19:51:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:51:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/08/14-ws-addr-irc
19:51:54 <bob> zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
19:51:54 <Zakim> ok, bob, I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM already started
19:52:14 <bob> Meeting: Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference
19:52:23 <bob> Chair: Bob Freund
19:53:50 <bob> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0062.html
19:54:49 <David_Illsley> David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
19:55:31 <dhull> dhull has joined #ws-addr
19:57:38 <Zakim> +Bob_Freund
19:57:49 <bob> zakim, who is here?
19:57:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Dave_Hull, Bob_Freund
19:57:51 <Zakim> On IRC I see dhull, David_Illsley, RRSAgent, Zakim, bob, Jonathan
19:58:23 <Zakim> +David_Illsley
19:58:56 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Marsh
19:59:12 <TonyR> TonyR has joined #ws-addr
19:59:31 <Katy> Katy has joined #ws-addr
19:59:49 <Zakim> +mlittle
20:00:15 <PaulKnight> PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
20:00:29 <Zakim> +??P8
20:00:41 <TonyR> zakim, ??p8 is tony
20:00:41 <Zakim> +tony; got it
20:00:50 <agupta> agupta has joined #ws-addr
20:00:51 <Zakim> +[IBM]
20:00:53 <yinleng> yinleng has joined #ws-addr
20:01:25 <Zakim> +Paul_Knight
20:01:39 <Zakim> +[Sun]
20:01:41 <agupta> zakim, [Sun] is me
20:01:41 <Zakim> +agupta; got it
20:01:46 <David_Illsley> David_Illsley has left #ws-addr
20:02:01 <Zakim> +??P12
20:02:37 <yinleng> zakim, ??P12 is me
20:02:37 <Zakim> +yinleng; got it
20:02:44 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
20:02:47 <bob> zakim, ??P12 is yinleng
20:02:47 <Zakim> I already had ??P12 as yinleng, bob
20:03:06 <David_Illsley> David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
20:03:16 <mlittle> mlittle has joined #ws-addr
20:03:24 <plh> plh has joined #ws-addr
20:03:27 <Zakim> +Plh
20:03:28 <Zakim> +??P15
20:03:40 <anish> anish has joined #ws-addr
20:03:41 <plh> plh has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0062.html
20:03:44 <Zakim> +Marc_Hadley
20:03:59 <plh> zakim, +??p15 is Katy
20:03:59 <Zakim> sorry, plh, I do not recognize a party named '+??p15'
20:04:05 <prasad> prasad has joined #ws-addr
20:04:05 <plh> zakim, ??p15 is Katy
20:04:05 <Zakim> +Katy; got it
20:04:11 <Zakim> +Prasad_Yendluri
20:04:14 <pauld> pauld has joined #ws-addr
20:04:16 <Dug> Dug has joined #ws-addr
20:04:26 <Zakim> +Anish
20:04:38 <Zakim> +Paul_Downey
20:05:03 <plh> zakim, who's here?
20:05:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see Dave_Hull, Bob_Freund, David_Illsley, Jonathan_Marsh, mlittle, tony, [IBM], Paul_Knight, agupta, yinleng, Gilbert_Pilz, Katy, Plh, Marc_Hadley, Prasad_Yendluri,
20:05:03 <marc> marc has joined #ws-addr
20:05:06 <Zakim> ... Anish, Paul_Downey
20:05:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see Dug, pauld, prasad, anish, plh, mlittle, David_Illsley, yinleng, agupta, PaulKnight, Katy, TonyR, dhull, RRSAgent, Zakim, bob, Jonathan
20:05:22 <gpilz> gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:05:28 <TonyR> zakim, tony is TonyR
20:05:28 <Zakim> +TonyR; got it
20:05:58 <Dug> LOL thanks
20:06:55 <David_Illsley_> David_Illsley_ has joined #ws-addr
20:08:07 <yinleng> Minutes accepted.
20:08:51 <yinleng> Because of invitation to Dug, his issue is first item of business now
20:08:52 <Zakim> +GlenD
20:09:04 <PaulKnight> scribe: yinleng
20:09:28 <GlenD> GlenD has joined #ws-addr
20:10:11 <yinleng> Dug: Described the problem of CR33
20:10:27 <bob> Topic: cr33
20:11:11 <David_Illsley> David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
20:11:32 <Jonathan> q+
20:11:45 <bob> ack j
20:12:09 <yinleng> Dug: Hopes WSDL spec will soften wording to allow change of wording of use of anon URI from MUST to SHOULD
20:14:14 <yinleng> Dug: Considered using a ref param, but seems inappropriate for this use.
20:15:06 <pauld> q+
20:15:39 <yinleng> JonM: You have to know out of band whether a URI is needed or not
20:16:38 <yinleng> Dug: You need to know whether RM supports anon URI.
