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
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]
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]
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
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]
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]
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]
20:21:11 [pauld]
chair: what's do folks think about the proposal
20:21:37 [anish]
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]
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]
20:23:07 [bob]
ack dhull
20:23:42 [TonyR]
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]
20:25:04 [pauld]
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]
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_]
20:30:01 [anish]
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 “” 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]
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 "" 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]
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]
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]
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_]
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]
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]
20:52:53 [anish]
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]
20:53:28 [dhull]
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]
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]
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]
21:06:24 [pauld]
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]
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 ..
21:14:04 [David_Illsley]
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]
21:17:45 [agupta]
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]
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 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