IRC log of ws-addr on 2006-09-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:09:14 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:09:14 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:50:53 [Jonathan]
Jonathan has joined #ws-addr
19:51:41 [plh]
plh has joined #ws-addr
19:54:19 [pauld]
pauld has joined #ws-addr
19:57:13 [bob]
bob has joined #ws-addr
19:57:50 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
19:57:58 [Zakim]
19:58:43 [bob]
zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
19:58:43 [Zakim]
ok, bob, I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM already started
19:59:05 [bob]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference
19:59:14 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
19:59:17 [bob]
chair: Bob Freund
20:00:04 [Zakim]
20:00:08 [TRutt_]
TRutt_ has joined #ws-addr
20:00:10 [yinleng]
yinleng has joined #ws-addr
20:00:47 [Zakim]
20:00:55 [TonyR]
zakim, ?? is me
20:00:55 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
20:01:03 [Zakim]
20:01:04 [Dug]
Dug has joined #ws-addr
20:01:20 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
20:01:29 [Zakim]
20:01:33 [PaulKnight]
PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
20:01:49 [Zakim]
20:02:07 [Zakim]
20:02:10 [bob]
zakim P6 is illsley
20:02:36 [Zakim]
20:02:42 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
20:02:43 [prasad]
prasad has joined #ws-addr
20:02:55 [Zakim]
20:03:04 [bob]
zakim, ??P6 is david_Illsley
20:03:04 [Zakim]
+david_Illsley; got it
20:03:12 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:03:20 [Zakim]
20:03:22 [prasad]
zakim, ??P11 is prasad
20:03:22 [Zakim]
+prasad; got it
20:03:30 [Zakim]
20:03:46 [Zakim]
20:04:01 [marc]
marc has joined #ws-addr
20:04:06 [yinleng]
zakim, ??P13 is me
20:04:06 [Zakim]
+yinleng; got it
20:04:07 [Zakim]
20:04:17 [Zakim]
20:04:56 [Zakim]
20:05:01 [bob]
zakim, IPcaller is katy
20:05:01 [Zakim]
+katy; got it
20:05:14 [Dug]
zkim, IBM is Dug
20:05:19 [Dug]
zakim, IBM is Dug
20:05:19 [Zakim]
+Dug; got it
20:06:21 [pauld]
zakim, who is making noise?
20:06:36 [Zakim]
pauld, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Bob_Freund (55%), Paul_Knight (34%), Marc_Hadley (5%), yinleng (9%), Dave_Hull (20%)
20:06:55 [dhull]
zakim, who is making noise?
20:07:08 [Zakim]
dhull, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Bob_Freund (58%)
20:07:54 [bob]
scribe: tony
20:07:55 [TonyR]
scribe: tonyr
20:08:12 [TonyR]
TOPIC: Minutes of the last meeting
20:08:29 [TonyR]
No objections - minutes of the last meeting accepted
20:08:34 [Jonathan]
zakim, passcode?
20:08:34 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2337 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), Jonathan
20:08:39 [TonyR]
TOPIC: Action Items
20:08:41 [Zakim]
20:09:02 [Zakim]
20:09:20 [TonyR]
Chair: we need more participation in the testing activities
20:09:31 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
20:09:58 [TonyR]
Tony to implement the changes in response to CR31 - pending
20:10:20 [TonyR]
TOPIC: Coordination with WS-Policy Group
20:11:07 [TonyR]
MarcH: good if the Policy Attachment spec described the merging / overriding of policy attached to an EPR with policy embedded in an EPR
20:11:34 [TonyR]
MarcH: there is some confusion on whether it overrides, but not clear
20:12:03 [TonyR]
Chair: are the members of the group satisfied that it is up to the Policy WG to define what happens?