20:17:14 <yinleng> JonM: RM assertion would have to extend the addressing layer
20:18:06 <bob> ack p
20:18:14 <David_Illsley> David_Illsley has left #ws-addr
20:18:36 <David_Illsley> David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
20:18:42 <anish> RM anon URL is not 'anonymous', there is an embeded identity in it
20:18:53 <anish> so, can't use the ws-addr anon uri
20:19:08 <Jonathan> exactly.  It's a identifiable anonymous.
20:19:13 <Jonathan> A named anonymous, if you will.
20:19:15 <anish> q+
20:19:24 <Jonathan> An oxymoron.
20:19:41 <anish> q-
20:20:02 <anish> the other issue with using refps is that, what happens when there are more than one refps in the EPR
20:20:17 <anish> which makes use of refps for this purpose very tricky
20:20:34 <Jonathan> Why would you have more than one?
20:20:57 <anish> well, the user could be using refps for other purposes (outside of polling)
20:21:17 <anish> i.e., interaction of polling refp with other refps
20:21:33 <bob> q?
20:22:13 <anish> anonymous name is an oxymoron, has to do with its history
20:22:23 <anish> it no longer means "anonymous", it means backchannel
20:22:28 <anish> afaiui
20:22:34 <yinleng> JonM: The question comes down to exactly what anonymous means?
20:22:43 <yinleng> Context dependent?
20:22:47 <pauld> thinks if we were earlier in the process, I'd suggest an "anonymous=true" attribute. but given we're a rec ..
20:22:54 <TonyR> q+
20:23:30 <anish> i should note that it is context-dependent, but the context is defined by the binding not the MEP
20:23:49 <yinleng> JonM: In the spec, it is one to one mapping to anon URI.  With RM it is no long one to one mapping of concept to the anon URI.
20:25:03 <bob> ack t
20:25:04 <yinleng> JonM: Anish has another type of anon URI use.
20:25:18 <bob> q dhull
20:25:39 <dhull> q?
20:26:23 <yinleng> Tony: Let's not make things sloppy, we should separate the concept of replying on the back channel, instead of changing it to SHOULD - that will weaken the spec
20:26:59 <mlittle> +1
20:27:18 <anish> how about replacing wsaw:Anonymous with wsaw:Backchannel ?
20:27:56 <gpilz> q+
20:28:07 <GlenD> q+
20:28:08 <Dug> I like the idea of anon=true attribute on the wsa:Address element  
20:28:27 <Dug> then it can be any URI - which would make sync and async much more alike  :-)
20:28:46 <Dug> no, in the EPR itself
20:29:03 <Dug> I think that's what PaulD was suggesting, but I just guessing.
20:29:14 <Dug> s/I/I'm/
20:29:17 <Jonathan> q+ to propose the nuclear option
20:29:25 <bob> q?
20:29:36 <bob> ack g
20:29:49 <Zakim> -mlittle
20:29:51 <yinleng> Gil: Idea of anon attribute on the address element seems to solve the problem.
20:30:03 <bob> ack gpilz
20:30:18 <bob> q+ GlenD
20:30:39 <Dug> +1 Gil
20:30:49 <TonyR> +1
20:30:54 <marc> q+
20:30:57 <bob> ack GlenD
20:31:03 <yinleng> GilP: Problem is we are rather late in how we define the anonymous
20:31:45 <yinleng> GlenD: What is the point of the wsa:address markup?
20:33:06 <bob> q?
20:33:49 <yinleng> GlenD: We are already using some contextual understanding of the URI, so is it really a problem?
20:35:13 <bob> ack jon
20:35:13 <Zakim> Jonathan, you wanted to propose the nuclear option
20:35:31 <gpilz> q+
20:36:06 <anish> q+
20:36:11 <yinleng> JonM: The more we make the marker open-ended, the anon marker will lose its value.
20:36:13 <Dug> killing the marker works too :-)
20:36:18 <bob> ack marc
20:36:33 <Jonathan> +1 to Marc!
20:36:41 <bob> +2 to Marc
20:36:44 <Jonathan> but, RM isn't a REc yet ;-)
20:36:59 <pauld> we've shipped!
20:37:02 <TonyR> q+
20:37:04 <yinleng> MarcH: This is already a RC, which should be stable
20:37:14 <bob> ack gpi
20:39:13 <bob> ack ani
20:39:55 <yinleng> Anish: Agree with Jono that it is an oxymoron, but should not let that prevent us from moving forward.
20:40:02 <bob> ack ton
20:40:11 <Dug> q+
20:40:27 <bob> ack dug
20:40:39 <yinleng> Tony: Suggest RM is changed rather than changing a spec that has gone to RC.
