See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 16 August 2006
<scribe> scribe: abbie
<paulc> zakim. who is here?
<paulc> who is here?
who is scribe ?
<cferris> scribe: abbie
approval of minutes as ammended by umit http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/45
fredrick has a comment, should we change how the comments are recorded (interleaved)
chris, minutes approved as ammended by umit and felix
next item, review of Review and approval of 2006-08-02 telcon minutes, Chair
Draft minutes (member only):
http://www.w3.org/2006/08/02-ws-policy-minutes.html
fredric has a comment agenda item 9 9 same a before)
approved
paul will chair that
f2f meeting moved to belleview as opposed to redmond, closer to ice cream shops
<FrederickHirsch> note in agenda item 9a in 09 minutes may be confusing -
<whenry> Is there a place I can check if my registration was ... well registered?
<FrederickHirsch> move "ssue 3549 related to 3548, same resolution" to agenda item for 3548
chris stated that the drafts have been posted
<asir> ACTION: Philippe to update the Redmond F2F logistics page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Update the Redmond F2F logistics page [on Philippe Le Hegaret - due 2006-08-23].
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to upgrade the logistics details for f2f [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Upgrade the logistics details for f2f [on Felix Sasaki - due 2006-08-23].
draft include most of the actions, 4 left and were reported by the editors in an e-mail to list
diff were included in the draft
action 20, posted this morning
paulc suggests to update on the fly
<paulc> Action 20 is resolved by Bugzilla 3602
action 33 and 35
merge operation (need a better way) more time needed + 1 or 2 days
epr and policy subject, need to make sure that they are not a repeat, if not the case will update end of the week
action 39, owner is not online, david orchard will do that
action 39, pending
action 44, we do have an editor user, deemed inadequate, felix working on it, pending
action 44 peding on chris
action 48, maryann and Asir to ensure that interaction definition is clear, pending on maryann
action 48 is due on next tuesday
maryann needed personal time/vacation
paulc action 39 will be assigned to Dave Orchard
paulc all actions are updated
open issues for next week
befire the 23
<asir> Here is the link to open issues for next week - http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/open
<paulc> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/open
look at the issue list (open issues) and take care of your action items
co-chairs remind people of doing their action items before the morning of the call friday is a better deadline before the call
<bijan> are actions listed anywhere?
<bijan> In a comprehensive ongoing list?
6. Editorial and wording changing issues (30 minutes)
chris, there is 20 open issues
<bijan> No :)
is that all the issues?
issues open today are direct derivatives from the f2f
need to look at the subsatnce and make sure that we did get all issues that are not trivial
next f2f first day will try to finish the job of identifying all critical issues
<paulc> Chris: Let's get issues out ASAP.
asir: is ther a deadline for finding substasive issues, need to enure t go with the december draft
chris, ideally will have only editorial after the f2f
umit: is october the time frame substansive issues
chris, an editor draft that we can review in early december
paulc have it ready for f2f and use f2f to clean it up
chris, we have all issues closed by 23 of october to allow editors to produce a draft
chris need to change default assignne of the issue and people need to input their e-mail address in the assignne field
if you creat an issue, u r the owner, does not mean provide solution, but mean track it
above was said by chris
<Zakim> asir, you wanted to ask two questions on Bugzilla
<umit> i would have preferred to sort out the remaining issues in the november f2f. F2F is usually more productive to resolve issues.
asir: do u have issue discuutions to happen (issue list)
chris issue list,
chris, include a link in bugziila to the beginig in the issue
asir: when we add an issue do we need the issue template
chris, yes, people please do that
url is comming next??
paulc assign an action item when to find the memodrium
<scribe> ACTION: paulc to find the memodrium [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - paulc
<scribe> ACTION: paul to find memodrium [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Find memodrium [on Paul Cotton - due 2006-08-23].
e) Remove misleading reference to a Requester policy, Yakov
paulc carry fwd till dave give a proposal
s/e) with a) Clarify the relation of overlapping definitions in the fr...,
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3562
<maryann> moratorium ?
<bijan> 5?
