See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/
<paulc> test
<cferris> pong
<paulc> Chris: Your new agenda at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0168.html
<paulc> does not mention DavidO's email for Action 28 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0159.html)
chris, tony nadalin is with me on the chat
<cferris> scribe: maryann
scribe + nadalin
<asir> Scribe: Maryann Hondo
<asir> ScribeNick: maryann
<paulc> Minutes for Aug 16 and Aug 23 are both approved unanimously.
<paulc> Discount room rate is available until Sept 1.
asir is providing update on editors action items
<paulc> All editorial work except 3605 is done.
<paulc> fsasaki(fsasaki@128.30.52.28)] tracker for the editors is ready now, except trackbot, that will be ready tomorrow. See http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/
editors request an update on tracker
<asir> We completed all the editorial actions from last week conference call except issue 3605
<asir> We are still waiting for the terminology extraction XSLT (DaveO is on point
<asir> We are planning to provide a drop (editors' drafts) for the F2F meeting. Our target is Tuesday Sept 5 at Noon
<asir> We spend a lot of time tracking our actions. We'll appreciate an ETA for our tracker tool
asir: there is a link to general tracker but not specific tracker
<fsasaki> I'll make the HP update
asir: 3605 is in progress
toufic: was working on 3605, there were 2 corrections
... only one has been updated
... will complete
today
paul: what is eta for next editors draft
<paulc> ETA for editor's draft is Tue Sep 5 for F2F meeting
asir: targetted for 5th
chris: logistics from f2f
dave: working on logistics update
chris: new date?
paul: by the f2f
... new date for update sept 12th
chris: action 48 update?
... action 59 no update
... there is another action about new members which
has been fixed
... paul push to next week to complete
... item 63 this belongs on the editors list
Resolution: close 63
chris: action 67
glen: is the issue done?
paul: this is to update the issue
glen: yes
RESOLUTION: glen said its done, to send update to paul
paul: close this action with a pointer to the item
<GlenD> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3577
chris: done with action items
chris: opportunitiy to bring up new issues
... so that when we reach the F2f we can resolve them
<scribe> topic : issue 3590
daveO: 3590 as an editor, added attribute extensibility
... did a rewrite in bugzilla for all extensibility
places
... numbered the extension points 1 to 8
... children are treated as assertions
... 6,7,8 more interesting, started looking at
policy reference
... looked at some of the other inclusion mechanisms
... all allow element extensibility and listed types
... we
can''t predict, but there are cases where others have chosen to have element extensibility
... add element extensibility to policy
reference
... normalization rules would need to be updated if we did attribute extensibility
... not sure what the treatment would be
<bijan> +1
daveO: unless we can come up with a reasonable solution i propose no change on all and exactly one
<bijan> I think think exactlyone and all shouldn't be touched
daveO: propose text be made consistent with the schema
<Ashok> i agree with Bijan ... what are semantics of allowing extensibility on them
daveO: number 4 is the significant item
... slight change to the notation section
chris: questions on dave's issue?
... hopefully we can address this in time for the f2f
paul: or next week
... trying to get an idea of what to put on next week's agenda
daveO: there is a firm proposal
... add eleement extensibility
... asir may have some pushback
asir: agree this is ready for next week
... agree with 1,2, 3
... some pushback on 4
daveO: people use other namespace....
chris: can we respond on the list?
daveO: ok we'll keep emailing
<paulc> David's proposal is in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3590#c2
paul: proposal is in comment 2 in bugzilla
<asir> Response from Asir is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0156.html
daveO: its also in the email archive
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3599
<paulc> Update proposal for 3590 is in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0155.html
ashok: if we agree people want to attach policies to components then we have to specify how wsdl 1.1 is referred
to
... this is in the email sent
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/0019.html
ashok: do we agree that we refer to wsdl 1.1 components using external attachment?
chris: does everyone understand the issue?
<asir> I am not aware of any discussion thread
paul: is there a email thread?
ashok: yes
umit: why are we discussing the issue?