20:41:47 <gpilz> q+
20:41:55 <TonyR> q+
20:42:07 <dhull> q+
20:42:24 <bob> ack gpi
20:42:52 <bob> ack tony
20:44:05 <Dug> q+
20:44:13 <Jonathan> q+
20:44:17 <bob> ack dhull
20:44:53 <Dug> q-
20:45:38 <GlenD> IIRC, the reason we originally said "you can have other anon uris" was also for RM, but that was about the idea that RM endpoints might actually send you a message that IS NOT the response to your request down the HTTP response, even though you are doing a req/resp...
20:45:45 <yinleng> Dhull: We are getting further away from the HTTP concept of anon.
20:46:55 <GlenD> but I think since then we backed off a little on saying "anonymous URI == specifically the response of a SOAP req/resp"
20:47:01 <bob> ack jon
20:47:12 <yinleng> Dhull: Valid concern that WSA is already in RC, should look at how much room there is for change before seeing what to do
20:49:28 <marc> q+
20:49:49 <bob> ack marc
20:50:06 <David_Illsley> David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
20:52:38 <yinleng> MarcH: If I am unaware of the RM spec, how do I know the meaning of the anon URI to be used?
20:53:19 <David_Illsley> yes, CORE 3.2.1
20:53:39 <marc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-core-20060509/#compiri
20:54:18 <yinleng> JonM: not heard any solution that I am completely comfortable with
20:54:35 <bob> q?
20:54:35 <anish> q?
20:55:36 <yinleng> What about talking about the endpoint instead.  Turn it the other way round
20:56:14 <anish> i.e, wsaw:NewConnection={prohibited|required|optional} ?
20:56:50 <GlenD> yah, just have to get the specese right
20:56:54 <gpilz> q+
20:57:25 <bob> ack gpi
20:58:25 <yinleng> Dug: Not sure this will solve the problem.
20:59:54 <Zakim> + +44.207.704.aaaa
21:02:35 <yinleng> JonM: is it possible to solve this in conjunction with the policy document?
21:03:31 <bob> q?
21:04:21 <Dug> bob - if I'm allowed (not being a WSA member) I can work on some text with Anish
21:04:48 <yinleng> Alistair: Have we established that they are completely orthogonal?
21:06:08 <yinleng> JonM: We have established that the two specs doesn't allow the use of the RM URI in the use of our markup WSDL
21:06:42 <yinleng> s/doesn't/don't/
21:09:13 <yinleng> ACTION: Dug and Anish to go away and work on a text by thurs/fri.
21:10:11 <Dug> yup
21:11:39 <Zakim> - +44.207.704.aaaa
21:11:51 <yinleng> Bob: invites Dug back to next Monday's call
21:12:10 <yinleng> Bob: Action item review
21:12:44 <yinleng> Bob: Still looking for testers
21:13:29 <PaulKnight> zakim unmute agupta
21:13:43 <yinleng> Bob: Arun not present, but the table is posted.
21:14:09 <Zakim> -Paul_Downey
21:14:15 <plh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/att-0001/anonymous-semantics.htm__charset_WINDOWS-1252
21:14:47 <yinleng> Bob: CR27 Philippe - pending
21:15:05 <yinleng> Bob: CR30 Tony - pending
21:15:31 <marc> Updated table: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/att-0050/anonymous-semantics.htm__charset_WINDOWS-1252
21:16:19 <anish> q+
21:16:25 <yinleng> Bob: the intention was to include table in the spec.
21:16:25 <Jonathan> q+
21:16:35 <plh> q+
21:16:42 <bob> ack ani
21:16:56 <yinleng> Anish: Want to point to another issue that might change the content of this table.
21:18:05 <David_Illsley> q+
21:18:06 <gpilz> q+
21:18:08 <yinleng> Anish: Also there is an issue with rule 4
21:18:20 <Jonathan> q-
21:18:25 <Jonathan> q+ Jonathan
21:18:51 <yinleng> Philippe: Is this related to CR32?
21:19:29 <bob> ack plh
21:19:52 <plh> q+ plh
21:20:30 <bob> ack david
21:20:36 <TonyR> q+
21:21:16 <bob> ack gpil
21:22:32 <plh> q- later
21:23:04 <yinleng> Gil: If Anish thinks 4 E is incorrect, is 8 D also incorrect?
21:25:14 <yinleng> JonM: Will this also affect 9, 10 , 11, 12?
21:26:16 <bob> ack tony
21:26:22 <yinleng> Anish: Need to decide on None/Anon mismatch
21:26:31 <dhull> q+
21:26:48 <plh> q-
21:27:05 <GlenD> +1 to Tony
21:27:07 <anish> may i suggest that we resolve the other issue first, it might make this much clearer
21:28:25 <dhull> q-
21:29:51 <agupta> got pulled over, now back
21:34:19 <dhull> q+
21:34:19 <GlenD> gotta run....
