See also: IRC log
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot
<dmoberg> SCRIBE: dmoberg
Adjourn at 3. Dorchard scribes PM.
<DaveO> will we get back to framework document?
Attachment abstract, no objections noted.
<plh> folks, to update your contact information at W3C, please use http://www.w3.org/Systems/db/memUser
<abbie> is the bridge muted
<cferris> SCRIBE : dmoberg
<fhirsch3> Is link to document on public page the one being reviewed
<fhirsch3> Link is http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-attachment.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
<abbie> call /help desk
frederickh: TOC only mentions wsdl 1.1. is wsdl 2.0 also to be treated?
chris: can add a tbd to TOC
paul: can be added to issues list
<scribe> ACTION: frederick to add issue on wsdl 2.0 attachment functionality [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
ACTION chairs to add status sections to working drafts
<scribe> ACTION: chairs to add status sections to working drafts [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
<cferris> we're in the call
<scribe> ACTION: umit to note missing conformance sections [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
<scribe> ACTION: editors to update terminology uniformly in both drafts [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]
<cferris> note that the editors are tasked with ensuring that those changes that are editorial in nature, and that apply to both specs are handled
<scribe> ACTION: Ashok to note intro changes about 3 not 2 mechanisms, and mention ws-addressing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action05]
Ellipses noted to be aligned in section 2
Terminology section 2.3 review paul asks whether all terms defined in this section
Terms defined are not the same
Discussion of options for links between definitions and uses.
<maryann> q
paul asks editors to consider how links of defs to uses
<cferris> ack
<scribe> ACTION: editors to align termdef with other w3c style [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06]
<cferris> note: paulc had suggested e.g. XML Query's use of termdef
felix, xquery style explained. Issue of which occurence of defintion is normative
<scribe> ACTION: felix, to draft issue about which terminology is normative [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action07]
Any questions about 2.4 in Framework, None made. Back to attachments
<umit> Suggestion: Refer to the terminology section in framework normatively and only add new terminology.
<umit> This is for section 2.3
<scribe> ACTION: Ashok to note about version differences in 2-1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action08]
Jeff favors making references to most current version
<umit> I should note that the specs that are referred to in the example are not normative anyway
paul ponders whether examples should just be fabricated
fred, useful to have realistic examples
maryann, security policy examples should be real
cferris: no volunteers for example fabrication
fhirsch3: remove fabrikam123?
<scribe> ACTION: editors, RFC2606 for domain names [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action09]
cferris, section 3? ok 3.1?
cferris: 3.2 next
paul: asks ashok whether 3.2 is also relevant to Ashok action item
maryann: notes section 3.4 is also relevant to number and kinds of mechanisms
... contends 2 mechanisms rule
them all
cferris: 3.3 comments?
... second group of paragraphs
paulcotton: yes, this is an example of the definition that should be linked to.
<scribe> ACTION: editors, improve Definition in 3rd paragraph concerning "policy subjects" and "subjects" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action10]
paulcotton: need to make it clear to domain specific specification writers what their responsibilities are -- a list of duties, maybe for primer, maybe in non norm. section
asir: listed 4 points in primer document
cferris: paul, like for soap bindings?
paulcotton: need to have canned answer for domain-specific policy definers
cferris: where to put this info?
maryann: was this to be non normative or not?
paulcotton: working nicely with framework seems to suggest that responsibilies are requirements
maryann: there is an action item on this
jeffm: will then need to have what a conforming dom. spec. policy spec must do.
general agreement
cferris: so putting into a primer is insufficient? !
paulcotton: what does no element uri mean after 3-1
the policy element on line 01 or line 09
cferris: how about xpointer to the element
asir: no, element is policy element on line 01
<scribe> ACTION: editors to straighten up Note after example 3-1. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action11]
<DaveO> Coherent Post Policy Processing Obfuscaset
<DaveO> aka C3PO
toufic: initial issues with video
<cferris> more hardware problems, apologies
Logistics slide
Purpose and Scenarios slide
Issues mainly domain specific and not framework (domain independent)
Round 1 slide
ws operation input was policies, output, for example, was merge
Round 2 slide (effective policy) slide
Round 3 slide was focus of event in Germany -- Configuration
Echo Servce WSDL slide
Binding for Scenario 0 slide
Test Case T1 slide
Test case A11 slide
policy expression for A11 binding slide
policy expression for A11 messages slide
test case A12 slide
Results: no ws-policy framework or ws-policyattachment issues.
time synch complications and whitespace issues appeared
how to resolve conflicts between a HTTP endpoint in the wsdl and a HTTPS policy attachment
cferris: policy attachments pertain to input, output, both -- issues. RM use of optional case.
... asks for
someone to take on this issue for primer? for framework?
<fhirsch3> interaction of optional and WSDL for message flow, e.g.request, response
desire for greater clarity on what optional means in terms of contract made by service and runtime behavior followed when option exercised and when not exercised
umit: two distinct issues
<umit> ACTION: Umit to raise 2 issues on evils of optional [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action12]
<scribe> ACTION: umit to raise issues on optional [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action13]
<cferris> mtom is a great example
<umit> the problem is designating whether the optimization is engaged on the return message for MTOM as it is an optional feature
cferris: business reasoning favors connectivity so requiring certain features like mtom would not occur for business reasons
<cferris> where is the ws-policy equivalent of HTTP Accept header?
Tony: already submitted issues on the interop issues
Residue of section 3.3, questions?
