Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference

21 Aug 2006


See also: IRC log


Bob Freund




<Dug> is anyone else having trouble calling in? The phone never seems to get picked up.

<bob> There are reports of zakim not behaving

<David_Illsley> i'm having a similar problem

<Dug> ok, is the #? +1-617-761-6200 access code 2337(addr)

<bob> yes

<bob> It seems that zakim is down

<Dug> that would make it harder to have a conf call :-)

<MrGoodner> is that why the phone isn't ringing?

<bob> I will send bridge details in a min

<bob> use +1 913 227 1201

<bob> pwd 174441

<bob> yes, it is kn kc

<bob> use +1 913 227 1201

<bob> 04 01pwd 174441

<bob> zakim is down

<bob> use +1 913 227 1201

<bob> pwd 174441

<TRutt_> is zakim working?

<bob> zakim is down

<bob> 04 01use +1 913 227 1201

<bob> pwd 174441

<bob> 04 01zakim is down

<bob> use +1 913 227 1201

<bob> pwd 174441

<bob> zakim is down

<bob> use +1 913 227 1201

<bob> pwd 174441

<scribe> scribe: pauld


minutes approved

<bob> zakim is down

<bob> use +1 913 227 1201

<bob> pwd 174441

<scribe> chair: highlights lack of participation in the testsuite

<scribe> chair: cr33 discussion is time limited to 45 minutes


Dug: outlines proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0078.html

Anish: other editorial nits, e.g. changing section naming

<scribe> chair: what's the impact on our namespace?

Dug: don't think it impacts it

<scribe> Chair: moving from CR to PR, are these implementation impactive

Anish: we have a policy, <<are we backwards compatible>>?
... we're replacing wsa:Anonymous with wsa:NewConnection

<marc> I think it is a breaking change and we should change the wsdl namespace

Anish: seems like a breaking change

David_Illsley: does that bounce us back to CR?

Anish: depends upon the implementers / implementations

bob: I think this changes the WSDL namespace

<TRutt_> It does change the wsdl namespace in my opinion

<scribe> chair: will talk to the team to understand the impact from a process POV

<scribe> chair: what's do folks think about the proposal

marc: my concern is to keep ReliableMessaging dependency / text out of the spec as WS-RX isn't baked

Anish: RM is in public review, any reference to that document will be stable, and the concrete example helps clarify and adds perspective

dhull: likes the approach of the proposal over the status quo

David_Illsley: supports the RM reference

Tony: we still don't have a good definition of the anonymousness of the anonymous and reliable addressing URIs

Dug: RM spec defines that

Tony: but my implementation may be RM ignorant

Dug: proposal doesn't address that issue, rather enables RM to layer addressing

Tony: i think we should address that issue

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

<TRutt_> where is reference to wsrm in the proposal?

<dhull> +1 to not referencing RM (are we?)

<dhull> (i.e., are we in any substantive way)

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

<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

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

Anish: any reference to RM would be just as an example

dhull: what's a connection?

Dug: initiating a new connection is used within the core spec

dhull: used, perhaps, but unlikely to be defined

<anish> connection is talked about in the soap binding not the core

<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...

<dhull> ...specified by response endpoint. Note that other specifications MAY define special URIs that have other behaviors (similar to the anonymous URI).

marc: you need to pick your URIs carefully

pauld: that's my issue, OASIS site can expect hammer from implementations which understand addressing but don't know or care about RM

Dug: that issue exists anyway, people will check WSDL first

pauld: that assumes you have a WSDL

dhull: dangerous to rely upon people being smart

<bob> +1 to dhull's warning about depending upon people to be smart

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

<bob> ach dhu

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 worse

<Zakim> dhull, you wanted to maybe clarify addressable/non-addressable distinction

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

<dhull> yep ... the SOAP specs are are only well-defined interface to bindings

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 Dug and Anish's proposal may help

dhull: maybe taking about separate MEPs as opposed to connections?

bob: would such a change to the proposal, as well as loosening the reference to RM remove any objections?

Tom: this proposal with the clarifications, does that mean we have to change the anonymous URI, can't we just change the semantics?

Anish: yes, we've found anonymous confusing, so would like to remove the term

Dug: if that's the breakage, and not removing the word "anonymous" helps, but would prefer to remove it

pauld: not going to lie down in the road over decisions made last week, but stills feel strongly over not referencing WS-RM

<anish> how about 'SameConnection'

Tony: agrees with Tom in keeping backwards compatible, but still worries about how to tell if a URI is anonymous

Anish: how about "same connection"?

omnes: sounds interesting

<David_Illsley> SameConnection doesn't sound right when you're using SOAP/JMS with the request-response MEP

Tom: why do you have to annotate the WSDL when you are enabling RX

Dug: maybe a conflict between the wsaw: anonymous and any spec layering on top of such a WSDL

MrGoodner: sympathise with Tom's point, RM does allow that make connection to be made, unclear on the concern from RM in this case

Dug: can't put optional on anonymous as that means you could use a concrete address as well as another anonymous URI

dhull: explains his position made in IRC, much of this discussion is out of scope for this WG

paco: this is a core wsa concern, wsa enables async behaviour, so isn't out of scope
... section 5.1 does enable the WS-RM behaviour, we should look at this in some detail

dhull: meant "out of scope" we don't have the tools to deal with this
... we have colloquial terms, but nothing more precise

bob: time's up!
... well almost
... how about MUST to a SHOULD?
... would that release fewer worms?

Tony: SHOULD irks me, opens the door to other possibilities

bob: what's the shortest path? folks could come back with better wording, another proposal, or we could close with no action?

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

bob: 5:03 eastern, let's wave a fond fairwell to Dug


any objections to the errata?

RESOLUTION: close CR-27 with Philippe's propsal


Tony: has a single sentence proposal

<MrGoodner> gotta go... bye


s+errata?+errata? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0080.html+

Anish: is 'empty' a special case

Tony: you can't make wsa:Action empty

Anish: it would be the default Action
... we need an exception for empty

RESOLUTION: close CR-30 with Tony's proposed text + exception for empty IRI as a valid SOAPAction value

<bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0083.html

<dhull> the old gray matter ain't what she used to be


Tony: outlines his proposal, Tony rules verus Jonathan rules .. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0083.html

David_Illsley: language isn't stronger than "MAY", anything can happen
... especially in CHANGE 3

<agupta> brb

discussion on CHANGE 3, too loose

Tony: prefers CHANGE 2

bob: objections to accepting CHANGES 1 &2

none heard

<scribe> ACTION: Tony to implement CHANGE 1&2 to the table in preparation for CR-31 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/21-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]

bob: weekend after next is Labour day

pauld: August 28th is a public holiday in the UK, i won't be there
... but is available on the 4th of September


Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Tony to implement CHANGE 1&2 to the table in preparation for CR-31 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/21-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/08/21 21:24:07 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127  of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/call will end early/cr33 discussion is time limited to 45 minutes/
Succeeded: s/worth/worse/
Succeeded: s/Doug/Dug/g
Succeeded: s/Gudge it/close with no action?/
Succeeded: s/proposal/CHANGE/
Found Scribe: pauld
Inferring ScribeNick: pauld
Default Present: +44.796.805.aaaa
Present: +44.796.805.aaaa

WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list!

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0084.html
Got date from IRC log name: 21 Aug 2006
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/08/21-ws-addr-minutes.html
People with action items: tony

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]