See also: IRC log
Chris: Include discussion of primer inserted after the AI discussion
Ashok: I requested agenda item discussion of how many messages you can have .. resulting from AI in Austin. See REQUEST FOR AGENDA ITEM re. http://www.w3.org/2006/07/12-ws-policy-minutes.html#action05.
Paul: amendments to minutes from Asir.
Chris: Amend the minutes to record the AIs closed
ACTION: editors to implement the resolution for issue 3562. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/02-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
ACTION: Philippe to amend the minutes per Asir's mail [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/02-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
RESOLUTION: Minutes approved with amendment
Chris: Paul and I think best to go with Sonic offer in Nov, so we confirmed Nov F2F at Sonic.
RESOLUTION: November 7-9 f2f hosted by Sonic Software, in Bedford, MA
Paul: BEA confirms F2F 16-18th Jan in SFO is ok
RESOLUTION: January 16-18 f2f hosted by BEA, in San Franscisco, CA
ACTION: Jong Lee to provide Felix Logistics infor for F2F of Jan 07 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/02-ws-policy-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - Lee to provide Felix Logistics infor for F2F of Jan 16-18, 2007 [on Jong Lee - due 2006-08-09].
Chris: Congrats to WG on publication of WG Draft
ACTION: Philippe to check on email notification of publication of WG (obligation) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/02-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
Chris: Major change new issues
submitted into Bugzilla
... All bugs must be entered into bugzilla. Felix sent out FAQ, I updated FAQ
... Owner responsible shephearding the issue
Prasad: Are we doing both sending NEW ISSUE to list as well as bugzilla?
Chris: No, Bugzilla should send a notification to list. Currently not working
Umit: Clarification on issue owner
Chris: Owner is admin of the issue
Asir: Some of the issues all
links are not in Bugzilla.
... Title of the issue changes in Buzilla notification
Chris: Owners include link to original issue in Bugzilla
Asir: None of the Editorial AIs are in Tracker
ACTION: Chris to ck on separate tracker for Editorial AIs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/02-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]
AI 2 and 8 DONE
AI 10, 11 DONE
AI 14, 18 DONE
AI 21 DONE
AI 22 and 25 CLOSED
AI 23 and 26 are DUPLICATES
AI 23 and 26 CLOSED
AI 29 and 31 CLOSED
AI 30 CLOSED
AI 12 CLOSED (duplicate of 13)
AI 1 CLOSED
Maryann: Walks through the outline (Umit and Maryann had offline discussions). See also outline for the Guidelines for WS-Policy Assertion Authors document
Asir: Accept and assign to editors
ACTION: Editors to implement the resolution for issue 3545 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/02-ws-policy-minutes.html#action05]
RESOLUTION: issue 3545 closed by assigning to editors to address this in the next draft. 3547 closed (Captured in Asir's amendment to last week's minutes)
ACTION: William to update 3547 with link to last wek's minutes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/02-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Update 3547 with link to last week\'s minutes [on William Henry - due 2006-08-09].
[Prasad describes his issue... purely editorial changes...]
<asir> +1 to these editorial changes
<umit> +1 to changes
RESOLUTION: Issue 3551 closed and assigned to editors
ACTION: Editors to implement the resolution for issue 3551 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/02-ws-policy-minutes.html#action07]
Ashok: I had comments from Asir and Frederick
<Yakov> +1 to WS-Addressing
Asir: I don't like Non-Goals in intro
Chris: No consensus. Taking back to list
Ashok: I am suggesting we remove the example
Maryann: One at the end of section?
Umit: Need better example than remove it
Chris: Agrees with Umit and it is a minor technical issue
Paul: When people create buzilla entry add a hyperlink to which doc you are referring to
<cferris> paul makes a great suggestion that bugzilla entries be augmented with a link into the published draft to which a particular issue pertains
Paul: In attachment the processor word occurs only in notiational convention
Chris: In both it is only in Notational Conventions
<TomJ> I said that we should remove the concept of processor in the spec entirely
Maryann: Delete the entire section?
<TomJ> Experience from WSDL working group indicates that is causes more trouble than its worth
Paul: No. Someone needs to propose an amendment
Asir: Leave it to editors?
ACTION: Editors to get rid of the term 'processor' in WS-Policy and WS-PolicyAttachment (issue 3543) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/02-ws-policy-minutes.html#action08]
<umit> Leave it to editors with passive voice
RESOLUTION: issue 3543 closed assigned to editors - change last sentence putting in passive voice, and eliminate term processor
<umit> is it possible to link these emails that Ashok is referring to to the bug?
Skipped. Prasad to provide more info / examples
[Umit describes the issue]
<Yakov> I am against b1
Glen: We need at least something
like Umit's option C
... Optiona A seems to venture into negotiation space
Umit: I definitely think option C is a must, however I do not believe a solution suggested in A to this problem ventures into negotiation. Let me explain. Negotiation means a lot of different things to different people, from a third party communicating sets of policies of two separate parties on behalf of those parties to exchange of policies between the parties. In this case, what I intended for A is a "selection mechanism" not a negotiation mechanism on behalf of a requestor. The sender is not exchanging its policies with the receiver, the receiver knows that there are alternates due to optional assertions but needs to choose one. My suggestion is to define a header to "select" an alternative that disambiguates the presence of an optional assertion when needed (analogous to mustUnderstand) After all, an optional assertion yields two alternatives, one with and one without the assertion after normalization on the receiver.
Nadalin: Umits description seems to mix alternatives and optionality
Umit: An optional assertion results in two alternatives as a result of normalization. The question is which one to select.
<maryann> so that's your second case
Dan: seeks clarification on what is meant by optional assertion. Assertion with @optional on it?
<umit> Can everyone speaking send the comments that made to the list? We are not capturing the discussion. I will create a thread
Chris: Out of time. Discussion to continue on the list / bugzilla
Philippe: Call for exclusions didn't
start yet, see Web Services
Policy Patent Policy status. The reference draft for the call
for exclusions is the
latest public working draft within 90
days after the first public Working Draft (see section 4.1,
With Continued Participation"). By the way, Call for Exclusions are copied to member-cfe.
Paul: It gives people lot of time to resign from WG without impacting the effort
A participant may
resign from the Working Group within 90 days after the publication
of the first public Working Draft and be excused from all
licensing commitments arising out of Working Group
Paul: Can we have WG notified that Clock on the Exclusions has started
ACTION: Philippe to determine with IAN Jacobs if fesible to send an email to WG to start membership review period [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/02-ws-policy-minutes.html#action10]