<asir> Response from Asir is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/0085.html
umit: do we need a proposal? maybe ashok should publish it again so people can review
... with proposed
changes
chris: ashok, reply?
ashok: does the WG want this written up?
daveO: i'd like to see something that shows capabilities that can't be expressed with what we have now
ashok: there is no way to refer to WSDL 1.1 definition
daveO: not sure why you attach policy to a definition
ashok: component?
daveO: the root element?
... the definition in not a policy subject
asir: 2 points,
... what is the interop issue?
... the uri and fragment identifiers, the domain
expression is an XML element
<umit> I was not aware that we are limiting our selves to interop only. WS-Policy is a general framework.
chris: lets take this to the list
... ashok, we need a more concrete proposal
pauL; action for F2F
<scribe> ACTION: ashok to present proposal at F2F [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-75 - Present proposal at F2F [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2006-09-06].
chris: action 3602
dan: an assertion whose type is part of vocabulary.........(reading from the bug)
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3602
dan: one interpretation is that I'm explicitly prohibited
... outlined an example where that breaks
down
... there could be legitimate cases that can be prohibitied by the framework
... we proposed to remove the text
chris: any questions?
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3604
chris: item 3604
bijan: haven't heard from any one else on list
... can re-iterate but doesn't like the section
chris: proposal is to nuke goals section?
bijan: yes
<asir> +1 to Bijan
chris: yakov??
... anyone object?
<scribe> ACTION: editors to remove [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
<asir> ACTION: Editors to implement the resolution for issue 3604 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-76 - Remove [on Editors - due 2006-09-06].
<trackbot> Created ACTION-77 - Implement the resolution for issue 3604 [on Editors - due 2006-09-06].
paul: trying to find the thread in archive
chris: bijan is there a thread?
asir: there is email in the archive
<asir> it is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0132.html
RESOLUTION: resolved 3604 closed as proposed
<bijan> Head of the thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0100.html
chris: frederick?
paul: frederick is on holiday
<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0141.html
<scribe> ACTION: chris to ping frederick about proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - chris
oops
<bijan> maryann: updated bugzilla with ref to mail to WSA group
<bijan> maryann: One response to the WSA list, but unsure how to followup and coordinate
<bijan> cferris: do we take it to the CG?
<GlenD> Marc's mail: http://www.w3.org/mid/5B3DE3A6-D12D-4F67-B0CC-6EA968805F33@Sun.COM
<bijan> <some chatter to try to find the message; glend saves the day>
<bijan> <bugzilla woes>
paul: maryann will have to do the change again
<scribe> ACTION: maryann update bug again [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-ws-policy-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-78 - Update bug again [on Maryann Hondo - due 2006-09-06].
asir: why does this have to go to the coordination group?
<scribe> ACTION: paul & chris to bring up to CG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-79 - & chris to bring up to CG [on Paul Cotton - due 2006-09-06].
ACTION 6= paul & chris to bring up 3619
<cferris> ACTION 6= paul & chris to bring up 3619 on next wek's WSCG call
glen: we don't explain how to put policy into EPRs
chris: is this for this group?
glen: yes
chris: glen can you propose language?
glen: sure
... we should have discussion first
<Ashok> I agree it shd be in the spec
paul: this is out of scope
... this is V next
glen: i don't get that from the charter
paul: there is an explicit list in the charter
daveO: notwithstanding the charter discussion, the risk of not doing this is that others may do it in a different
way
... another can put it somewhere else, and then you don't have interoperability
... might be able to do something simple
... and
might prevent potential interop issues
<GlenD> I do believe a solution to this can actually be pretty simple (esp. in that EPRs :: Endpoint Subjects), and agree with Dave's interop concerns.
daveO: since addressing got done before us it seems we should do somthing here
ashok: i remember that ws-addressing spec lets you attach policies to an epr
... how can they speak about it
and that's out of scope for us?
chris: not agreement on out of scope
... we take this discussion to list and discuss in time for F2F
... might involve some technical work and we don't want to wait
umit: in favor of daveO
... lets move on and we need to figure out if metatdata is about epr or target and
the use cases need to be clearly explained
asir: interesting work, but think its a major piece of work and is out of scope in the charter
<danroth> http://specs.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/09/mex/WS-MetadataExchange.pdf
asir: metadata exchange is the correct technical solution
<GlenD> Even if MEX was in-scope for us, I don't think it actually does a good enough job of specing this either.
