IRC log of ws-addr on 2006-07-31

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:42:07 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
16:42:07 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/07/31-ws-addr-irc
16:42:16 [bob]
rrsagent, help
16:43:14 [bob]
rrsagent, adminhelp
17:31:00 [bob]
bye
17:31:28 [bob]
rrsagent, bye
17:31:28 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
17:37:29 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
17:37:29 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/07/31-ws-addr-irc
17:37:51 [bob]
actions?
17:41:07 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-addr
17:41:36 [bob]
Zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
17:41:36 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, bob
17:42:06 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr
18:54:40 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
19:58:27 [bob]
bob has joined #ws-addr
19:58:52 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
19:58:55 [bob]
zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
19:58:55 [Zakim]
ok, bob; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
19:59:24 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
19:59:32 [agupta]
agupta has joined #ws-addr
19:59:43 [Zakim]
+Mark_Little
19:59:45 [Zakim]
+[Sun]
19:59:51 [agupta]
zakim, [Sun] is me
19:59:51 [Zakim]
+agupta; got it
20:00:06 [Katy]
Hi - just having skype problems - may be a few minutes late on the call...
20:00:07 [Zakim]
+Bob_Freund
20:00:08 [Zakim]
+David_Illsley
20:00:53 [Zakim]
+Amelia_Lewis
20:01:11 [alewis]
alewis has joined #ws-addr
20:01:37 [PaulKnight]
PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
20:01:44 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
20:01:44 [Zakim]
-Amelia_Lewis
20:02:03 [Zakim]
+Gilbert_Pilz
20:02:39 [Zakim]
+Paul_Knight
20:02:52 [bob]
Meeting: WS Addressing Working Group
20:03:00 [Zakim]
+Amelia_Lewis
20:03:02 [bob]
Chair: Bob Freund
20:03:16 [Zakim]
+??P10
20:03:24 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
20:03:25 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p10 is me
20:03:25 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
20:03:50 [bob]
zakim, who is here?
20:03:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see agupta, Mark_Little, Bob_Freund, David_Illsley, Gilbert_Pilz, Paul_Knight, Amelia_Lewis, TonyR, [IPcaller]
20:03:52 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TonyR, PaulKnight, alewis, agupta, Katy, bob, David_Illsley, Zakim, RRSAgent
20:03:53 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
20:04:09 [Zakim]
+Pete_Wenzel
20:04:33 [prasad]
prasad has joined #ws-Addr
20:04:40 [Zakim]
+Prasad_Yendluri
20:05:23 [Zakim]
+Anish_Karmarkar
20:07:07 [Gil]
Gil has joined #ws-addr
20:07:23 [alewis]
Scribe: alewis
20:08:03 [alewis]
agenda: meeting minutes for 5 June 2006. minutes accepted without objection.
20:08:35 [alewis]
open action items include call for additional participants in testing effort.
20:08:49 [alewis]
call for additional participants; no response.
20:09:07 [alewis]
primary purpose of meeting: discuss WSDL tests so far, work done by Arun and David.
20:09:21 [alewis]
Arun: review of work so far.
20:09:34 [agupta]
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuitewsdl/report/
20:10:23 [alewis]
URL posted just above summarizes and describes work to date, including the test design, tests themselves, and results so far, including the face to face
20:10:26 [agupta]
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuitewsdl/testcases/
20:11:11 [alewis]
Arun: expected to have fifteen to twenty test cases, but in fact have more. IBM and Sun have implementations of all test cases.
20:12:09 [alewis]
Arun: each test case has a number, which includes target WSDL version, target SOAP version, and a sequence number. tests try to cover a variety of cases; there are short descriptions of each.
20:12:41 [alewis]
Arun: each test should be associated with an assertion; each test is either required or optional (right now, only one is optional).
20:13:05 [alewis]
Arun: report page includes a todo list at the top.
20:14:05 [alewis]
Arun: describes format of table in list, results for IBM-IBM, IBM-SUN, SUN-SUN.
20:15:18 [alewis]
Arun: discussion of action-based dispatch, tests related to that, questions arising around it.
20:16:00 [alewis]
Arun: trouble correlating messages in some cases.
20:16:49 [alewis]
Arun: where four white boxes appear, there are questions about the spec.
20:17:35 [alewis]
Arun: testing raises some questions about the interactions of various properties; the behavior of the processor is not always well-defined for all cases of all combinations of properties.
