IRC log of ws-addr on 2006-08-21
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 19:58:27 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
- 19:58:27 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/08/21-ws-addr-irc
- 19:58:44 [bob]
- Zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
- 19:58:44 [Zakim]
- ok, bob; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
- 19:59:07 [bob]
- Meeting: Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference
- 19:59:14 [bob]
- Chair: Bob Freund
- 19:59:34 [bob]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0084.html
- 19:59:46 [Dug]
- is anyone else having trouble calling in? The phone never seems to get picked up.
- 20:00:25 [bob]
- There are reports of zakim not behaving
- 20:00:36 [David_Illsley]
- i'm having a similar problem
- 20:00:45 [Dug]
- ok, is the #? +1-617-761-6200 access code 2337(addr)
- 20:00:50 [bob]
- yes
- 20:01:32 [MrGoodner]
- MrGoodner has joined #ws-addr
- 20:01:35 [bob]
- It seems that zakim is down
- 20:01:54 [Dug]
- that would make it harder to have a conf call :-)
- 20:01:55 [marc]
- marc has joined #ws-addr
- 20:01:56 [MrGoodner]
- is that why the phone isn't ringing?
- 20:02:03 [bob]
- I will send bridge details in a min
- 20:02:44 [prasad]
- prasad has joined #ws-Addr
- 20:02:46 [PaulKnight]
- PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
- 20:02:49 [dhull]
- dhull has joined #ws-addr
- 20:02:50 [bob]
- use +1 913 227 1201
- 20:03:00 [bob]
- pwd 174441
- 20:03:13 [agupta]
- agupta has joined #ws-addr
- 20:03:31 [anish]
- anish has joined #ws-addr
- 20:03:54 [bob]
- yes, it is kn kc
- 20:04:32 [bob]
- use +1 913 227 1201
- 20:04:41 [bob]
- 04 01pwd 174441
- 20:05:21 [bob]
- zakim is down
- 20:05:28 [bob]
- use +1 913 227 1201
- 20:05:34 [bob]
- pwd 174441
- 20:06:06 [TRutt_]
- TRutt_ has joined #ws-addr
- 20:06:20 [TRutt_]
- is zakim working?
- 20:06:24 [bob]
- zakim is down
- 20:06:31 [bob]
- 04 01use +1 913 227 1201
- 20:06:37 [bob]
- pwd 174441
- 20:07:11 [Zakim]
- WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
- 20:07:19 [yinleng]
- yinleng has joined #ws-addr
- 20:07:41 [bob]
- 04 01zakim is down
- 20:07:41 [Paco]
- Paco has joined #ws-addr
- 20:07:50 [bob]
- use +1 913 227 1201
- 20:07:52 [Zakim]
- + +44.796.805.aaaa
- 20:08:09 [Zakim]
- - +44.796.805.aaaa
- 20:08:11 [Zakim]
- WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
- 20:08:13 [Zakim]
- Attendees were +44.796.805.aaaa
- 20:08:13 [bob]
- pwd 174441
- 20:08:24 [bob]
- zakim is down
- 20:08:32 [bob]
- use +1 913 227 1201
- 20:08:37 [bob]
- pwd 174441
- 20:12:14 [pauld]
- scribe: pauld
- 20:12:42 [TonyR]
- TonyR has joined #ws-addr
- 20:12:50 [pauld]
- Topic: Administrivia
- 20:12:54 [pauld]
- minutes approved
- 20:12:59 [bob]
- zakim is down
- 20:13:05 [bob]
- use +1 913 227 1201
- 20:13:11 [bob]
- pwd 174441
- 20:14:16 [pauld]
- pauld has changed the topic to: Zakim is having problems, use use +1 913 227 1201 pwd 174441 #
- 20:14:55 [pauld]
- chair: highlights lack of participation in the testsuite
- 20:15:05 [pauld]
- chair: call will end early
- 20:15:46 [bob]
- s/call will end early/cr33 discussion is time limited to 45 minutes
- 20:15:49 [pauld]
- Topic: CR-33
- 20:16:11 [pauld]
- Doug: outlines proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0078.html
- 20:16:34 [pauld]
- Anish: other editorial nits, e.g. changing section naming
- 20:16:49 [pauld]
- chair: what's the impact on our namespace?
- 20:17:13 [pauld]
- Doug: don't think it impacts it
- 20:17:32 [pauld]
- Chair: moving from CR to PR, are these implementation impactive
- 20:18:15 [David_Illsley]
- q+
- 20:18:20 [pauld]
- Anish: we have a policy, <<are we backwards compatible>>?