21:34:30 <Zakim> -GlenD
21:34:50 <yinleng> Discussion on Anish's and Tony's differing viewpoints
21:35:05 <bob> ack dhull
21:36:44 <anish> q+
21:37:37 <bob> ack ani
21:40:51 <yinleng> Tony: there are two issues
21:42:32 <yinleng> Anish: Do we need to say None URI is prohibited in response?
21:42:39 <yinleng> Tony: Don't think so
21:42:53 <bob> Folks agree that none is acceptable for use when anon=required or anon=prohibited
21:45:28 <bob> Action: TonyR to propose mods to table to reflect discussion of resp on bacjchannel when wsa headers are invalid
21:45:46 <yinleng> ACTION: Tony is to propose modifications to the table on discussions of sending notifications to the backchannel when wsa headers are invalid
21:46:05 <bob> ack jon
21:47:12 <David_Illsley> q+
21:47:24 <anish> q+
21:47:31 <bob> q?
21:47:53 <anish> q-
21:47:55 <David_Illsley> q-
21:49:11 <David_Illsley> q+
21:50:10 <anish> q+
21:50:35 <bob> ack david
21:51:02 <dhull> q?
21:51:09 <dhull> q+
21:51:31 <bob> ack ani
21:52:33 <TonyR> q+
21:53:33 <bob> q?
21:53:58 <bob> ack dhull
21:54:46 <bob> ack ton
21:56:09 <dhull> q+
21:57:09 <gpilz> q+
21:57:53 <bob> ack dhull
21:58:02 <Zakim> -[IBM]
21:58:06 <David_Illsley> gpilz, I can agree that there might be those situations but I think thery're edge cases and predictability is more valuable
21:58:17 <Dug> Dug has left #ws-addr
21:58:28 <bob> ack gpil
21:59:57 <Jonathan> I don't want to force lazy evaluation, but I'm interested in enabling it.
22:00:04 <dhull> do we have an issue for this?
22:00:10 <Zakim> -TonyR
22:00:26 <gpilz> Jonathan, it's a little like being "slightly pregnant"
22:00:34 <Zakim> -Jonathan_Marsh
22:00:36 <Zakim> -agupta
22:00:37 <Zakim> -Prasad_Yendluri
22:00:38 <Zakim> -Anish
22:00:40 <Zakim> -Paul_Knight
22:00:41 <Zakim> -Dave_Hull
22:00:42 <Zakim> -yinleng
22:00:44 <Zakim> -Marc_Hadley
22:00:46 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
22:00:47 <Zakim> -Plh
22:00:48 <Zakim> -Bob_Freund
22:00:49 <Zakim> -Katy
22:00:50 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
22:00:52 <Zakim> Attendees were Dave_Hull, Bob_Freund, David_Illsley, Jonathan_Marsh, mlittle, [IBM], Paul_Knight, agupta, yinleng, Gilbert_Pilz, Plh, Marc_Hadley, Katy, Prasad_Yendluri, Anish,
22:00:53 <anish> i'm begining to think that this (lazy eval as a MAY) is a good idea
22:00:54 <Zakim> ... Paul_Downey, TonyR, GlenD, +44.207.704.aaaa
22:00:55 <TonyR> TonyR has left #ws-addr
22:00:56 <bob> yinleng, thanks for scribing
22:00:58 <plh> zakim, bye
22:00:58 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ws-addr
22:01:08 <yinleng> Bob: Do I need to do anything else wrt to the notes on IRC?
22:01:10 <plh> rrsagent, make logs member-visible
22:01:10 <bob> rrsagent, make logs public
22:01:18 <plh> rrsagent, generate minutes
22:01:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/08/14-ws-addr-minutes.html plh
22:01:35 <bob> plh, you beat me to the draw
22:01:51 <plh> your last command should have the last effect :)
22:02:09 <plh> btw Bob, I won't be around next week
22:02:22 <plh> I'll send the proposed working for cr27 by the end of the week
22:02:31 <bob> ok, thanks for helping out last monday
22:02:45 <yinleng> yinleng has left #ws-addr
22:02:53 <bob> thanks, It would be nice to close an easy (I hope) one
22:03:27 <plh> rrsagent, make logs public
22:03:30 <plh> rrsagent, generate minutes
22:03:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/08/14-ws-addr-minutes.html plh
22:05:38 <bob> now, we have asked rrsagent to do minutes twice, the poor fellow might resentful
22:06:20 <plh> shouldn't be
22:08:17 <bob> bob has left #ws-addr
22:46:25 <dhull> dhull has joined #ws-addr
23:09:02 <agupta> agupta has left #ws-addr