20:12:10 [TonyR]
Paco: yes
20:12:41 [TonyR]
MarcH: the spec isn't clear, but it's up to them
20:13:50 [pauld]
it may or may not be their issue, but for sure it's not our issue :-)
20:13:53 [TonyR]
Chair: I will communicate to their WG that the ball is in their court - their problem
20:15:02 [TonyR]
20:15:33 [TonyR]
Chair: potential effects on WS-Reliable Messaging and XMLP of CR33
20:16:01 [TonyR]
Chair: scheduling time on Wednesday (WS-CG) for dealing with this issue
20:16:53 [TonyR]
Chair: may need a joint meeting of WS-Addr, WS-Reliable Messaging, and other interested parties to address this issue
20:17:02 [Dug]
20:17:39 [TonyR]
JonM: suggested an alternative proposal using RefParms
20:18:03 [Zakim]
20:18:22 [TonyR]
Dug: TAG frowns on that approach
20:19:00 [TonyR]
Chair: This is not related to the identity issue, which is where the TAG was concerned
20:19:45 [TonyR]
Chair: It indicates which type of response the server will generate?
20:20:17 [TonyR]
Dug: no, it indicates the identity of the endpoint
20:20:32 [dhull]
20:20:32 [gpilz]
20:21:14 [TonyR]
Dug: it's not identifying the message, but rather the endpoint
20:21:31 [pauld]
20:22:20 [Zakim]
20:22:37 [bob]
ack gil
20:22:40 [TonyR]
JonM: not convinced that it's identifying the endpoint - there's only one backchannel, so how we disambiguate them
20:22:52 [Zakim]
20:23:00 [Zakim]
20:23:04 [dhull]
20:23:25 [Dug]
+1 Gil
20:23:43 [TonyR]
Gil: the problem with trying to use RefPs is (DaveO's opinion): one is supposed to echo the RefPs to the client - the server is NOT supposed to "crack open" the RefPs
20:23:53 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
20:24:28 [TonyR]
Gil: this is crossing the line between RefParams and RefProperties (and we have removed RefProps from WS-Addr)
20:25:01 [bob]
ack dh
20:26:23 [TonyR]
DaveH: the way we defined Anonymous in WS-Addr carefully avoided any discussion of channels and back-channels. We said that it's valid only in a particular context. When Anon is used for a response endpoint, then one puts the message in the Response part of a Request-Response MEP.
20:26:54 [TonyR]
DaveH: carefully avoiding discussion of backchannels, it's a behavioural cue
20:28:29 [Paco]
20:28:56 [TonyR]
DaveH: In the WS-RX context, we are still talking about using the Response portions of future messages (and their MEPs). Only context we have in this is the sequence id.
20:29:48 [TonyR]
Paco: there doesn't seem to be a lot of convergence to this discussion. Chair's desire to resolve this in a joint meeting is a good idea
20:30:08 [Dug]
20:30:15 [marc]
20:30:21 [anish]
q+ dug
20:30:33 [TonyR]
Chair: in terms of alternative proposals: we have Jonathan's new one, and the one from last week
20:30:41 [bob]
ack dug
20:30:45 [pauld]
and the Status Quo
20:30:52 [bob]
ack paco
20:31:28 [Jonathan]
20:31:49 [TonyR]
Dug: if we could loosen up the wording relating to the anonymous URI, we could resolve it that way
20:32:05 [bob]
ack marc
20:32:45 [anish]
i also think that it is identifying the endpoint not the sequence
20:34:51 [anish]
tony, the wsrm uri is not a single uri but a template
20:35:19 [gpilz]
20:35:44 [TonyR]
MarcH: there seem to be two ideas as to what is being identified. Would like to understand why they think these are different
20:39:53 [bob]
ack jon
20:40:21 [TonyR]
Dug: there needs to be some unique field in the message to identify which client (potentially among many clients) is "on-the-line" for receiving responses
20:41:18 [TonyR]
JonM: the "small change" requested makes the coding for the wsaw:Anon assertion radically different - has a dramatic impact on the WS-Addressing implementation
20:41:31 [Dug]
I have implemented it and coding it up isn't messy :-)
20:41:58 [TonyR]
JonM: it requires making the WS-A implementation aware of WS-RX
20:42:13 [bob]
ack gp
20:43:39 [bob]
20:43:46 [TonyR]
Gil: there's an inherent contradiction. The RM protocol is inherently one-way. It allows the client to contact the server at arbitrary times to solicit responses.