- 20:18:50 [pauld]
- Anish: we're replacing wsa:Anonymous with wsa:NewConnection
- 20:18:58 [marc]
- I think it is a breaking change and we should change the wsdl namespace
- 20:19:03 [pauld]
- .. seems like a breaking change
- 20:19:42 [David_Illsley]
- q-
- 20:19:44 [pauld]
- David_Illsley: does that bounce us back to CR?
- 20:20:04 [pauld]
- Anish: depends upon the implementers / implementations
- 20:20:20 [pauld]
- bob: I think this changes the WSDL namespace
- 20:20:28 [TRutt_]
- It does change the wsdl namespace in my opinion
- 20:20:48 [pauld]
- chair: will talk to the team to understand the impact from a process POV
- 20:21:09 [dhull]
- q+
- 20:21:11 [pauld]
- chair: what's do folks think about the proposal
- 20:21:37 [anish]
- q+
- 20:21:58 [pauld]
- marc: my concern is to keep ReliableMessaging dependency / text out of the spec as WS-RX isn't baked
- 20:22:42 [David_Illsley]
- q+
- 20:23:03 [pauld]
- Anish: RM is in public review, any reference to that document will be stable, and the concrete example helps clarify and adds perspective
- 20:23:06 [anish]
- q-
- 20:23:07 [bob]
- ack dhull
- 20:23:42 [TonyR]
- q+
- 20:24:19 [bob]
- ack david
- 20:24:20 [pauld]
- dhull: likes the approach of the proposal over the status quo
- 20:24:45 [pauld]
- David_Illsley: supports the RM reference
- 20:24:58 [bob]
- ack Tony
- 20:24:58 [MrGoodner]
- q+
- 20:25:04 [pauld]
- q+
- 20:25:57 [pauld]
- Tony: we still don't have a good definition of the anonymousness of the anonymous and reliable addressing URIs
- 20:26:10 [pauld]
- Doug: RM spec defines that
- 20:26:24 [pauld]
- Tony: but my implementation may be RM ignorant
- 20:27:00 [pauld]
- Doug: proposal doesn't address that issue, rather enables RM to layer addressing
- 20:27:12 [pauld]
- Tony: i think we should address that issue
- 20:27:22 [pauld]
- q?
- 20:28:42 [pauld]
- Anish: the proposal makes wsaw:NewConnection element talk about cases where you have to establish new connections or not, and opens it up for extensibility, if you don't understand the URI (the spec that defines it) then your not going to understand and know what to do with it
- 20:28:46 [bob]
- ack mrg
- 20:29:36 [TRutt_]
- where is reference to wsrm in the proposal?
- 20:29:44 [TRutt_]
- q+
- 20:30:01 [anish]
- q+
- 20:30:03 [bob]
- ack pauld
- 20:30:14 [dhull]
- +1 to not referencing RM (are we?)
- 20:30:24 [dhull]
- (i.e., are we in any substantive way)
- 20:30:42 [pauld]
- mrGoodner: Anish's point makes me question the reference to RM, and makes me uncomfortable, I'm not sure it's a service to the reader. What sounded like an editorial issue
- 20:30:53 [David_Illsley]
- the term addressable EPR refers to the ability to initiate a new connection to that EPR. Examples of non-addressable EPRs are EPRs containing “http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous” as the value of wsa:Address, EPRs containing a URI that matches the URI template defined in WS-ReliableMessaging Section 3.7 [informative ref] as the value of wsa:Address
- 20:30:55 [bob]
- ack trutt
- 20:31:40 [pauld]
- pauld: hates the idea of referencing RM, that would be very wrong, hate the idea of allowing other anonymous URIs and having to understand other specs to realise the semantics wrt to backchannels
- 20:31:44 [dhull]
- q+
- 20:31:46 [bob]
- ack anish
- 20:32:11 [pauld]
- Anish: any reference to RM would be just as an example
- 20:32:36 [bob]
- ack dhull
- 20:32:40 [pauld]
- dhull: what's a connection?
- 20:33:03 [pauld]
- Doug: initiating a new connection is used within the core spec
- 20:33:22 [pauld]
- dhull: used, perhaps, but unlikely to be defined
- 20:33:52 [anish]
- connection is talked about in the soap binding not the core
- 20:34:54 [dhull]
- It's specific to SOAP 1.1/HTTP: When "http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous" is not specified for the response endpoint, then the message SHOULD be part of a binding that supports not returning a SOAP envelope in the HTTP response (e.g. see [SOAP 1.1 Request Optional Response HTTP Binding]). Any response message SHOULD be sent using a separate connection and using the address value...
- 20:34:55 [dhull]
- ...specified by response endpoint. Note that other specifications MAY define special URIs that have other behaviors (similar to the anonymous URI).