<GlenD> But that's another discussion :)
daveO: where metadata (policy is one type) is defined, there are several places
... 3 types or places where
specification of metadata is done, pros and cons in each
... wsdl- can't go back, schema- can't go back
chris: varying opinions on this issue
<asir> charter says, 'If some function, mechanism or feature is not mentioned here, and it is not mentioned in the Scope of Work section either, then it will be deemed to be out of scope.
chris: suggest we take this to the list
paul: is there a thread?
glen: no thread, bug in bugzilla
... i will start a thread
paul: point thread back to bugzilla
chris: thread on in scope
<scribe> ACTION: paul to start in scope for 3620 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-ws-policy-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-80 - Start in scope for 3620 [on Paul Cotton - due 2006-09-06].
<scribe> ACTION: glen to provide proposal for 3620 by next call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-ws-policy-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-81 - Provide proposal for 3620 by next call [on Glen Daniels - due 2006-09-06].
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3621
bijan: formal semantics would help resolve some of the issues we are discussing
chris: questions?
... is there a thread?
bijan: will take it to the list
paul: it is an action
chris: dig up thread?
<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0145.html
<bijan> Thanks paulc
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3623
bijan: extensions to wsdl
paul: took action on this
... this is on the agenda of the next call
... i'm going to ask that group to
review our working draft
bijan: i thought we were referencing their spec
paul: not in the charter
bijan: thought it was an oversight
paul: what do we need to do?
bijan: attachment allows for inline and out of band for wsdl
chris: we will discuss this at the CG group
paul: we can attach policies to wsdl, they can attach to wsdl, why does this require coordination?
bijan: there is overlap
paul: many flowers bloom
... its not in the liasson section of the charter
<scribe> ACTION: chris and paul to track & report on WG CG for 3623 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-ws-policy-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - chris
paul: 3639
ashok: we'd like to figure out which of the possible alternatives is being followed
<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0158.html
ashok: no way to do this, have to check all possible alternative
... should be able to tell from a
message
<paulc> and http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3639
ashok: we need to work on this
<paulc> 1. An algorithm to select a single alternative if more than one alternative in the two policies matches
paul: both bug and the mail include 3 questions
<paulc> 2. A mechanism to indicate the selected alternative
<paulc> 3. An ability for the message to indicate the policy alternative it is following
<paulc> 3 is the same as 2
paul: are 2 & 3 different?
<paulc> Just 2 questions.
paul: need clarification?
... there is not a concrete proposal
dan: when you says it seems wrong?
ashok: its extra work
dan: do you wan the optimization?
ashok: yes
... its fundamental to how we use policy
bijan: when we say alternative, do you mean the normal form?
ashok: yes
bijan: isn't only one alternative allowed?
ashok: taking two policies and matching to find one complete alternative in common
... you can have one or
more match
chris: might have A & B as provider, consumer has A
... consumer needs to indicate A selected
...
no formal proposal
... ashok, can you produce a formal proposal?
<bijan> I wonder if just sending a policy that contains the selected alternative would do the job
ashok: is this an item we will pursue?
chris: is there email?
paul: yes
chris: respond to thread
... look for consensus next week
ashok: want a policy assertion that adds something to message
... we then want the message logged, and you
want timestamp then log
... no way to order in the framework, although WS-Security policy does this for signing/encryption
... some
mechanism is often useful
asir: security policy does not order assertion
... it has assertions that order the runtime behavior
daveO: lots of comments.....
... toward the end of the meeting, i've been trying to address one of the
editor items and i'm confused about what is to be done
chris: we'll add to the agenda
... ashok?
ashok: didn't understand the point about runtime
... many of the assertions are applied at runtime, asir was
trying to make a fine distinction that eludes me
<bijan> I think asir and I were making a similar point; asir on the call, me in the email thread
chris: "l" and "m" are probably major issues, encourage getting this on the list
paul: it would help, people are referring to another spec.