20:43:53 [pauld]
but presumably Dug, your implementation wasn't a WS-Addressing which didn't know or care about WS-RX, then had WS-RX layered upon it?
20:44:50 [dhull]
20:45:08 [TonyR]
... The server doesn't have that option if the client cannot "listen" for responses. So how does the server re-send responses if it thinks the client hasn't received them?
20:45:10 [marc]
20:45:16 [bob]
ack bob
20:45:32 [TonyR]
... Does that clarify the rationale for this issue?
20:45:50 [gpilz]
20:47:16 [TonyR]
Bob: can visualise multiple solutions to this problem. Thinking in terms of layered implementations, perhaps there's a layer under RM that handles the virtual proxying of these queued messages.
20:47:30 [bob]
ack dhull
20:49:15 [Dug]
20:49:33 [TonyR]
DaveH: if I understood Gil correctly, the idea is that the "magic cookie" tells the RM server who is contacting it and therefore is ready to receive a response. Leaning towards JonM's position
20:49:43 [bob]
ack marc
20:50:59 [anish]
20:52:35 [TonyR]
MarcH: Sounds like RM is overloading ReplyTo to mean where the reply should go, PLUS which reply to get (which queue of responses to get a response from)
20:53:02 [bob]
ack anish
20:53:15 [TonyR]
Dug: No, that's not how it works.
20:53:51 [Dug]
ok bob - I remember now :-) sorry
20:54:02 [TonyR]
Anish: the RM group considered four options for tackling this problem
20:54:35 [bob]
20:54:49 [TonyR]
... decided to go with the template approach for good reasons
20:54:55 [Dug]
dhull - wouldn't that be transport specific?
20:56:21 [dhull]
How so? I send MakeConnection(anon, 12345). E.g., one child is anon, one is 12345. You could also use this with a non-anon URI. It's basically multiplexing behavior. (I'm not sure I yet grok why ref params don't work, but I'll take that on faith)
20:56:24 [TonyR]
Bob: the queuing layer at the bottom of RM is the application receiving the content of the RefParam, and is therefore NOT a violation of the opaqueness criterion
20:57:47 [dhull]
Hmm ... could I get one message for the connection on anon and one on non-anon? E.g., I happen to know who you are. I try pushing a message to you. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't, but you're also sending me messages. So if I see one of those I piggyback on it.
20:58:01 [bob]
ack dug
21:01:05 [dhull]
21:01:12 [Zakim]
21:01:47 [Jonathan]
q+ to dispell incomposability argument
21:02:02 [Zakim]
21:03:52 [TonyR]
Dug: the impact on the code is minimal, because it just means that the code which interprets the URI changes to add a case for handling these kinds of URI
21:04:22 [anish]
21:04:36 [bob]
ack dhull
21:05:37 [Yves]
Yves notes also than a 202 to return something other than information about the _processing_ of the request is invalid. Also sequence of req/resp should be taken cautiously, as a proxy might be in between and ruin assumptions
21:06:14 [bob]
21:07:03 [Dug]
21:07:26 [Jonathan]
soory, phone seems fritzy
21:07:52 [bob]
ack anish
21:08:27 [TonyR]
Anish: people who are pushing back on the proposal, are they suggesting that RM define a RefParam at the MakeConnection level?
21:08:28 [Jonathan]
A WSDL extension can say, "extend wsaw:Anonymous to include pseudo-anonymous."
21:08:52 [Jonathan]
one way only
21:08:52 [Jonathan]
one way only
21:08:54 [Jonathan]
21:08:58 [Jonathan]
2will redial
21:09:03 [Zakim]
21:09:12 [bob]
ack dug
21:09:29 [anish]
21:09:55 [TonyR]
Dug: how do we define a new marker in RM to provide the pseudo-anon capability?