<cferris> ashok references this email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/0019.html regarding domain expressions
Section 3.4 next:
<umit> Please divide them into two issues
<scribe> ACTION: Ashok to articulate issue on external policy attachment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action14]
<scribe> ACTION: editors to clear up 3.4 paragraphs about domain and also define domain expression [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action15]
<scribe> ACTION: cferris to post issue about {any} used in 3.4 section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action16]
dorchard: raises mutual dependence issues concerning policy and ws-addressing . EPR metadata .
glend: no comparison defined for EPRs
<scribe> ACTION: glend to specify how EPRs function as subjects [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action17]
<cferris> ACTION: Editors to remove extraneous namespace decl in the example at the end of section 3.4 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action18]
Section 4, questions?
cferris: reviews BP 1.1 decision on wsdl extensions. So why not allow extensions everywhere?
<scribe> ACTION: cferris to raise issue on 4.0 mention of BP 1.1 wsdl extensibility decision's impact [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action19]
<scribe> ACTION: editors to scrub infoset terminology [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action20]
Section 4.1 up to graphic
various: discussion of use of term "abstract" wsdl (portType in 1.1) and whether its use will confuse
<scribe> ACTION: glen to formulate issue concerning how to clarify merge discussion to match with typical wsdl user understanding [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action21]
umit: removing sentence on abstract wsdl would not be helpful
various: agreed, removal not seriously being considered, but clarification is in order
<scribe> ACTION: editors to link to svg graphic in fig 4-1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action22]
cferris: reword 1st paragraph 2nd sentence under fig 4-1 to replace "contain" by something like influence
<scribe> ACTION: editors to reword 1st paragraph 2nd sentence under fig 4-1 to replace "contain" by something like influence [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action23]
<scribe> ACTION: maryann to raise issue about 4th paragraph under fig 4-1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action24]
<umit> The problem is on both 3rd and 4th paragraphs
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/0047.html
<cferris> the link above is to a consolidated issues list. Please review your AIs and be sure you grok and be prepared to indicate which, if any, are already completed
<cferris> sect 4.1.1
<cferris> SCRIBE: dorchard
chrisf: grammar in 3rd paragraph.
<scribe> ACTION: editors to rewrite 4.1.1 last paragraph to make chris slightly happier [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action25]
<cferris> better make that ecstatic
<scribe> ACTION: editors to rewrite 4.1.3 5th paragraph on grammar concerns [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action26]
Ashok: first and 2nd bullet, can I use that syntax to refer to the identical operation?
... if policies on
both?
<prasad> WSDL 1.1 does not have a concept of sequence though. Just request response no?
Asir: last sentence
why not remove the "This includes --- but is not limited.." sentence
what is the value of the sentence?
<prasad> Even in the sentence prior to the last one, it says "operation policy subject affect behaviours associated with a sequence of message exchanges, as defined by a WSDL operation"
Yakov: I suggest remove last sentence
glen: this says "sequence of message exchanges" but in wsdl 2.0 an operation IS A message exchange
Dan: (couldn't catch)
ChrisF: would like more prescriptive , ie "applies to the messages exchanged".
Umit: "applies to the messges specified by the operation" in 4.1.2
<asir> Policies associated with an operation policy subject apply to the message exchange described by that operation
Now section "attachments 4.1.4"
paulc: Philippe, the italicized "merge" supposed to be italicized?
<scribe> ACTION: editors to look into italicized merge [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action27]
<fsasaki> <emph>merged</emph> in the xmlspec source
Glen: paragraph starting with "The effective policy"...
... effective policy for a message includes
abstract, porttype, binding, service, ...
... doesn't say merge with operation policy
Asir: , up in 4.1.0
Glen: picture is the only place that says how to combine together, should be in text.
... it says "for
example"
... it does not say "to calculate the effective policy, the x,y,z policies are combined"
... the paragraph starting with "figure
1" should be in text
<scribe> ACTION: Glen to propose 4.1 wording to have explicit text on calculation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action28]
Glen: what is calculation for WSDL 2.0?
... called different things, etc.
PaulC: already have an issue on wsdl 2.0, covered
<cferris> (e.g. portType now interface, etc.)
ChrisF: examples in "correct" xml or "fictitous"?
WG agrees that we use non-fictitous examples.
<scribe> ACTION: edtiors get rid of run-on sentence in 4.1.5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action29]
Ashok: why are we talking about one example here?
PaulC: There isn't any normative text here, no MUST's SHOULD's.
Maryann: isn't this part of the using with EPR issue that Glen has?
... this is where Glen's issue text
should go.
... we still need to handle the what is a domain issue.
Monica: maybe should say this section illustrates a domain
This section provides an illustrative domain expression...
Dan: remove 4.2, addressing has it's on epr with metadata section.
Glen: when using an EPR inside org, org may have rules about how to use EPRs outside the company, then have different policies.
<scribe> scribe: Are you suggesting instead of <attach><epr/><policy/></attach>; use <epr><metadata><policy/></metadata></epr>?
Dan: yes
ChrisF: editors produce drafts asap, preferably next week, and be prepared on 26th to get consensus to publish WD.
PaulC: need status section, shortname approval, pub request.
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/0047.html
Chrisf: everybody know what they are supposed to do?
everybody is ok with what is written.
chrisf: missing actions will be there.
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to fix Dan's name [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action30]
<asir> Editors report - Completed action items 12, 16 and 20 from the Austin F2F
<scribe> ACTION: felix to update 23 to be daveO/Chris [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action31]
chrisf: anybody raising the 4 issues on Toufic's slide?
toufic: primer is done, umit has one
<scribe> ACTION: Toufic raise an issue about specifying policy assertion conficting with other information, ie https vs http [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action32]
<scribe> ACTION: Toufic clarification on 4.3.2 in framework around normalizing method assertions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action33]
paulc, chrisf stand up to be target practice
WG thanks IBM for hosting the meeting
<cferris> adjourned