19:09:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:09:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/09/11-ws-addr-irc
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> +Mark_Little
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> +Bob_Freund
20:00:08 <TRutt_> TRutt_ has joined #ws-addr
20:00:10 <yinleng> yinleng has joined #ws-addr
20:00:47 <Zakim> +??P3
20:00:55 <TonyR> zakim, ?? is me
20:00:55 <Zakim> +TonyR; got it
20:01:03 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
20:01:04 <Dug> Dug has joined #ws-addr
20:01:20 <Katy> Katy has joined #ws-addr
20:01:29 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
20:01:33 <PaulKnight> PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
20:01:49 <Zakim> +??P6
20:02:07 <Zakim> +Yves
20:02:10 <bob> zakim P6 is illsley
20:02:36 <Zakim> +Paul_Knight
20:02:42 <dhull> dhull has joined #ws-addr
20:02:43 <prasad> prasad has joined #ws-addr
20:02:55 <Zakim> +[IBM]
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> +??P11
20:03:22 <prasad> zakim, ??P11  is prasad
20:03:22 <Zakim> +prasad; got it
20:03:30 <Zakim> +Marc_Hadley
20:03:46 <Zakim> +??P13
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> +[IPcaller]
20:04:17 <Zakim> +Dave_Hull
20:04:56 <Zakim> +Paul_Downey
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> +Jonathan_Marsh
20:09:02 <Zakim> +[IBM]
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> TOPIC: CR33
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> +q
20:17:39 <TonyR> JonM: suggested an alternative proposal using RefParms
20:18:03 <Zakim> +Anish_Karmarkar
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> q+
20:20:32 <gpilz> q+
20:21:14 <TonyR> Dug: it's not identifying the message, but rather the endpoint
20:21:31 <pauld> q?
20:22:20 <Zakim> -Dave_Hull
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> -Mark_Little
20:23:00 <Zakim> +Dave_Hull
20:23:04 <dhull> q+
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> q+
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> +q
20:30:15 <marc> q+
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> q+
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> q+
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> q+
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> q+
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> q+
20:45:16 <bob> ack bob
20:45:32 <TonyR> ... Does that clarify the rationale for this issue?
20:45:50 <gpilz> oops
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> q+
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> q+
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> q?
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> q+
21:01:12 <Zakim> +Marc_Hadley.a
21:01:47 <Jonathan> q+ to dispell incomposability argument
21:02:02 <Zakim> -[IBM]
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> q+
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> q?
21:07:03 <Dug> q+
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> yes
21:08:58 <Jonathan> 2will redial
21:09:03 <Zakim> -Jonathan_Marsh
21:09:12 <bob> ack dug
21:09:29 <anish> q+
21:09:55 <TonyR> Dug: how do we define a new marker in RM to provide the pseudo-anon capability?
21:10:34 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Marsh
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> q+
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> q+
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> q+
21:14:07 <Dug> q-
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> q+
21:14:53 <TonyR> Chair: are we ready for a straw poll on this?
21:15:12 <TRutt_> q+
21:15:14 <Katy> q+
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> -Paul_Knight
21:17:02 <anish> q?
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> q+
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> -yinleng
21:21:41 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz.a
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> -david_Illsley
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> +[IPcaller]
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> -Paul_Downey
21:38:25 <TonyR> Chair: will take this issue to WS-RM to assess their position
21:38:45 <Zakim> -Jonathan_Marsh
21:38:48 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
21:38:51 <Zakim> -Marc_Hadley.a
21:38:53 <Zakim> -Anish_Karmarkar
21:38:55 <Zakim> -Yves
21:38:56 <Zakim> -Bob_Freund
21:38:57 <Yves> Yves has left #ws-addr
21:38:57 <Zakim> -Dave_Hull
21:38:59 <Zakim> -TonyR
21:39:09 <TonyR> TonyR has left #ws-addr
21:39:18 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
21:39:57 <Zakim> -Dug
21:40:06 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz.a
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> See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/11-ws-addr-irc#T21-50-20
21:51:18 <Jonathan> RRSAgent, set log world
21:58:00 <Zakim> -katy
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 http://www.w3.org/2006/09/11-ws-addr-minutes.html bob
22:01:17 <Zakim> -prasad
22:03:44 <bob> bob has left #ws-addr
22:41:35 <dhull> dhull has joined #ws-addr