21:10:34 [Zakim]
21:10:34 [bob]
ack anish
21:10:40 [TonyR]
Dug: need ability to have both markers (WS-A anon and RM anon) in a WSDL, to support both RM-aware and non-aware apps.
21:11:12 [Dug]
21:11:13 [Jonathan]
please continue!
21:11:23 [TonyR]
Anish: don't like the idea of having one marker override another - distasteful solution
21:11:28 [bob]
ack dug
21:11:37 [Katy]
21:12:05 [TonyR]
Dug: if we can't extend the existing marker, can we have an extensibility point here?
21:12:54 [bob]
ack katy
21:13:10 [Jonathan]
Zakim, must me
21:13:10 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'must me', Jonathan
21:13:10 [TonyR]
Anish: it's more than that - it's a case of overriding the semantics of the existing marker
21:13:16 [Jonathan]
Zakim, must me
21:13:16 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'must me', Jonathan
21:13:16 [Jonathan]
Zakim, must me
21:13:17 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'must me', Jonathan
21:13:20 [Jonathan]
Zakim, mute me
21:13:20 [Zakim]
Jonathan_Marsh should now be muted
21:13:56 [Dug]
21:14:07 [Dug]
21:14:15 [TonyR]
Katy: when we were discussing this, we decided to keep it simple. Not inclined to change it now
21:14:23 [Dug]
21:14:53 [TonyR]
Chair: are we ready for a straw poll on this?
21:15:12 [TRutt_]
21:15:14 [Katy]
21:15:20 [TonyR]
... choices: close with no action, accept Dug's proposal
21:15:27 [Dug]
proposal: just tweak the wording but keep same name/semantics
21:15:50 [Dug]
to talk about async
21:16:16 [TonyR]
Anish: third option: find a compromise that makes everyone equally unhappy
21:16:54 [Zakim]
21:17:02 [anish]
21:17:10 [TonyR]
Dug: fourth option: change wording to describing in terms of asynchonicity
21:17:26 [Katy]
Tony: Yes - point was wsaw:Anonymous complicated enough for little extra benefit
21:17:39 [bob]
ack dug
21:17:40 [Katy]
don't need extensibility points too
21:18:32 [anish]
21:20:30 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr
21:21:01 [bob]
ack tru
21:21:10 [TonyR]
Dug: code already looks at the URI to send messages to, so the code changes are minimal
21:21:35 [Zakim]
21:21:41 [Zakim]
21:22:07 [TonyR]
Tony: Not true - that code is not expected to change up to a different layer of code to select a different message to send
21:22:13 [yinleng]
yinleng has left #ws-addr
21:22:16 [bob]
ack katy
21:22:42 [TonyR]
TomR: want the poll to allow incorporate the option of small changes to clarify matters
21:22:51 [Dug]
Tony - the logic to get a msg may be hard or easy - I agree,but its not a big hit to the "current" WSA code - no comment on how big the new code is.
21:23:25 [Katy]
<wsap:AddressableResponsesOnly/> and <wsap:NonAddressableResponsesOnly/>
21:23:56 [Zakim]
21:24:19 [TonyR]
Katy: if we are considering changing the wsaw:AnonymousRequired, perhaps we should allow the use of two flags: <wsap:AddressableResponsesOnly/> and <wsap:NonAddressableResponsesOnly/>
21:24:47 [Jonathan]
zakim, unmute me
21:24:47 [Zakim]
Jonathan_Marsh should no longer be muted
21:24:49 [bob]
ack anish
21:25:25 [Zakim]
21:26:17 [bob]
ack jon
21:26:17 [Zakim]
Jonathan, you wanted to dispell incomposability argument
21:26:32 [TonyR]
Anish: was suggesting giving it more time to find a compromise
21:27:28 [TonyR]
Chair: do we think we should try to solve this; do we think this is not our purview; do we need to involve everyone else (XMLP / TAG / et al)?