<maryann> for paul's item, yes?
Remove misleading phrasing of section 1.1 Goals section, Dale
Status: Releated to ACTION-5.
bijan trying to track it as a duplicate
bijan: is a duplicate of 3604
<asir> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3604
<bijan> 3604
so 3604 is a resolution of b) Remove misleading phrasing
<cferris> RESOLUTION: 3566 closed as dup of 3604
c) Framework and domain specific policy assertions, Dale
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3565
dale: introduction remark, in current draft looks better, there is no policy assertaions define in the document
<bijan> Wacky! Zakim goes mad!
dale: introduction in the frame suggest defining a framework etc,, but there are none
this is may not be clear to all, but clear to me , to a reader can be misleading
chris: current draft is better??
dale: yes, just drop it if ok with others
toufic: as above, can we the definition of polucy aertion, see section 2.4 terminology
section 2.4 is still under construction
dale: should comment on the introduction and see if it is misleading or not ( see parag 1 and 2)
asir what is misleading
<maryann> are we using the speaker que?
<bijan> +1 asir
dale: does the framework provide what the intro states
<bijan> No NOT GRAMMER!
tofic provides a grammer
tofic, i believe that is correct
dale correct contrast between domain and frameowrk is not clear
chris use the queue
toufic i beilive that like other clarifications that dale wnat to reword (better or more to the point)
<asir> +1
<paulc> Two more people have registered for the Sept F2F. Is there anyone else on the call that can do this during the meeting?
maryann: historical context, web services polucy 1.1 was a reference to the doc, would it help that the doc define a definition of asertion etc...
dale, both of the previous commets suggest, first sentance like web services provide a .. language for expressing ... (need domain specific)
dale, can editor take a big stab at it
tofic, will be glad to take that
<bijan> +1 assign to editors
asir, assign to editor
yakov need to add more definitions
chris can raise that issue for the glossary
paulc need to what changes are required
<maryann> the editors will clarify the definition of framework and domain
<maryann> and domain is already an action for the editors
<Yakov> Possible definitions to add (as part of new issue): Policy Domain, Requester, Provider, Policy Eval
chris, what we need is that dale is concerned parag 1 did convet that asertions are domain ones, need change to indicate that
<maryann> the defintion of domain is already an action and I own it
<umit> We can give Dale an action item to verify the results.
chris, maryann will work on that
paulc maryann text is good
<Yakov> +1
maryann this is a good item for the editors to take
RESOLUTION: 3565 asigned to editors
<asir> ACTION: Editors to implement the resolution for issue 3566 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Implement the resolution for issue 3566 [on Editors - due 2006-08-23].
chris, dale tp update bugzilllllllla
asir: 3566 terms like domain is diffuclt to define
chris, 3665 we closed 3566 is open
Conformance Sections needed for both specs, Umit
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3559
<cferris> ACTION 5 = Editors to implement the resolution for issue 3565
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0104.html
bijan, can not find my actions
chris, check the minutes
umit, complted action item 13, found questionable items , do we need to open an issue, how to proced
chris, if u have issues enter them, do not asume that issues will be trakced
paulc, since u r proposing changes u need to open an issue
Minor Technical Issues (30 minutes)
a) Add discussion/examples of domain expressions, Ashok
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3557
ashok, added wording to ask the editor to add words about expression as a polucty subject, started 3599 to reques to think about uri structure for wsdl 1.1
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3599
and possible mesaging mechanisms
chris 2 open issues wsd 1 and wsdl 1.1
ashok, no, one is on expression and one which possible object u can reference
<plh> +1 to provide a phone line to Ashok
+1 to not be the scribe
chris, 3599 policy attachment for wsdl 1.1
asir, ????
umit, Ashok have added that to the bug
<paulc> "This needs to be clarified in the PolicyAttachment document." Where?