- 20:34:59 [pauld]
- marc: you need to pick your URIs carefully
- 20:35:01 [dhull]
- q+
- 20:35:48 [pauld]
- pauld: that's my issue, OASIS site can expect hammer from implementations which understand addressing but don't know or care about RM
- 20:36:15 [anish]
- q+
- 20:36:20 [pauld]
- Doug: that issue exists anyway, people will check WSDL first
- 20:36:26 [bob]
- ack dhull
- 20:36:31 [pauld]
- pauld: that assumes you have a WSDL
- 20:36:48 [pauld]
- dhull: dangerous to rely upon people being smart
- 20:36:54 [bob]
- +1 to dhull's warning about depending upon people to be smart
- 20:38:27 [pauld]
- dhull: i worried about using the opening new connection terminology, ok for HTTP, but there are other protocols for which it may not make sense, esp within the terms being discussed in XMLP for one-way SOAP MEPs
- 20:38:31 [bob]
- ack anish
- 20:39:26 [dhull]
- q+ to maybe clarify addressable/non-addressable distinction
- 20:40:11 [bob]
- ach dhu
- 20:40:19 [pauld]
- Anish: question for Marc: let's say this element exists and is defined in WSDL but for some reason the receiver doesn't understand RM, and compare that with the case without this proposal and you get the RM anonymous URI, then you're still going to [open that socket to the OASIS site] it doesn't make things worth
- 20:41:18 [TonyR]
- s/worth/worse/
- 20:41:27 [bob]
- ack dhu
- 20:41:27 [Zakim]
- dhull, you wanted to maybe clarify addressable/non-addressable distinction
- 20:42:01 [pauld]
- dhull: difference between addressable and non-addressable EPR, and it depends upon the binding, the exceptions are indepenedent of the binding, and the anonymous sits between these two camps, we can improve the quality of the spec by working on sharpening these concepts, may be an XMLP issue
- 20:42:39 [dhull]
- yep ... the SOAP specs are are only well-defined interface to bindings
- 20:43:17 [pauld]
- paco: use of anonymous in the SOAP binding document, anonymous was pegged to a particular message in the SOAP MEP, maybe using XMLP terminology in Doug and Anish's proposal may help
- 20:43:39 [pauld]
- dhull: maybe taking about separate MEPs as opposed to connections?
- 20:44:05 [TRutt_]
- q+
- 20:44:22 [pauld]
- bob: would such a change to the proposal, as well as loosening the reference to RM remove any objections?
- 20:44:24 [bob]
- ack tru
- 20:45:14 [pauld]
- Tom: this proposal with the clarifications, does that mean we have to change the anonymous URI, can't we just change the semantics?
- 20:45:43 [pauld]
- Anish: yes, we've found anonymous confusing, so would like to remove the term
- 20:47:39 [pauld]
- Doug: if that's the breakage, and not removing the word "anonymous" helps, but would prefer to remove it
- 20:48:30 [pauld]
- pauld: not going to lie down in the road over decisions made last week, but stills feel strongly over not referencing WS-RM
- 20:49:02 [anish]
- how about 'SameConnection'
- 20:49:17 [pauld]
- Tony: agrees with Tom in keeping backwards compatible, but still worries about how to tell if a URI is anonymous
- 20:49:26 [pauld]
- Anish: how about "same connection"?
- 20:49:38 [pauld]
- omnes: sounds interesting
- 20:50:39 [David_Illsley]
- SameConnection doesn't sound right when you're using SOAP/JMS with the request-response MEP
- 20:51:05 [MrGoodner]
- q+
- 20:51:18 [pauld]
- Tom: why do you have to annotate the WSDL when you are enabling RX
- 20:51:57 [bob]
- ack mrg
- 20:52:00 [pauld]
- Doug: maybe a conflict between the wsaw: anonymous and any spec layering on top of such a WSDL
- 20:52:38 [Dug]
- q+
- 20:52:53 [anish]
- q?
- 20:53:00 [bob]
- ack dug
- 20:53:06 [pauld]
- MrGoodner: sympathise with Tom's point, RM does allow that make connection to be made, unclear on the concern from RM in this case
- 20:53:12 [pauld]
- s/Doug/Dug/g
- 20:53:28 [dhull]
- q+
- 20:53:48 [bob]
- ack dhull
- 20:54:04 [pauld]
- Dug: can't put optional on anonymous as that means you could use a concrete address as well as another anonymous URI
- 20:54:50 [Paco]
- q+
- 20:54:52 [pauld]
- dhull: explains his position made in IRC, much of this discussion is out of scope for this WG
- 20:55:02 [bob]
- ack paco
- 20:55:08 [dhull]
- q+
- 20:56:07 [pauld]
- paco: this is a core wsa concern, wsa enables async behaviour, so isn't out of scope
- 20:56:56 [pauld]
- paco: section 5.1 does enable the WS-RM behaviour, we should look at this in some detail
- 20:57:56 [bob]
- ack dhu
- 20:58:22 [pauld]
- dhull: meant "out of scope" we don't have the tools to deal with this
- 20:59:14 [pauld]
- .. we have colloquial terms, but nothing more precise
- 20:59:21 [pauld]
- bob: time's up!