<Ashok> bijan, I guess I didn't understand either of you ...
paul: ashok should show where this inference is
daveO: working on this
... making progress, hopefully have it for the f2f
... if can't get a
resolution, will manually insert
chris: back to 3604
paul: bijan suggested replacing the entire section
daveO: except that there's a term defined there
bijan: i don't recall this
daveO: doc has changed since you first wrote this up
... we can remove this section and do the termdef
later
... but that means more work
chris: open a new issue
<bijan> I'm looking for the definition
<scribe> ACTION: editors to attempt to make doc consistent and need to deal with "cascading delete" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-ws-policy-minutes.html#action10]
<bijan> Oh, I see, in the editors draft
<trackbot> Created ACTION-82 - Attempt to make doc consistent and need to deal with \"cascading delete\" [on Editors - due 2006-09-06].
<bijan> Isn't it also defined in section 4?
chris: out of scope issues
<whenry> YEs, closed
paul: bug is closed
<whenry> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/67
RESOL
<whenry> Woops, sorry
RESOLUTION: 3592 closed with no action\
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0164.html
<cferris> ashok's email from this morning
ashok: want one paragraph to say something like domain expressions can be used to refer to wsdl 1.1 components,
whatever and followup with one non-trivial example
... there seems to be a lot of pushback on this
paul: is there missing text?
ashok: I thought editors could wordsmith
paul: message 164
ashok: just making spec clearer for reader
asir: i had an issue to raise issues on mailing list
... but i don't see answers
paul: you two are talking past each other
ashok: what is the problem with putting in this paragraph?
paul: you are not participating in the dialog
chris: we need to have continued discussion and ask that ashok address the quetions asir raised and asir address ashok's question?
ashok: its a small thing
paul: the chairs are trying to get both sides to answer the questions
dan: i have a question, i'm confused
... we had a section with a domain expression and we removed it
... why are we going back?
ashok: it would be nice to add a quasi-real example
umit: this came from the eprs
... what are other possible examples? that are illlustrative?
...
question to asir, what is your concern?
... i'm not following your question
... jms is domain specific, and it can be a policy subject, so
is the objection to the jms domain?
... that was the spirit of the example
chris: it could be that the example is contentious not because of the policy example
... use an example
other than jms
ashok: that isn't part of the example
chris: asir's email is asking about jms
... it could be that no one wants a jms example in there, might we
come up with a less controversial example
ashok: that's not what we're asking for
chris: the idea is to engage in a dialog to address the questions in the previous mail
<GlenD> /me I think it's http://www.w3.org/mid/4DF3D07B9910264B9470DA1F811D1A950B58E898@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
chris: semantics of specific interaction
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3577
glen: spec states that the semantics of intersection can be determined by extension specific extensions
...
if your processor does not understand, you can't know if the intersection will work and this is a problem for generic tooling
... proposed a
number of solutions
<bijan> +1 to option 2
glen: there has been some discussion on list
dan: clarification, interop issues, because of lack of metadata, can you elaborate?
chris: please do this in email
umit: this could eliminate a custom response
glen: yes this would be at a qname level it could affect other things
umit: no opt out in #2
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3564
umit: was sick last week, not much progress
... its about chosing alternatives
... we don't have a
deadline to produce this, and won't be able to deliver it quickly because going on vacation
paul: worded how?
umit: will write this as part of guidelines for handling optionality
... identify the things to watch out
for, and that's the minimum
<scribe> ACTION: umit to draft proposal for primer to address 3577 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-ws-policy-minutes.html#action11]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-83 - Draft proposal for primer to address 3577 [on Umit Yalcinalp - due 2006-09-06].
paul: need to change due date
<bijan> Hmm. I just noticed we skipped one of my new issues :)
<bijan> J
<bijan> j)
<cferris> which one? I thought we did both
<bijan> there were 3 :()
<bijan> ':)
<cferris> lol
<bijan> j) Policy assertion equivalence and generality, Bijan Parsia
<bijan> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3622
<cferris> sorry
<bijan> S'ok
<bijan> Three ina row is too much :)