20:17:47 [alewis]
David: concurs with summary.
20:17:54 [alewis]
Bob: call for questions on summary.
20:18:11 [alewis]
Bob: issue from testing. related to SOAP Action.
20:18:49 [alewis]
Bob: issue raised on mailing list, Jonathan may have raised about a week earlier.
20:19:37 [alewis]
Bob: issue #26: unclear soap action.
20:19:57 [anish]
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/Overview.html#cr26
20:20:47 [alewis]
Arun: concurs, this summarizes issue very well.
20:21:12 [alewis]
David: have some other stuff that need to discuss; this is not what David has had problems with.
20:21:41 [alewis]
Arun: David's issue with action-related dispatch and [scribe lost remainder]
20:21:44 [anish]
q+
20:22:20 [Zakim]
-Mark_Little
20:22:21 [bob]
ack anish
20:22:26 [alewis]
Arun: proposed resolution of unspecified soap action header, something on empty string.
20:23:11 [alewis]
Anish: soap action "" actually is specified. wsa:action is required to be an absolute URI; soap action is not.
20:23:38 [alewis]
Anish: consequently, at least in the case when soap:action is specified as "", it can't be used for wsa:action.
20:23:48 [alewis]
Anish: Arun's suggestion would solve both problems.
20:24:23 [alewis]
Arun: if wsa:action is specified, use that. If soap:action is present and is not an empty string, use that. if that doesn't exist, construct the default.
20:24:30 [alewis]
Bob: is this a new issue?
20:25:15 [alewis]
Anish: specification doesn't handle the case in which a soap:action is specified, but is not a URI.
20:26:16 [alewis]
Anish: spec says that wsa:action and soap:action must match, but also say that wsa:action must be a URI (which is not required for soap:action, even excluding the empty string case).
20:26:38 [agupta]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Jul/0000.html
20:27:08 [alewis]
Arun: three issues: existing cr26, the case Anish seems to be raising, and [??]
20:27:12 [anish]
s/must be a URI/must be an absolute URI/
20:28:32 [alewis]
Arun: what is meant by specified soap:action? empty string could be considered to be "specified", but should not be included.
20:28:59 [alewis]
David: if soap:action is empty string, then use the default pattern. need to clarify text to match this expectation.
20:29:52 [alewis]
Bob: opening new issue, cr28, to deal with Arun's issue and the proposed resolution from the email referenced above.
20:30:05 [alewis]
Paul: support resolution.
20:30:39 [alewis]
Bob: call for specific text. Arun: will post. Bob: fine, let's get exact proposed replacement text.
20:31:04 [agupta]
From section: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-ws-addr-wsdl-20060529/#explicitaction
20:31:07 [alewis]
Arun: will post existing text and proposed revised text.
20:31:15 [agupta]
Current text: In the absence of a wsaw:Action attribute on a WSDL input element where a SOAPAction value is specified,
20:31:30 [agupta]
Proposed text: In the absence of a wsaw:Action attribute on a WSDL input element where a *non empty* SOAPAction value is specified,
20:32:22 [alewis]
Bob: call for objections to accepting the proposal as resolution of cr28.
20:32:39 [alewis]
RESOLVED: text proposed by Arun closes CR28.
20:33:01 [alewis]
addition of "non-empty" before "SOAPAction value" in 4.4.1.
20:33:41 [alewis]
Bob: David's issue. Arun: need to open Anish's issue. Bob: Anish said he will raise that issue. back to David.
20:33:48 [David_Illsley]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Jul/0016.html
20:34:44 [alewis]
David: this is clarification of the general understanding.
20:35:30 [alewis]
David: there are tests which expect that if a WSDL does not describe a wsaw:action, then an UnsupportedActionFault is returned.
20:36:17 [alewis]
David: however, the specification does not support UnsupportedActionFault as a requirement, in David's reading.
20:36:32 [alewis]
David: Arun read this differently, that the fault is required.
20:36:50 [alewis]
s/UnsupportedActionFault/ActionNotSupportedFault/g
20:37:39 [alewis]
David: spec language is pretty clear in SOAP binding; action not supported is optional. therefore it seems that it should be optional in the tests as well; Arun felt that it ought to be required.
20:37:52 [alewis]
Bob: call for objections to making tests optional. none heard.