paulc entry say need to clarify in polcy doc but did not where
asir, subjectline shoudl state that
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-attach-20060731/#ExternalPolicyAttachment
<cferris> The external Policy Attachment mechanism uses a PolicyAttachment element to
<cferris> associate a Policy with a Policy Subject. URI References to policy subjects
<cferris> may include WSDL component references, (see Appendix to the WSDL 2.0 spec for
<cferris> URI structures to refer to WSFL 2.0 contsructs), endpoint references and other
<cferris> domain specific configurations and protocol constructs, such as URIs used to
<cferris> designate JMS queues.
umit can go before the example
<cferris> added to section 3.4 pol-att
asir, looking at the text, how the exteral work with components
<cferris> note, I believe that there is a typo in the proposed text from the issue in bugzilla... WSFL should probably be WSDL
not aware about implementations that support component designated, not ware why need to reference two attachement mechanisms
<umit> yes, you are right Chris
umit, do not think that u can speculate what else will implement
<cferris> also, contsructs should be constructs
umit this is an example, no place in spec the usage of components is prohibited
aisr: may need other peices than the example may be a documnet to explain how use it etc.
<Zakim> asir, you wanted to respond
ashok, r u saying that no one implemnt wdsl 2 component desginatior, well... peiople will slolwy do it
ashok, oracle does wsdl 1.1
<cferris> ashok, believes that since WSDL2.0 component designators is a W3C spec, that it will gain adoption and that will need a means of referencing them from polatt
<paulc> What is the difficulty with spelling it out - A: people will ask us to demonstrate implementations of this during CR.
maryann, 2 things usage of adressing (need to verify with wsa greoup) and need to verify with the wsdl wg
chris, riase this as an issue
ashok, what is the issue
maryann, coordination isssue between the example and it is in alighnement with wsa wg and wsdl wg
<paulc> FYI, WSDL 2.0 is at CR. Does anyone know if the WSDL 2.0 component designators are being tested as part of that CR?
<cferris> I'd like someone to enter this as an issue: addressing the question as to whether we need to have ws-addr and wsdl wgs weigh in on the example domain expression
<asir> No WSDL 2.0 component designators are not tested
<scribe> ACTION: maryann to add an issue on coordination [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-60 - Add an issue on coordination [on Maryann Hondo - due 2006-08-23].
<maryann> Action 60- there seems to be some question on whether the example given in 3.4 is "legitimate" with regard to the WS-Addressing specification/Working group and whether or not there are additional attachment mechanisms for WSDL, so the action is to coordinate with the WSDL and WS-Addressing working groups to have them review the examples we are citing
<paulc> I am concerned if it is clear if Section 3.4 of the PolicyAttachment has implementation requirements on this WG?
umit, external reference can span large contexts, it is ideas that matter, why having examples that refere to external subjetcs creats a concern
<cferris> umit: unclear as to why wording that provides possible examples of domain expressions is generating such controversy
paulc, put 2 comments on irc, nothing normative in 3.4, wonder if people will think is an extension point and need not be tested
paulc, is components designators part of cr in wsdl 2
ashok, need to check
paulc, any think normtaive in this section
<maryann> i think its examples
<maryann> but I was suggesting a review of the examples by the appropriate working groups
pauc, need to figure out what the section is doing, people may see the section as having different objectives
asir, can not fully answere paulc question
3 mechanisms, atatchment to wsdl 1.1, uddi and wsdl 2
asir, then general purpose mechanisms,
asir, with repect to umit concerns, we do not know if the exaplmes are misleading the reader or not
umit, talking reference to wsdlm, u may object to jms, but not all
ashok, if u r attaching policy to wsdl that u own, ok with wsdl, if u want attach ploicy to a wsdl that u do not owbm that situation u need the 3 point mechanism
this is useful stuff
ashok, u might not use jms, but people do, people can use what the see fit
chris, take that to the list
9. Major Technical Issues (30 minutes)
a) Normalization should make empty nested policy elements, Frederick
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3548
Status: See exchange beginning here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0063.html
fredirc this related to 3548
bug 3549, Require assertions to be distinguished from parameter elements
<FrederickHirsch> bugzilla entry: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3549
<FrederickHirsch> additional email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0063.html
<FrederickHirsch> 1. Clarity of assertion vs parameter
<FrederickHirsch> 2. Allow generic processor to distinguish even with unknown domain assertions
<FrederickHirsch> 3. Resolve normalization issue with empty wsp:Policy element and none,
fredrick, how to differentiate an asertion from a parameter,
<FrederickHirsch> Framework states that unknown child element is treated as assertion in 2.2
<FrederickHirsch> Asir notes in bugzilla that assertions must be in wsp namespace, contradiction.