- 20:59:29 [pauld]
- .. well almost
- 20:59:49 [pauld]
- bob: how about MUST to a SHOULD?
- 21:00:09 [pauld]
- .. would that release fewer worms?
- 21:00:51 [pauld]
- Tony: SHOULD irks me, opens the door to other possibilities
- 21:01:38 [pauld]
- bob: what's the shortest path? folks could come back with better wording, another proposal, or we could Gudge it
- 21:01:51 [pauld]
- s/Gudge it/close with no action?
- 21:02:58 [pauld]
- Tom: if the endpoint acknowledged RM was in use, it could extend what anonymous should mean. That's what's not properly addressed in the proposal. It's a composition thing
- 21:03:50 [pauld]
- bob: 5:03 eastern, let's wave a fond fairwell to Dug
- 21:04:19 [pauld]
- Topic: CR-27
- 21:04:28 [pauld]
- any objections to the errata?
- 21:04:40 [pauld]
- RESOLUTION: close CR-27 with Philippe's propsal
- 21:04:48 [pauld]
- Topic: CR-30
- 21:05:21 [pauld]
- Tony: has a single sentence proposal
- 21:05:28 [MrGoodner]
- gotta go... bye
- 21:05:42 [pauld]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0082.html
- 21:06:24 [pauld]
- s+errata?+errata? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0080.html+
- 21:07:45 [pauld]
- Anish: is 'empty' a special case
- 21:08:10 [pauld]
- Tony: you can't make wsa:Action empty
- 21:08:25 [pauld]
- Anish: it would be the default Action
- 21:08:42 [pauld]
- .. we need an exception for empty
- 21:09:23 [pauld]
- RESOLUTION: close CR-30 with Tony's proposed text + exception for empty IRI as a valid SOAPAction value
- 21:10:01 [bob]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0083.html
- 21:10:34 [dhull]
- the old gray matter ain't what she used to be
- 21:11:48 [pauld]
- Topic: CR-31
- 21:12:59 [pauld]
- Tony: outlines his proposal, Tony rules verus Jonathan rules .. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0083.html
- 21:14:04 [David_Illsley]
- q+
- 21:14:16 [bob]
- ack david
- 21:15:25 [pauld]
- David_Illsley: language isn't stronger than "MAY", anything can happen
- 21:15:43 [pauld]
- .. especially in proposal 3
- 21:17:01 [bob]
- s/proposal/CHANGE
- 21:17:45 [agupta]
- brb
- 21:19:20 [pauld]
- discussion on CHANGE 3, too loose
- 21:19:37 [pauld]
- Tony: prefers CHANGE 2
- 21:19:58 [pauld]
- bob: objections to accepting CHANGES 1 &2
- 21:20:03 [pauld]
- none heard
- 21:21:04 [pauld]
- ACTION: Tony to implement CHANGE 1&2 to the table in preparation for CR-31
- 21:21:57 [pauld]
- bob: weekend after next is Labour day
- 21:23:03 [pauld]
- pauld: August 28th is a public holiday in the UK, i won't be there
- 21:23:20 [pauld]
- .. but is available on the 4th of September
- 21:23:28 [pauld]
- ADJOURNED
- 21:23:36 [yinleng]
- yinleng has left #ws-addr
- 21:23:43 [bob]
- rrsagent, make logs public
- 21:23:48 [TonyR]
- TonyR has left #ws-addr
- 21:23:57 [bob]
- rrsagent, generate minutes
- 21:23:57 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/08/21-ws-addr-minutes.html bob
- 21:24:36 [pauld]
- rrsagent, make logs member-visible
- 21:27:01 [bob]
- if I made them public wouldn't that take care of it?
- 21:27:37 [pauld]
- rrsagent make logs public
- 21:27:52 [pauld]
- rrsagent, make logs public
- 21:29:51 [pauld]
- pauld has left #ws-addr
- 21:29:52 [bob]
- bob has left #ws-addr
- 21:32:34 [agupta]
- agupta has left #ws-addr
- 22:20:27 [David_Illsley]
- David_Illsley has left #ws-addr