20:38:21 [alewis]
RESOLVED: tests in which ActionNotSupportedFault is returned are to be made optional, per David's recommendation.
20:38:36 [bob]
Section 4.4.1 defines a mechanism to explicitly set the action value
20:38:36 [bob]
(wsaw:Action). It says "In the absence of a wsaw:Action attribute" use
20:38:36 [bob]
the specified SOAP action.
20:38:36 [bob]
20:38:36 [bob]
Section 4.4.2 defines a defaulting mechanism. It says "In the absence
20:38:37 [bob]
of a wsaw:Action attribute" calculate the action using the algorithm
20:38:39 [bob]
which follows.
20:38:41 [bob]
20:38:43 [bob]
The use of the same text ("In the absence...") for each of these
20:38:45 [bob]
mechanisms renders it unclear whether the default action pattern or the
20:38:47 [bob]
specified SOAP action is to take precedence. I think the intention is
20:38:49 [bob]
clear - use wsaw:Action if present, else use specified SOAP action if
20:38:51 [bob]
present, otherwise use the default pattern.
20:38:53 [bob]
20:38:55 [bob]
There appear to be a number of straightforward editorial remedies.
20:39:19 [alewis]
Bob: paste from Jonathan's email.
20:39:38 [alewis]
Bob: call for agreement to proposal.
20:39:51 [alewis]
Tony: agreed.
20:40:02 [alewis]
Bob: mark as editorial?
20:40:29 [alewis]
(someone): non-empty is covered?
20:40:50 [alewis]
Tony: covered in closure of earlier cr.
20:41:03 [anish]
s/(someone)/paul knight/
20:41:25 [alewis]
Bob: call for objections.
20:42:02 [alewis]
RESOLVED: close cr26, adopting the proposal of Jonathan Marsh as offered, subject to editorial interpretation and inclusion of "non-empty".
20:42:37 [alewis]
Arun: need to deal with question of action-based dispatch, as raised by David.
20:42:57 [alewis]
Bob: if hasn't been raised in email, then hasn't got visibility.
20:43:06 [alewis]
Arun: okay, will raise the issue.
20:43:26 [alewis]
question asked: is the problem with addressing or with the WS-I BP?
20:43:57 [alewis]
Arun: yes, this is a potential interaction between WS Addressing and WS-I; wants to get a sense of how to resolve.
20:44:35 [alewis]
Arun: but the critical part of the question is: for this test case, what is the requirement/assertion that is being tested, using action-based dispatch?
20:45:08 [alewis]
Bob: interpreted this as an understanding that there are some otherwise valid WSDL that are not accepted by the WS-I BP.
20:45:17 [alewis]
Arun: will raise to list and record as issue.
20:46:03 [alewis]
Bob: propose next meeting in two weeks.
20:47:25 [alewis]
14 August. Arun, however, proposes earlier meeting. Bob: if raised to list, will be in one week, 7 August. call for objections.
20:47:38 [alewis]
Next meeting: 7 August 2006, same bat time, same bat channel.
20:47:41 [Zakim]
-Gilbert_Pilz
20:47:44 [alewis]
meeting adjourned.
20:47:48 [Zakim]
-David_Illsley
20:47:49 [Zakim]
-Paul_Knight
20:47:50 [Gil]
Gil has left #ws-addr
20:47:51 [Zakim]
-Anish_Karmarkar
20:47:52 [Zakim]
-TonyR
20:47:53 [Zakim]
-agupta
20:47:55 [Zakim]
-Prasad_Yendluri
20:47:56 [Zakim]
-Bob_Freund
20:48:06 [bob]
rrsagent, make logs world
20:48:07 [Zakim]
-Amelia_Lewis
20:48:09 [Zakim]
-[IPcaller]
20:48:09 [Zakim]
-Pete_Wenzel
20:48:11 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
20:48:12 [Zakim]
Attendees were Mark_Little, agupta, Bob_Freund, David_Illsley, Amelia_Lewis, Gilbert_Pilz, Paul_Knight, [IPcaller], TonyR, Pete_Wenzel, Prasad_Yendluri, Anish_Karmarkar
20:48:19 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
20:48:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/07/31-ws-addr-minutes.html bob
20:48:39 [alewis]
alewis has left #ws-addr
21:38:49 [agupta]
agupta has left #ws-addr
22:56:12 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-addr