative of that 18:07:34 Anish: this is the weird one, where you send the fault back other than the back channel 18:11:43 TonyR: test needs to say the fault is sent to the ERP encoded on the faultTo EPR; assume non-anonymous faultTo 18:13:36 Tony: do we need a 19 for case when faultTo is anonymous? 18:13:48 Anish: no, behavior is unspecified 18:13:55 Paco: but it is the most common error 18:14:54 Anish: but is not specified in the spec 18:15:05 Paco: then we need to go beyond spec text? 18:15:48 TonyR: test says client must not receive response message in this case (faultTo is anon) - this is test 19 18:15:50 -Prasad_Yendluri 18:16:29 Paco: doing optional 18:17:46 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: 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 Anish: what is the value of doing that 18:20:10 Glen: right 18:20:38 TonyR: let's leave it at 21 18:21:04 Jonathan: let's put this in some XML format 18:21:16 Bob: I will stick it somewhere in the new tree 18:21:38 Bob: keypoint is to identify the people doing the testing 18:22:21 Anish: Both MEPs and metadata are left to do 18:24:00 Bob: we are then done for the day 18:26:09 thanks to Paco for some excellent scribing! 18:26:23 rrsagent, make logs public 18:26:41 rrsagent, generate minutes 18:26:41 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ws-addr-minutes.html bob_ 18:27:01 we have 21 of them! 18:27:14 I guess being scrummaster worked out 18:28:18 -[IBMCambridge] 18:28:20 WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM has ended 18:28:21 Attendees were [IBMCambridge], Prasad_Yendluri, Paul_Downey 18:33:03 bob_ has left #ws-addr 18:45:46 Zakim has left #ws-addr 19:02:54 rrsagent, bye 19:02:54 I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ws-addr-actions.rdf : 19:02:54 ACTION: companies participating in the testing identify their implementation leaders [1] 19:02:54 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ws-addr-irc#T14-56-35 19:02:54 ACTION: Philippe to confirm availability of MIT location [2] 19:02:54 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ws-addr-irc#T15-10-31 19:02:54 ACTION: Bob to flesh out MEPs into features table [3] 19:02:54 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ws-addr-irc#T17-15-26 19:02:54 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 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ws-addr-irc#T17-21-20