<cferris> I would note that in suggesting that discussion of the previous issue (in topic 8) be taken to the list, that I was also encouraging progress on the other minor issues on the list so that we are prepared to close those on next week's call
asir stated an asertion should in the wsp name space
<FrederickHirsch> Framework also states that any assertion that may have nested assertion,
<cferris> me recognizes dave o joining the call
fredrick, there is an issue of clrity
<FrederickHirsch> must have child assertion (Section 4.3.2 Assertion/wsp:Policy item).
ashok, some assertions are like sub policies, not sure what u mean
ashok, all asertion must be in the wsp name space ?? do not agree
asir, asir i did not say the assertion in the wsp space
<paulc> Where is the dialogue on this issue in the email archive?
asir insists that the minutes clear him from this terrible stattement
fredrick, disgree that the issues are disjoint
asir, can explain the e-mail chain
<paulc> See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/0088.html
asir, policy assertion is child element of policy that is not from the ws policy name space
<paulc> for email dialogue on Issue 3548
not aware of issues on disticntion between assertion and a asser.. paremeter
fredirck, asir is correct,
<cferris> asir does not want to be misquoted in the minutes
an assertion that has a nested assertion they all be the child of one of the policy elements,
fredrick, need clarification in the documnet
frederick, we need 3548 and 3549 to be comnibed to make better wording in the documents(s)
asir, wait until tony is here to do 3548,
frederick, we are resolved for 3549, need better wording
ashok, looking at ws-secpolcy, assertion has no imbeeded poluc, so ???
<cferris> section 4.1.1
daroth, need the tecxt for the record, on the list
asir, wrp ashok, on the parts body header are assertion parameters
<scribe> ACTION: fredrick to supply text to reslove 3549 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - fredrick
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3560
<scribe> ACTION: frederickhi to supply text to reslove 3549 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - frederickhi
<FrederickHirsch> note that security policy claims that sp:SignedParts is an assertion, which would be incorrect given our discussion
<FrederickHirsch> section 4.1.1 of security policy
<asir> Umit's proposal - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/0099.html
<asir> Asir's amendment - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0074.html
<scribe> ACTION: frederickHirsch to supply text to resolve 3549 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - frederickHirsch
<asir> Asir's "- bullet 2" - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0099.html
fabian, need to fix pbs with xml:id
<asir> Proposal on the table = Umit's proposal - bullet 2 + Asir's amendment
paulc, a lot of work in ietf, canolization etc,
fabian, i do not to forbid people to not use attribute, we need to stcik with wsu id
paulc, i c the pb, beaucse xml: id is broken we can help people use it nmore safely
<FrederickHirsch> support Umit proposal with canonicalization amendment
asir, use umit prosal - 2 bullet
umit this should be acceasable thru the bug
chris, do we have agreement
ferederick, i am ok
<asir> actually .. umit's proposal - bullet 2 + asir's amendment
chris, do we agreemnt
<asir> ACTION: Editors to implement the resolution for issue 3560 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-61 - Implement the resolution for issue 3560 [on Editors - due 2006-08-23].
RESOLUTION: use the 3 links provided in the IRC
<paulc> Umit's proposal - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/0099.html
<paulc> Asir's amendment - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0074.html
<paulc> Asir's "- bullet 2" - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0099.html
<umit> This is bug 3560
<paulc> ACTION: frederick to supply text to resolve 3549 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action11]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-62 - Supply text to resolve 3549 [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2006-08-23].
<cferris_> RESOLUTION: 3560 closed with the proposal in Umit's proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/0099.html as amended by http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0074.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0099.html
<cferris_> 10 01rrsagent, generate minutes