21:28:18 [chad]
chad has joined #ws-addr
21:28:21 [TonyR]
Chair: not seeing much progress today
21:28:38 [pauld]
chad, options for issue-33
21:29:03 [pauld]
chad, option 3: summit
21:29:20 [pauld]
chad, option 2: status quo
21:29:32 [pauld]
option 1: head-banging
21:29:53 [pauld]
chad, question: options for ISSUE-33
21:29:59 [TonyR]
vote: 3, 2, 1
21:30:20 [pauld]
chad, option 1: head bangign
21:30:26 [dhull]
vote: 2, 1, 3
21:30:30 [TonyR]
vote: 3, 2, 1
21:30:34 [TRutt_]
vote: 1
21:30:38 [anish]
vote: 1, 3
21:30:40 [Jonathan]
vote: 2, 3
21:30:44 [Katy]
vote: 3
21:30:45 [Yves]
vote: 3, 2, 1
21:30:48 [marc]
vote 2, 3
21:30:53 [pauld]
vote: 2
21:31:11 [marc]
vote: 2, 3
21:31:20 [pauld]
chad, option 1: head banging
21:31:24 [gpilz]
vote: 1, 3
21:32:19 [prasad]
vote: 2, 3
21:32:20 [pauld]
chad, count
21:32:20 [chad]
Question: options for ISSUE-33
21:32:20 [chad]
Option 1: head banging (3)
21:32:20 [chad]
Option 2: status quo (5)
21:32:20 [chad]
Option 3: summit (3)
21:32:20 [chad]
11 voters: anish (1,3),dhull (2,1,3),gpilz (1,3),Jonathan (2,3),Katy (3),marc (2,3),pauld (2),prasad (2,3),TonyR (3,2,1),TRutt_ (1),Yves (3,2,1)
21:32:23 [chad]
Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
21:32:25 [chad]
Round 2: Tie when choosing candidate to eliminate.
21:32:27 [chad]
Tie at round 1 between 1, 3.
21:32:30 [chad]
Tie broken randomly.
21:32:31 [chad]
Eliminating candidate 1.
21:32:33 [chad]
Round 3: Tie when choosing candidate to eliminate.
21:32:35 [chad]
Tie at round 2 between 2, 3.
21:32:37 [chad]
Candidate 3 has the fewest votes at round 1.
21:32:39 [chad]
Eliminating candidate 3.
21:32:41 [chad]
Candidate 2 is elected.
21:32:42 [gpilz]
me "strange little bots with obscure syntax are no basis for a system of government"
21:32:43 [chad]
Winner is option 2 - status quo
21:35:44 [Dug]
+1 to the 2nd part :-)
21:36:39 [TonyR]
Chair: not a clear position - close to balance between close with no action and continued head-banging
21:37:15 [TonyR]
Tony: I'd like to see more detailed descriptions of approaches on the e-mail list
21:38:08 [Zakim]
21:38:25 [TonyR]
Chair: will take this issue to WS-RM to assess their position
21:38:45 [Zakim]
21:38:48 [Zakim]
21:38:51 [Zakim]
21:38:53 [Zakim]
21:38:55 [Zakim]
21:38:56 [Zakim]
21:38:57 [Yves]
Yves has left #ws-addr
21:38:57 [Zakim]
21:38:59 [Zakim]
21:39:09 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
21:39:18 [Zakim]
21:39:57 [Zakim]
21:40:06 [Zakim]
21:42:16 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-addr
21:50:08 [Jonathan]
Jonathan has joined #ws-addr
21:50:20 [Jonathan]
RRSAgent, where am I?
21:50:20 [RRSAgent]
21:51:18 [Jonathan]
RRSAgent, set log world
21:58:00 [Zakim]
21:58:33 [TRutt_]
TRutt_ has left #ws-addr
22:00:28 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:00:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
22:01:17 [Zakim]
22:03:44 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr
22:41:35 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr