IRC log of ws-policy on 2006-09-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:00:26 [fsasaki]
Paul: answer to Felix question: when do we need it?
00:00:33 [fsasaki]
.. we need the primer material ASAP
00:00:40 [fsasaki]
.. let people know what we are doing
00:00:57 [fsasaki]
.. "guidelines about policy assertions" are needed during CR
00:01:24 [vladB]
vladB has joined #ws-policy
00:02:14 [fsasaki]
.. guidelines are not necessary, but helpful to leave CR
00:02:27 [fsasaki]
Chris: two documents
00:02:34 [fsasaki]
.. materials are developed independently
00:03:19 [fsasaki]
.. and we have to think about timing (e.g. guidelines ready during CR)
00:04:02 [fsasaki]
Paul: so have a WD primer soon out
00:04:08 [fsasaki]
.. and focus on the guidelines later
00:05:19 [fsasaki]
.. let's try to get the primer done, later on getting the guidelines done
00:05:44 [fsasaki]
.. as the primer WD is public, we will get feedback
00:06:07 [fsasaki]
Jeff: and the decision of REC track or not?
00:06:37 [fsasaki]
Paul: we have not decided yet
00:06:55 [fsasaki]
.. I would publish a WD and note in the status section "we have not decided yet"
00:07:33 [fsasaki]
.. primer should be ready in about 1 month
00:07:43 [fsasaki]
.. that the WG can consider WD publication
00:08:09 [fsasaki]
.. we also support Maryann and Umits work and see if we get work and review going
00:08:10 [cferris]
RESOLUTION: we have a primer (Using Policy) and we will have Guidelines for Authors as separate docs, we should support the work that maryann and Umit are doing and get a document ging and review scheduled to get the material out for public review
00:08:36 [asir]
s/Using Policy/Understanding WS-Policy/
00:08:41 [cferris]
00:08:56 [cferris]
00:09:45 [fsasaki]
Paul: Maryann, is the document ready for WG review?
00:09:49 [fsasaki]
Maryann: not yet
00:11:07 [fsasaki]
action: Maryann to prepare guidelines document - due to 2006-09-16
00:11:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-102 - prepare guidelines document [on Maryann Hondo - due 2006-09-13].
00:12:09 [Nadalin_]
Nadalin_ has joined #ws-policy
00:12:42 [fsasaki]
Chris: we also have to think about dOrchard's versioning material
00:13:04 [FrederickHirsch]
FrederickHirsch has joined #ws-policy
00:13:12 [asir]
ACTION: Editors to prepare an editor's draft of the primer (ETA - determined by editors) and send it to the WG
00:13:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-103 - Prepare an editor\'s draft of the primer (ETA - determined by editors) and send it to the WG [on Editors - due 2006-09-20].
00:13:20 [fsasaki]
Frederick: I offer to help Maryann
00:13:32 [fsasaki]
topic: Felix (W3C) positions on some issues
00:13:40 [fsasaki]
See mail at
00:15:24 [jeffm]
jeffm has joined #ws-policy
00:16:03 [jeffm]
jeffm has joined #ws-policy
00:16:22 [cferris]
scribe: cferris
00:16:42 [cferris]
acshok: the usingAdressing says how you annotate wsdl
00:16:58 [cferris]
00:17:12 [cferris]
ashok: would like to put these on equal basis
00:17:54 [jeffm]
From a practical perspective what is the difference between saying " xxx is out of scope" and "oh i'm sorry, xxx is really in scope, but the time alloted by the powers that wrote the charter don't allow us to address xxx.
00:18:28 [jeffm]
00:23:55 [cferris]
paulc: my recommendation would be to take this to the director
00:24:12 [cferris]
felix: good hope that it will be resolved like that
00:24:23 [cferris]
paulc: chris and I should draft a note to Bob
00:24:38 [monica]
monica has joined #ws-policy
00:24:39 [cferris]
paulc: if we go fast enough, we can solve their problem
00:25:21 [cferris]
paulc: the farther along the process... the more comfortable they will be with a reference
00:25:56 [cferris]
ack je
00:26:41 [cferris]
jeffm: see my comment in IRC above
00:29:28 [fsasaki]
topic: adjourn
00:29:44 [fsasaki]
The WG appreciates very much that Chris took the effort to be here today
00:30:35 [Ashok]
Ashok has left #ws-policy
00:30:39 [cferris]
zakim, who is here?
00:30:39 [Zakim]
On the phone I see F2F
00:30:40 [Zakim]
F2F has Chris_Ferris, Paul_Cotton, Glen_Daniels, Frederick_Hirsch, Jeff_M, Maryann_Hondo, Felix, Prasad, Toufic, Dan_Roth, Asir, Monica, Vladislov, Yakov, Tony
00:30:43 [Zakim]
On IRC I see monica, jeffm, FrederickHirsch, prasad, toufic, maryann, asir, cferris, fsasaki, RRSAgent, Zakim, trackbot
00:30:47 [Zakim]
00:30:48 [Zakim]
WS_Policy()12:00PM has ended
00:30:50 [Zakim]
Attendees were Mark_Little, Fabian, DOrchard, +1.425.455.aaaa, Chris_Ferris, Paul_Cotton, Glen_Daniels, Frederick_Hirsch, Jeff_M, Maryann_Hondo, Felix, Prasad, Toufic, Dan_Roth,
00:30:53 [Zakim]
... Asir, Monica, Vladislov, Yakov, bijan, Jong_Lee, Tony, Dave_Orchard
00:31:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate fsasaki
15:57:44 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-policy
15:57:44 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:57:57 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-policy
15:58:56 [asir]
zakim, this will be WS_Policy
15:58:56 [Zakim]
ok, asir; I see WS_Policy()12:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
15:59:20 [Zakim]
WS_Policy()12:00PM has now started
15:59:21 [asir]
Meeting: WS-Policy F2F Meeting
15:59:26 [asir]
Chair: Paul Cotton
15:59:27 [Zakim]
15:59:41 [Fabian]
zakim, ??P2 is Fabian
15:59:41 [Zakim]
+Fabian; got it
16:00:16 [Zakim]
16:00:23 [asir]
rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight
16:00:42 [asir]
rrsagent, do not start a new log at midnight
16:00:59 [asir]
Scribe: Maryann Hondo
16:01:08 [asir]
ScribeNick: maryann
16:02:08 [toufic]
toufic has joined #ws-policy
16:02:27 [asir]
16:02:41 [danroth]
danroth has joined #ws-policy
16:03:27 [Zakim]
16:03:43 [whenry]
whenry has joined #ws-policy
16:03:43 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-policy
16:04:05 [maryann]
TOPIC: agenda item13 "tarball" on extensibility
16:04:16 [maryann]
paul: update on primer
16:04:24 [maryann]
paul: agreed to 2 documents
16:05:07 [maryann]
paul: this is important because one or more of your items may need to be targetted to one or more of the documents
16:05:07 [vladB]
vladB has joined #ws-policy
16:05:20 [maryann]
david: there is a missing step to publishing the primer
16:05:47 [maryann]
paul: the assumption is that the editors will convert the understanding paper into the prime
16:05:51 [maryann]
16:05:54 [GlenD]
GlenD has joined #ws-policy
16:06:24 [maryann]
paul: do it on reqtrac with the flexibility of publishing later
16:07:05 [dmoberg]
dmoberg has joined #ws-policy
16:08:14 [maryann]
paul: modified the agenda, the first item this morning is item 13
16:09:19 [asir]
16:09:20 [toufic]
16:09:36 [dorchard]
16:09:43 [maryann]
paul: bugs 3617, 3590, 3662
16:10:15 [maryann]
paul: digression- who has bugs outstanding
16:10:22 [maryann]
glen has one
16:10:28 [maryann]
toufic has 2
16:10:50 [maryann]
paul: we currently have 30 bugs
16:11:23 [FrederickHirsch]
FrederickHirsch has joined #ws-policy
16:11:24 [RRSAgent]
16:11:42 [maryann]
daveorchard: is success measured by moving the number up or down?
16:12:26 [maryann]
daveorchard: tie in the versioning info for the primer
16:12:42 [maryann]
asir: item 12 on the agenda
16:13:11 [maryann]
daveorchard: we need to discuss this
16:13:50 [maryann]
paul: action #28 is being moved to be part of the dicussion of item c under agenda topic 13
16:13:59 [maryann]
16:14:12 [jeffm]
jeffm has joined #ws-policy
16:14:18 [maryann]
TOPIC: versioning policy is not clear
16:14:53 [asir]
Most recent e-mail on 3617 is
16:15:13 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-policy
16:15:24 [Fabian]
got it
16:15:30 [maryann]
paul: looking at bug 3617 and message thread
16:16:06 [maryann]
paul: asir, can you summarize umit's proposal
16:16:47 [maryann]
asir: namespaces in policy framework
16:17:09 [maryann]
asir: 3rd bullet in section 2.3
16:17:15 [PaulC]
Modifications to the pattern facet of a type definition for which the value-space of the previous definition remains valid or for which the value-space of the preponderance of instance would remain valid.
16:18:10 [monica]
monica has joined #ws-policy
16:18:17 [danroth]
danroth has joined #ws-policy
16:18:49 [maryann]
paul: the material after the or is the same as the information before the or
16:19:14 [maryann]
asir: doesn't hurt to change the 3rd bullet
16:19:33 [maryann]
asir: formulated a concrete proposal
16:19:42 [FrederickHirsch]
16:20:47 [maryann]
dave: the proposal for the 3rd bullet, would have expected you keep the other part
16:21:02 [maryann]
asir: read the 3rd bullet as dealing only with pattern facet
16:21:12 [maryann]
jeff: it doesn't say that though
16:21:43 [maryann]
paul: the second clause doesn't relate to the pattern facet,
16:21:57 [maryann]
dave: there are many topics here
16:22:25 [maryann]
jeff: what does preponderance mean?
16:22:40 [maryann]
jeff: i've only seen it used in a legal context
16:22:53 [maryann]
jeff: the majority of the instance ?
16:23:16 [maryann]
fred: clear definitions might be put in the primer
16:23:49 [maryann]
dave: there might be a case where some cases might not be valid as we go forward
16:24:05 [maryann]
dave: backward compatible not by type but by usage instances
16:24:46 [maryann]
jeff: so someone is considering a change, what's the test to see if it meets this criteria?
16:25:04 [maryann]
dave: you go to the working group and it comes up with its own hueristic
16:25:07 [dorchard]
16:25:15 [PaulC]
ack fred
16:25:15 [maryann]
fred: why preponderance?
16:25:40 [maryann]
paul: to announce that the working group will make this decision
16:26:15 [maryann]
jeff: if we didn't have this verbiage, if we made any changes we'd have to have a new namespace
16:26:18 [maryann]
paul: no
16:26:49 [maryann]
pau: we have a difference of opinion
16:27:06 [maryann]
paul: david has one interpretation,
16:27:24 [maryann]
dave: reconsidered, and i agree with asir
16:27:55 [maryann]
dave: this bullet has raised a good point and i don't want this point closed off
16:28:11 [maryann]
dave: move the preponderance of instances to apply more broadly
16:28:21 [FrederickHirsch]
16:28:43 [maryann]
paul: look at text before the bullets
16:28:57 [maryann]
paul: this is just examples not all cases
16:29:56 [maryann]
paul: what do you want to do to bullet 3?
16:30:38 [maryann]
dave: trying to figure out what umit was referring to, i prefer to keep the status quo
16:30:50 [maryann]
paul: why isn't it a repetition?
16:31:20 [maryann]
dave: its talking about a pattern facet changing, and that some of these are not valid
16:31:46 [maryann]
paul: leave the text and explain to umit, the first part has no impact, all the old cases remain valid
16:32:20 [maryann]
paul: the second part says if we change the pattern facet does not impact the majority of cases, the working group can agree to do that
16:32:52 [maryann]
s/do that/ not change the namespace
16:33:22 [maryann]
paul: its common for the working group to lock down the namespace in CR
16:33:49 [maryann]
jeff: preponderance means 50& +1
16:33:57 [maryann]
16:34:15 [maryann]
jeff: vast majority is different than preponderance
16:34:28 [maryann]
fred: i don't understand either
16:34:42 [maryann]
fred: what are we saying? its majority vote?
16:34:50 [maryann]
paul: its always consensus
16:36:19 [maryann]
paul: we're leaving it subjective
16:36:55 [maryann]
jeff: there's still an issue, if i have an early implementation, what does my implementation do with this thing it doesn't expect
16:37:27 [maryann]
paul: summarize..... we change "preponderance" to "vast majority, no change to bullet 1 and make the change to bullet 3
16:37:45 [maryann]
fred: what's the 4th bullet?
16:38:03 [asir]
rrsagent, where am I
16:38:03 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'where am I', asir. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:38:17 [RRSAgent]
16:38:24 [maryann]
david: you can change value by changing min occurs or extending max occurs
16:38:57 [maryann]
ashok: its peoples inability to parse the sentence
16:39:25 [dorchard]
technology is hard. c'est la vie.
16:39:34 [PaulC]
Re bullet 1: No change is necessary
16:39:41 [asir]
Related editorial action is
16:39:51 [PaulC]
Re bullet 2: change "preponderence" to "vast majority"
16:40:09 [PaulC]
Re bullet 3: s/cardinality of elements/cardinality of elements (i.e.
16:40:36 [PaulC]
modifications to minOccurs or maxOccurs attribute value of an element
16:40:53 [PaulC]
16:41:34 [maryann]
paul: we need someone to update the bug with this decision
16:41:41 [asir]
RRSAgent, where am I?
16:41:41 [RRSAgent]
16:42:40 [maryann]
asir: combine 3590 and 3662
16:42:53 [maryann]
paul: why do we have 2 bugs?
16:42:59 [maryann]
dave: because you told me to
16:43:11 [maryann]
paul: can we mark 3590 as a dup?
16:43:36 [maryann]
dave: 3590 the key thing is to have an element extensiblity point for reference
16:43:49 [dorchard]
4. The PolicyReference Element is modified to add an element extensibility
16:43:58 [dorchard]
point. This should be for any namespace, which means a slight change to the
16:44:06 [dorchard]
notation section. This includes specifying that unknown element child content
16:44:12 [dorchard]
is ignored.
16:44:53 [maryann]
dave: propose for any namespace, asir prefers other
16:45:10 [PaulC]
Point 4 in 3590:
16:45:13 [PaulC]
4. The PolicyReference Element is modified to add an element extensibility point. This should be for any namespace, which means a slight change to the notation section. This includes specifying that unknown element child content is ignored.
16:45:16 [maryann]
dave: add element extensibility and close the issue
16:45:35 [maryann]
dave: then we can decide in 3662 which one
16:45:54 [asir]
RRSAgent, where am I?
16:45:54 [RRSAgent]
16:46:45 [maryann]
RESOLUTION: for 3590
16:46:47 [asir]
Related editorial action is
16:49:37 [maryann]
RESOLUTION: for 3590 is adopting the first sentence in point 4 - The policy reference element is modified to add an element extensibility point
16:50:02 [dorchard]
#4 is agreed to by WG, but element extensibility of ##other vs ##any is decided in 3662
16:51:02 [maryann]
RESOLUTION: for 3617 - make changes to bullet 1,2 3 as indicated above and anchored by
16:51:48 [maryann]
16:56:44 [maryann]
TOPIC: bug 3662 and agenda item 13 c
16:57:07 [maryann]
paul: how many people think it should be ##any, ##other,no opinion
16:57:23 [maryann]
paul: ##any ? - 6
16:57:35 [maryann]
paul: ##other? 2
16:57:58 [maryann]
RESOLUTION: 3662 is ##any
16:58:07 [maryann]
rrsagent, where am i?
16:58:07 [RRSAgent]
16:58:37 [maryann]
16:58:44 [asir]
related editorial action is
16:58:48 [maryann]
TOPIC: agenda item 12
16:59:25 [PaulC]
Re 3662 no one could not live with ##any
16:59:50 [maryann]
paul: this proposal is changes for primer
17:00:03 [maryann]
dave: guidelines vs primer
17:00:37 [maryann]
paul: primer is aimed at people to understand the framework and the guidelines are for policy authors where does this belong?
17:00:43 [maryann]
dave: this is a little fuzzy
17:00:57 [maryann]
dave: the primer is for people who don't understand the spec
17:01:15 [maryann]
dave: and guidelines is for people who are writing assertions
17:01:34 [maryann]
dave: there is a secition in what is now the "primer" that talks about versioning
17:01:39 [maryann]
dave: so
17:01:52 [maryann]
paul: so will you update the section?
17:02:00 [maryann]
dave: augment
17:02:12 [maryann]
asir: this is extending the language
17:02:57 [asir]
CVS version of the primer is;charset=utf-8
17:02:58 [maryann]
paul: what's wrong with targetting this at the primer?
17:03:21 [maryann]
paul: and then seeing what if anything should move to the guidelines?
17:03:25 [maryann]
dave: yes
17:03:54 [maryann]
paul: is your material to supplement or replace section 3.7
17:04:03 [maryann]
dave: there's also 4.4.7
17:04:14 [maryann]
dave: this would be a new 4.4.8
17:05:44 [maryann]
asir: 2 questions- as a user of the framework how do i extend the framework
17:06:05 [maryann]
asir: how can 3rd parties extend
17:06:16 [maryann]
asir: what is the working group strategy for
17:06:40 [maryann]
asir: separate the content to determine if this goes into the nornative document
17:07:13 [maryann]
dave: the problem is that....i gave a number of scenarios, it gives suggestions, but that's the extent
17:07:21 [maryann]
dave: there's a couple of best practices
17:07:38 [maryann]
dave: the material in here is not normative, and not worth being promoted
17:07:44 [maryann]
dave: its more examples
17:08:22 [maryann]
asir: i will point out..... " we can imagine a future version"
17:08:29 [maryann]
17:08:44 [vladB]
17:10:05 [maryann]
paul: is there any material that belongs in the framework doc in a non-normative annex
17:11:43 [maryann]
vlad: need to consider assertion version in the guidelines
17:12:43 [maryann]
RESOLUTION: accept this for text to the primer
17:12:53 [asir]
RRSAgent, where am I?
17:12:53 [RRSAgent]
17:13:45 [prasad]
17:13:45 [maryann]
17:13:50 [asir]
related editorial action is
17:14:55 [maryann]
TOPIC: Clarify the relation of overlapping definitions in the fr...,
17:14:55 [maryann]
17:16:35 [maryann]
RESOLUTION: fixed with the working group draft -- one of the editors to update bug
17:17:01 [maryann]
17:17:11 [maryann]
TOPIC: 3559 - Conformance Sections needed for both specs
17:17:28 [PaulC]
proposal in
17:17:38 [maryann]
17:18:04 [monica]
17:18:16 [FrederickHirsch]
17:18:26 [Fabian]
yes, can see
17:18:50 [maryann]
paul: does this address 2.0 proposal
17:19:02 [maryann]
paul: if we adopt this there may be an issue
17:19:32 [maryann]
dave: the value facet might change
17:19:40 [maryann]
paul: for what data type?
17:20:11 [maryann]
dave: you might find an issue about conformance....with the preponderance
17:20:37 [maryann]
paul: we would have changed the schema without changing the namespace
17:20:54 [asir]
RRSAgent, where am I?
17:20:54 [RRSAgent]
17:20:55 [maryann]
paul: if there were complaints we wouldn't do that
17:22:03 [PaulC]
ack fred
17:22:05 [PaulC]
ack mar
17:22:11 [PaulC]
ack vla
17:22:55 [maryann]
monica: i sent a note to umit, do we want more detail with respect to conformance
17:23:03 [maryann]
monica: there is work in
17:23:20 [maryann]
monica: OASIS on conformance
17:23:51 [maryann]
monica: asking if we want more detail
17:23:59 [maryann]
paul: this is the same level as wsdl
17:24:09 [maryann]
monica: yes, but do we want more detail
17:24:17 [monica]
17:24:19 [maryann]
paul: well here's a proposal to put it it
17:24:45 [maryann]
paul: there would be a way by putting more MUSTS in the spec
17:26:05 [maryann]
monica: if you look at the reference above, you can see the difference between basic and advanced functionality
17:26:29 [maryann]
paul: exit criteria for CR will tease this out
17:27:37 [maryann]
monica: we just might want to address some advanced functionality
17:27:46 [asir]
related editorial action is
17:28:07 [maryann]
RESOLUTION: 3559 with the text in
17:28:27 [maryann]
TOPIC: issue 3705
17:29:36 [PaulC]
17:29:37 [maryann] will be an action for the next meeting
17:30:02 [maryann]
17:30:11 [maryann]
TOPIC: break
17:34:30 [Zakim]
17:47:41 [Zakim]
17:48:00 [Fabian]
Zakim, ??P0 is Fabian
17:48:00 [Zakim]
+Fabian; got it
17:51:25 [maryann]
paul: startup again
17:51:58 [maryann]
paul: glen opened bug 3720 --- terms should be defined....
17:53:33 [PaulC]
17:53:58 [asir]
related editorial action is
17:55:18 [maryann]
paul: there is a new bug 3772
17:55:33 [maryann]
paul: not sure how to deal with this yet
17:56:03 [maryann]
TOPIC:17. New issues
17:56:27 [maryann]
TOPIC:17. New issues
17:56:47 [maryann]
a) Using UsingAddressing Extension Element as a WS-Policy assertion, PLH
17:56:47 [maryann]
17:58:02 [maryann]
asir: in the addressing specification there is a "UsingAddressing" element
17:58:24 [maryann]
asir: which can be used as a wsdl element or a policy element
17:59:19 [maryann]
asir: question from phillipe on whether the current doc should have the "generic" text replaced with a more specific reference to our spec
17:59:55 [maryann]
18:00:16 [Yakov]
Yakov has joined #ws-policy
18:00:58 [maryann]
ashok: simple question...says points to a policy this one assertion?
18:01:30 [maryann]
glen: the text was meant to be generic since the policy framework was not yet within the w3c
18:01:48 [Fabian]
18:01:55 [maryann]
glen: question is, should we now make it a wsp:Policy assertion
18:01:56 [vladB]
18:02:19 [monica]
18:02:31 [maryann]
asir: i can't see why there wouldn't be a normative reference
18:02:32 [paulc]
paulc has joined #ws-policy
18:02:44 [maryann]
asir: there are 17 references already in the primer
18:03:07 [paulc]
18:03:46 [maryann]
asir: timing will be a challenge
18:04:11 [maryann]
asir: phillipe looked at the examples in the primer and approved
18:04:20 [GlenD]
18:04:52 [maryann]
paul: this is a process heavy issue---- was raised at the CG
18:05:05 [paulc]
ack Fab
18:05:30 [maryann]
fabian: i have some confused questions about who is defining the assertions
18:05:43 [paulc]
glenn: +1
18:05:54 [maryann]
fabian: we need to make clear that its addressing that should be defining the assertion but its ok to have a reference in the primer
18:06:14 [maryann]
paul: are you talking about 3619?
18:06:20 [maryann]
fabian: no
18:06:23 [paulc]
ack vlad
18:06:51 [GlenD]
(I was +1-ing the idea that we wouldn't talk about the assertion, and leave it to WSA to define it and any text about how the WSDL extension and the Policy Assertion would coordinate)
18:06:58 [maryann]
vlad: more common question....if addressing defines this, its "outside" the framework if its a wsdl element
18:07:17 [maryann]
vlad: it says it "might be an assertion"
18:07:30 [jeffm]
18:07:39 [maryann]
asir: it can be either a plain wsdl assertion or a policy assertion
18:07:50 [maryann]
vlad: how do we process it if its a wsdl element?
18:07:59 [maryann]
asir: that's the 3rd question
18:08:22 [maryann]
vlad: its about all kinds of extensions and how they relate to alternatives
18:08:34 [maryann]
paul: this may be related to the other thread
18:09:03 [maryann]
paulc: we have to gain some experience with this
18:09:24 [maryann]
jeff: should we separate this into 3 items/
18:09:26 [paulc]
ack GlenD
18:10:00 [maryann]
glen: great for wsa to put in a reference to policy and they should define what the assertion is and what it should mean if there are the two
18:10:34 [maryann]
paul: that's the ideal, but you ignored the process problem, because they would have to go back to working draft and they are already in cr
18:11:36 [maryann]
paul: maybe the text in the wsa doc should be something like "as a policy assertion in a policy framework" ---such as wsp: Policy
18:11:52 [dmoberg]
dmoberg has joined #ws-policy
18:11:54 [maryann]
jeff: we don't want to restrict the e.g. to just wsp:Policy
18:12:16 [paulc]
From WS-A WSDL binding:
18:12:18 [paulc]
(e.g., as a policy assertion in a policy framework
18:12:28 [paulc]
maybe this could changed to:
18:12:35 [paulc]
(e.g., as a policy assertion in a policy framework such as WS-Policy
18:13:15 [maryann]
jeff: the group could do this as a separate note
18:13:24 [maryann]
jeff: you could do this as a req track note
18:13:36 [maryann]
paul: and it would normatively tie the two together
18:14:28 [dmoberg]
dmoberg has joined #ws-policy
18:14:30 [maryann]
paul: suggest that if the timing of a normative change would impact their work, they could do something like the "such as"
18:16:15 [asir]
18:17:32 [maryann]
paul: you didn't answer the question, you ack'd the issue
18:17:48 [maryann]
paul: what happens if they're both there?
18:18:36 [maryann]
paul: if you want to make the information more broadly understood, you would express it in both ways
18:19:28 [maryann]
paul: suggest that at a minimum we should suggest they make the non-normative reference
18:20:12 [maryann]
prasad: as long as they are logically consistent, you could use both representations
18:22:42 [maryann]
RESOLUTION- 3656 is to make the non-normative change as a minimum, #2 yes there are examples in our primer and #3 we don't think there's an issue with both methods of expression
18:22:58 [maryann]
rrsagent, where am i?
18:22:58 [RRSAgent]
18:24:13 [maryann]
ACTION: Asir to respond to phillipe and bob with the resolution for 3656
18:24:13 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-104 - Respond to phillipe and bob with the resolution for 3656 [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2006-09-20].
18:24:56 [paulc]
18:25:14 [maryann]
18:25:24 [maryann]
TOPIC: Clarify the policy model for Web Services
18:25:24 [maryann]
18:26:46 [maryann]
yakov: expand the scope of the usecases
18:27:30 [maryann]
yakov: includes 5 entities in a web services model
18:28:02 [maryann]
yakov: each of these might specify policies
18:28:18 [maryann]
yakov: example given was authorization
18:29:05 [maryann]
yakov: don't see any limitations in the specification to preclude this
18:30:36 [maryann]
yakov: replace requestor/provider with entity
18:31:21 [paulc]
18:31:28 [paulc]
ack jeffm
18:32:07 [maryann]
asir: do we get time to review this?
18:32:15 [maryann]
paul: how long do you need?
18:34:05 [maryann]
i asserted that Tony had some concerns and might not have time to repsond
18:34:29 [maryann]
paul: put the discussion on the agenda for tomorrow morning
18:35:07 [maryann]
TOPIC:a) Need a URI structure to refer to WSDL 1.0 definitions, etc. , Ashok
18:35:08 [maryann]
18:35:51 [paulc]
Proposal in:
18:37:48 [maryann]
ashok: section 4 allows you attach policies to wsdl 1.1 so this indicates the spec sees attachment to 1.1 important but when you try to do this with external attachment you have no uri mechanism
18:38:02 [maryann]
ashok: you may not be able to add the policies to the wsdl
18:38:43 [maryann]
ashok: this spells out a uri scheme to refer to wsdl 1.1 components using the external attachment
18:39:03 [maryann]
ashok: take the uri and use it as a domain expression
18:39:06 [Zakim]
18:39:52 [maryann]
ashok: use the algorithms in 4.1 to work out the effective policies
18:40:11 [maryann]
ashok: at the end also talk about how to attach to other things
18:42:11 [maryann]
ashok: talk briefly about http and jms
18:42:55 [maryann]
paul: obvious question, wouldn't other people find these uri's useful
18:43:30 [maryann]
paul: is there a model of where this goes?
18:43:33 [prasad]
18:43:39 [maryann]
ashok: that's one of the things we can talk about
18:43:58 [maryann]
ashok: can't ask wsdl because they're not going to work on 1.1 anymore
18:44:29 [maryann]
ashok: whether we want it as normative or non-normative thats ok
18:44:34 [maryann]
paul: can it be a note?
18:44:40 [maryann]
ashok: that is another option
18:44:43 [asir]
18:44:51 [maryann]
jeff: notes you don't maintain
18:45:08 [maryann]
ashok: what about as an appendix?
18:45:24 [maryann]
vlad: does anyone own 1.1?
18:45:40 [maryann]
vlad: don't think policy should really own this?
18:45:52 [maryann]
vlad: what about wsi?
18:46:02 [maryann]
jeff: too difficult to do that
18:46:40 [maryann]
prasad: clarification.....we refer to wsdl 1.1 or 1.0?
18:46:45 [maryann]
ashok: type
18:46:50 [maryann]
18:47:12 [maryann]
prasad: when you have your namespace fragment your token should be 1.1
18:47:41 [maryann]
ashok: yes that's a useful thing
18:47:50 [paulc]
18:47:53 [prasad]
ac pr
18:47:55 [paulc]
ack pra
18:47:58 [prasad]
ack pr
18:48:15 [dmoberg]
dmoberg has joined #ws-policy
18:49:00 [maryann]
asir: attachment draft there is a section 4 that talks about attaching policy to wsdl 1.1 ... this describes a model and a any of this material required to make this work?
18:49:08 [maryann]
ashok: this is something different
18:49:42 [maryann]
ashok: using the external attachment are different ways of doing the same do when you can't annotate the wsdl
18:50:08 [maryann]
prasad: here you inline it so not required for section4
18:50:38 [maryann]
asir: uri fragment identifiers are pieces of domain expressions
18:51:08 [maryann]
asir: domain expression is independent...considering the timing an the amount of work to make this work why is this in scope?
18:51:20 [maryann]
ashok: what work?
18:51:32 [maryann]
asir: more work needs to be done to make this into working draft
18:51:45 [maryann]
paul: ashok is asserting that this can be dropped in....
18:52:19 [maryann]
paul: there might be a sentence or two that needs to be added
18:52:35 [maryann]
asir: why are we considering domain expressions as part of the work of the working group
18:52:48 [maryann]
paul: not sure this is domain specific
18:52:58 [maryann]
dan: this is domain dependent
18:53:22 [maryann]
paul: why does the external exist then?
18:53:50 [maryann]
asir: external attachment has points of extensibility section 3.4
18:55:31 [maryann]
prasad: so this is within the charter because its just defining a wsdl 1.1 external attachment
18:55:59 [maryann]
jeff: are you making an explicit request for this to be out of scope?
18:56:32 [maryann]
asir: phillipe has mentioned that the w3c sees this as out of scope
18:56:49 [maryann]
vlad: then we make external attachment unusable for implementors
18:57:15 [maryann]
paul: there are no motions on the floor
18:57:24 [maryann]
paul: there are no examples
18:57:40 [maryann]
paul: we need an example of how it would be used
18:58:04 [maryann]
ashok: you would put this in the external attachment where it says domain expression
18:59:21 [maryann]
ashok: need to look at the schema for applies to
19:00:34 [maryann]
ashok: so I'll have to wrap it in an element
19:01:28 [maryann]
paul: if you have a definition of an element it would be a usage of the extensibility point
19:02:30 [maryann]
dan: i see that we're supposed to create an attachment for 1.1 and trying to
19:02:57 [maryann]
dan: to do another one, but is it possible to copy the wsdl and inline it using the existing mechanism
19:03:07 [maryann]
dan: now we'll have 2 mechanisms
19:03:25 [maryann]
ashok: wsdl 2.0 spec defines this and you can do exactly this with 2.0
19:05:05 [maryann]
paul: if you put this is the spec, we will need to test this in CR
19:05:42 [maryann]
dan: the current proposal for 2.0 is an inline method only
19:05:52 [maryann]
paul: same issue exists for 2.0
19:06:33 [maryann]
vlad: this could be an extension to the existing document for only wsdl 1.1
19:07:14 [maryann]
prasad: bigger question on the table is are we in scope or not?
19:08:22 [maryann]
ashok: maybe i should talk to my lawyer :-)
19:09:31 [maryann]
paul: we have an idea of what the technical material is
19:10:49 [maryann]
paul: applies to requires element content so anything inserted has to be wrapped
19:11:13 [maryann]
paul: ms and w3c assert that this is out of scope
19:11:53 [maryann]
paul: oracle, sap, layer 7
19:12:17 [maryann]
yakov: include it
19:12:55 [prasad]
From the charter it seems out of scope but could be a useful (simple) addition
19:13:07 [maryann]
paul: dale "general purpose" mechanism .... ambiguous
19:13:30 [maryann]
paul: glen, monica, its useful
19:13:36 [maryann]
fred: how much work?
19:13:58 [maryann]
asir: should we ask who will implement?
19:14:04 [maryann]
paul : too early to ask this
19:14:56 [maryann]
paul: at risk...when you are in CR you can delete something if you didn't get successful interop, you have to go back to working draft, so when we go into CR the question will be asked
19:15:00 [monica]
19:15:32 [maryann]
paul: you explicitly identify features at risk when you go into CR
19:16:34 [maryann]
touf: how is the decision made to remove it?
19:17:25 [Fabian]
19:18:05 [paulc]
ack asir
19:18:10 [FrederickHirsch]
19:18:21 [maryann]
monica: doesn't this relate to my question on exit criteria?
19:18:24 [maryann]
paul: no
19:18:50 [maryann]
monica: you can't use exit criteria to indicate something is optional?
19:19:57 [maryann]
paul: just because something is optional doesn't mean you can get away without testing it
19:20:23 [maryann]
jeff: proper way to state it, is later on in the process we will set what the exit criteria is for CR
19:20:35 [maryann]
jeff: to some extent we have latitude to set that
19:20:50 [maryann]
paul: the minimum is 2 and w3c prefers one open source
19:21:15 [monica]
19:21:19 [maryann]
jeff: some set of things you have 4 implementation, for others you might only have pairwise interoperabiltiy
19:21:28 [vladB]
19:21:33 [vladB]
19:23:29 [maryann]
paul: we have to tell the director when we go into cr
19:23:44 [paulc]
ack fred
19:23:45 [maryann]
fred: what is the risk?
19:24:03 [jeffm]
19:24:14 [Fabian]
can we please honor the queue?
19:24:22 [asir]
19:24:58 [paulc]
ack fab
19:25:00 [maryann]
fred: in scope
19:25:20 [maryann]
fabian: i don't think anyone can interoperate on external attachment
19:25:36 [maryann]
fabian: as it is today
19:25:38 [vladB]
19:25:54 [maryann]
paul: i have always thought we had to pick a domain for testing
19:26:31 [maryann]
fabian: this is not the same thing
19:26:56 [maryann]
fabian: i don't see why we couldn't define the same thing for policy attachment
19:26:57 [paulc]
ack jeffm
19:27:01 [maryann]
fabian: in scope
19:27:12 [maryann]
jeff: its premature to talk about what is at risk
19:27:35 [maryann]
jeff: not the concept of at risk, but the specific features that are at risk
19:27:48 [Fabian]
I was saying: Internal attachment to WSDL 1.1 is clearly defined, no reason why we couldn't do the same for external attachment
19:27:59 [paulc]
ack asir
19:28:13 [maryann]
asir: more technical work to be done....
19:28:20 [maryann]
paul: we have a sketch
19:29:05 [maryann]
asir: there's is an rfc that talks about fragment ids, for 2.0 there was also a new media type that needed to be defined
19:29:33 [maryann]
paul: the spec didn't define a media type?
19:30:26 [maryann]
asir: 3023 is the rfc
19:31:29 [maryann]
paul: question is ...are there any conflicts with these frag ids and the way people do it today>
19:31:35 [maryann]
ashok: we will look at that
19:32:36 [maryann]
paul: so unless we define a mime type and the frag ids within the mimetype we might have an issue
19:33:21 [asir]
Paul - please project
19:36:32 [maryann]
paul: so if we have these fragment ids we need an annex in the document to define the mime types
19:37:00 [maryann]
paul: this could be why the w3c thnks this is out of scope
19:37:43 [maryann]
paul: summary- the current proposal needs some more work for sectoin 3.4 and there is a concern for defining fragment ids
19:38:10 [maryann]
ACTION: paul to discuss the summary of the proposal with the w3c
19:38:11 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-105 - Discuss the summary of the proposal with the w3c [on Paul Cotton - due 2006-09-20].
19:38:19 [maryann]
rrsagent, where am i?
19:38:19 [RRSAgent]
19:45:21 [Zakim]
20:12:48 [vlad]
vlad has joined #ws-policy
20:27:01 [Yakov]
Yakov has joined #ws-policy
20:33:08 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-policy
20:34:57 [Ashok]
scribe: Ashok
20:36:18 [Ashok]
Restarting after lunch
20:36:47 [vlad]
20:37:00 [vladB]
vladB has joined #ws-policy
20:38:38 [PaulC]
PaulC has joined #ws-policy
20:40:32 [Ashok]
PaulC: Consider using XPtr to point directly into the XML --- Bug 3599
20:40:57 [Ashok]
ACTION: Ashok to review 3599 proposal ked using XPtr
20:40:57 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-106 - Review 3599 proposal ked using XPtr [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2006-09-20].
20:42:25 [Ashok]
Items 18b and c queued up for Thu morning
20:43:12 [Ashok]
Agenda for this afternoon:
20:43:17 [Ashok]
20. Issues requiring more discussion or proposal (con't), Chair (11:00 am PDT)
20:43:17 [Ashok]
d) Optional Assertions may not be usable in all circumstances, Umit
20:43:17 [Ashok]
20:43:17 [Ashok]
e) Semantics of successful intersection determined by domain-specific assertion content, Glen D
20:43:17 [Ashok]
20:43:18 [Ashok]
Action item:
20:43:20 [Ashok]
20:43:22 [Ashok]
f) The absence of an assertion should not mean that the behavior is "explicitly prohibited"
20:43:24 [Ashok]
20:43:26 [Ashok]
See also:
20:43:28 [Ashok]
20:43:40 [Zakim]
20:44:43 [Ashok]
Asir: on 3564, Umit took an action to prepare text for the primer
20:45:11 [toufic]
20:45:23 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-policy
20:45:26 [Ashok]
This was Action 83 ... it's closed ... pts to 3577
20:45:30 [asir]
link to the minutes
20:45:40 [FrederickHirsch]
FrederickHirsch has joined #ws-policy
20:45:53 [asir]
20:46:01 [Ashok]
asir: Action was recorded incorrectly
20:46:32 [Ashok]
PaulC: we fixed that
20:46:36 [dmoberg]
dmoberg has joined #ws-policy
20:48:14 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-policy
20:48:34 [toufic]
20:49:06 [Ashok]
PaulC: has anyone looked at this material? I bet not.
20:49:18 [FrederickHirsch]
20:49:19 [PaulC]
We think the operative material for 3564 is at:
20:49:22 [FrederickHirsch]
20:49:24 [PaulC]
20:51:08 [Ashok]
PaulC: The guidelines doc has some wording to handle this -- Maryann says
20:51:30 [danroth]
danroth has joined #ws-policy
20:51:51 [Ashok]
PaulC: Let's wait for Maryann to get back ... you all shd review material
20:52:32 [Ashok]
PaulC: Start discussion on 3577 ... there has been email discussion
20:54:15 [asir]
There are two e-mails on this issue
20:54:18 [asir]
20:54:44 [asir]
20:55:36 [Zakim]
20:56:34 [Ashok]
danroth: issue is abt domain-specific intersection ... spec speaks only abt Qname matching
20:56:42 [daveo]
daveo has joined #ws-policy
20:57:16 [Ashok]
danroth: this is often not enough so we need to say something abt domain-specific intersection
20:57:20 [Zakim]
20:58:02 [Ashok]
danroth: onus is on intersection doer to understand domain-specific intersection
20:58:34 [PaulC]
DavidO: we are on 3577 agenda item 20 e)
20:59:53 [daveo]
thx pc
21:01:05 [FrederickHirsch]
21:01:09 [FrederickHirsch]
21:01:35 [Ashok]
Discussion of when domain-specific assertion is required
21:01:40 [PaulC]
Dan: the requirement for domain specific intersection requirements can be queued off the QNAME
21:02:19 [PaulC]
If the policy processor understands the QNAME then it should know if specific intersection knowledge is needed and available.
21:02:29 [PaulC]
21:02:44 [Ashok]
GlenD: wsp:Policy element proliferation is a problem
21:04:05 [Ashok]
GlenD: Take some usecases and say if yr mail addresses them
21:05:05 [PaulC]
ack Fred
21:05:14 [PaulC]
DavidO is next on the queue
21:05:34 [danroth]
21:06:04 [Ashok]
Frederick: Isn't there a case where you may not understand that a particular QName has special semnatics?
21:06:12 [dmoberg]
dmoberg has joined #ws-policy
21:06:51 [GlenD]
21:07:02 [Ashok]
danroth: I cd not come up with a case that requires this flag.
21:07:28 [PaulC]
DavidO: would really like an motivated use case for a change here
21:08:06 [PaulC]
Ack dan
21:08:08 [Ashok]
GlenD: Explains use of the attribute
21:08:13 [PaulC]
Ack glend
21:08:50 [Ashok]
GlenD: Another solution is to disallow domain-specific intersection. That's a bad idea.
21:09:12 [Ashok]
GlenD: So lets look at test and see if we can clarify
21:09:58 [FrederickHirsch]
21:10:21 [PaulC]
Ack fred
21:10:52 [Ashok]
Frederick: This mustUndertand come out in the wash...
21:11:03 [Ashok]
PaulC: No consensus for change
21:11:09 [vladB]
vladB has joined #ws-policy
21:12:39 [Ashok]
GlenD: last para of section before 5 explains domain-specific ... need to make much clearer ... soemthing up at the top of the section
21:14:10 [Ashok]
PaulC: If domain-specific intersection alg is required you will know that by lookig at the Qname. This needs to be clearly stated in the spec.
21:16:29 [Ashok]
DaveO: Is there some guidance for assertion authors?
21:16:40 [Ashok]
General confusion abt what Dave said
21:17:33 [danroth]
21:17:50 [Ashok]
DaveO: You can decide to use many QNames or one QName with parameters
21:18:13 [Ashok]
PaulC: If you don't recognize the QName you fault
21:19:01 [Ashok]
GlenD: need a generic domain independent intersection algorithm
21:19:10 [Ashok]
PaulC: Cannot do that
21:20:08 [GlenD]
21:20:25 [asir]
Guidance in the framework and guidelines for authoring assertions
21:20:25 [asir]
if there is domain specific intersection, it is indicated by the QName of the assertion.
21:20:28 [Ashok]
PaulC: No consensus for adding metadata bit ... there is a design issue on granularity of design of assertions... need some words to say that
21:20:36 [PaulC]
ack dan
21:20:42 [PaulC]
ack glend
21:21:43 [Ashok]
danroth: guidance on using parameters or nested policy ... nested policy used in intersections ... parameters are not
21:23:33 [Ashok]
PaulC: I see 2 actions. Resolve by asking editors to add text in IRC re mapping from Qname to this bit.
21:23:57 [Ashok]
PaulC: Guidelines for authoring assertions.
21:24:33 [PaulC]
If domain-specific intersection alg is required you will know that by lookig at the Qname. This needs to be clearly stated in the spec.
21:25:04 [Ashok]
ACTION: Asir, to add above text in spec.
21:25:04 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Asir,
21:25:38 [Ashok]
ACTION: asir to add above text
21:25:38 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-107 - Add above text [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2006-09-20].
21:25:49 [asir]
related editorial action is
21:26:04 [Ashok]
Above text is: If domain-specific intersection alg is required you will know that by lookig at the Qname. This needs to be clearly stated in the spec.
21:26:25 [Ashok]
RESOLVED: 3577 by these changes
21:27:30 [Ashok]
PaulC: Add sentence ... If you do not recog Qname it is a mistake to do domain independent intersection.
21:27:54 [PaulC]
Glen is going to correct this.
21:27:59 [Ashok]
GlenD: amends above
21:28:14 [GlenD]
If you don't recognize a QName, you cannot guarantee anything about the compatibility of the intersected alternatives.
21:29:12 [Ashok]
ACTION: maryann to add this guidance in guidelines document
21:29:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-108 - Add this guidance in guidelines document [on Maryann Hondo - due 2006-09-20].
21:29:31 [Ashok]
rrsagent, where am i
21:29:31 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'where am i', Ashok. Try /msg RRSAgent help
21:29:33 [asir]
RRSAgent, where am I?
21:29:33 [RRSAgent]
21:30:12 [asir]
Updated editorial action is
21:31:23 [Ashok]
Vlad: There is no domain independent intersection
21:32:01 [Ashok]
END 3577
21:32:13 [Ashok]
Start 3602
21:32:17 [Ashok]
21:32:21 [asir]
I don't understand the statement 'there is no domain independent intersection'
21:33:51 [GlenD]
in other words, it doesn't do you much good to do intersection if you don't actually understand the QNames involved, because of the possibility that any of those QNames might require domain-specific stuff.
21:34:11 [Ashok]
danroth: text in 3.2 says assertion whose type is part of policy vocab and is not included in alternatives is explicitly prohibited.
21:34:30 [Ashok]
danroth: what does this mean?
21:34:36 [vladB]
intersection mechanism must know (i.e.recognize) the assertion, which is domain-dependent
21:35:09 [PaulC]
21:35:38 [Ashok]
danroth: if a client sees an assertion in one alternative and not in another he cannot send a msg ... explictly prohibited
21:36:56 [Ashok]
danroth: another interpretation is that all it means that I don't do that but you can try
21:37:07 [dmoberg]
dmoberg has joined #ws-policy
21:37:49 [Ashok]
maryann: you are supposed to declare what you know ... so if it's not there you cannot do it
21:38:52 [toufic]
Dan's proposal:
21:39:08 [maryann]
maryann has joined #ws-policy
21:39:26 [Zakim]
21:40:07 [Ashok]
Ashok: wording is correct ... no change is needed
21:40:59 [toufic]
21:41:33 [Ashok]
danroth: if we clarify that client can send the msg that wd fix the problem
21:42:51 [Ashok]
ACTION: Ashok to send additional clarifying wording for 3602
21:42:51 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-109 - Send additional clarifying wording for 3602 [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2006-09-20].
21:42:56 [PaulC]
ack ashok
21:43:14 [PaulC]
ack toufic
21:43:29 [Ashok]
DONE with 3602
21:43:52 [Ashok]
START WITH 3613 --- Frederick's issue
21:44:27 [PaulC]
21:44:40 [Zakim]
21:46:23 [FrederickHirsch]
FrederickHirsch has joined #ws-policy
21:46:25 [Ashok]
Frederick: Suggested minor editorial changes ... and there is a suggestion in a subsequent msg for some wording in the primer
21:46:49 [Ashok]
PaulC: What kind of example do you want in the primer?
21:47:41 [Ashok]
FH: We may not need example if we resolve another issue ... so no change needed
21:48:22 [Ashok]
RESOLUTION: Close 3613 with the explanation in the msg above.
21:48:32 [asir]
RRSAgent, where am I?
21:48:32 [RRSAgent]
21:49:25 [Ashok]
ACTION: FrederickHirsh to close issue with above another
21:49:25 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - FrederickHirsh
21:50:01 [Ashok]
ACTION: FrederickHi to close issue with above anchor
21:50:01 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - FrederickHi
21:51:05 [Ashok]
ACTION: FrederickHirsch to close issue with above anchor
21:51:05 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - FrederickHirsch
21:51:32 [Ashok]
START 3549
21:53:16 [Ashok]
21:53:24 [asir]
RRSAgent, where am I?
21:53:24 [RRSAgent]
21:54:01 [Ashok]
RESOLUTION: Close 3549 with proposal in above mail.
21:54:26 [Ashok]
END 3549
21:54:34 [asir]
related editorial action is
21:55:32 [Ashok]
PaulC: You had updated 3577 with material you proposed to add to the guidelines document
21:56:35 [Ashok]
Correction .... 3564
21:56:57 [Ashok]
PaulC: WG shd review the text
21:57:25 [Ashok]
21:57:52 [Ashok]
START 3638
21:59:26 [maryann]
ashok: there's a sentence in the spec that indicates that assertions are not ordered
22:00:00 [maryann]
ashok: there are assertions in securitypolicy that specifically add ordering as part of the assertion type
22:00:28 [maryann]
glen: do they want a specific order to the processing?
22:00:50 [maryann]
ashok: yes
22:01:22 [asir]
Dan's e-mail is at
22:01:31 [toufic]
22:01:36 [toufic]
oops, scooped! :)
22:01:37 [maryann]
glen: instead of you want something else?
22:02:10 [maryann]
ashok: so if we accept dan's premise we should add some text
22:02:56 [maryann]
paul: it says that already
22:03:24 [maryann]
ashok: you can add assertions that indicates runtime behavior
22:03:45 [maryann]
ashok: it wold be good to have some text to that effect
22:05:22 [PaulC]
Add the following text after the quoted text in 3638:
22:05:24 [PaulC]
However, domain authors can write assertions that control the order in which behaviours are applied.
22:05:27 [asir]
RRSAgent, where am I?
22:05:27 [RRSAgent]
22:05:29 [maryann]
rrsagent, where am i>
22:05:29 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'where am i>', maryann. Try /msg RRSAgent help
22:06:27 [Ashok]
RESOLUTION: Close 3638 by adding above text after the text quoted in the mail.
22:06:34 [maryann]
22:06:39 [asir]
related editorial action is
22:07:14 [Ashok]
CLOSE 3638
22:07:26 [Ashok]
START 3639
22:08:07 [maryann]
ashok: what we would like is a method of referring from a message to the policy
22:08:10 [danroth]
22:08:26 [PaulC]
See thread at
22:08:37 [danroth]
22:08:47 [maryann]
ashok: you could use this mechanism to indicate a selected althernative
22:09:11 [maryann]
glen: do you want us to define a soap header?
22:09:15 [maryann]
ashok: yes
22:10:58 [vladB]
22:10:59 [Ashok]
danroth: in my mail i argued any option is acceptable
22:11:11 [maryann]
dan: you could use any of the alternatives that were produced from the intersection of the client/provider
22:11:23 [maryann]
glen: might have an assertion that doesn't show up on the wire
22:11:41 [Ashok]
22:11:53 [asir]
22:12:11 [maryann]
glen: the header would tell you which policy alternative was selected
22:12:30 [Zakim]
22:12:54 [maryann]
vlad: if you look at the message exchange you might need more
22:13:33 [PaulC]
ack vladb
22:13:37 [PaulC]
ack ashok
22:13:38 [maryann]
vlad: if you have message exchanges you might want to indicate the alternative selected for the response as well
22:14:06 [maryann]
ashok: i have a certain privacy policy.... this message can actually point to that policy
22:14:17 [PaulC]
ack asir
22:14:44 [maryann]
asir: there is a separation of concerns of protocol vs metadata
22:15:12 [maryann]
relying on metadata at runtime violates the protocol
22:15:21 [maryann]
glen: it might be useful
22:15:27 [maryann]
asir: but its not required
22:16:21 [maryann]
paul: no one has defined a header for this
22:16:48 [maryann]
asir: if its not mandatory, this could be expressed as a behavior
22:17:10 [maryann]
ashok: how is it added?
22:17:20 [maryann]
paul: use the extensibility to do this
22:17:23 [danroth]
danroth has joined #ws-policy
22:17:26 [danroth]
22:17:28 [maryann]
ashok: it would be nice to do it one way
22:17:57 [maryann]
ashok: you don't have to use it but if you want to do it, there is a standard way
22:18:22 [maryann]
paul: once you put the must understand on it
22:18:33 [maryann]
jeff: that's always true
22:19:22 [maryann]
glen: if you're going to send this information, there is a well known structure for it
22:19:40 [PaulC]
ack dan
22:19:43 [Yakov]
22:19:57 [maryann]
dan: just talking about one solution for solving the ambiguity problem on the wire
22:20:03 [maryann]
dan: there's lots of ways to do this
22:20:32 [PaulC]
ack yakov
22:20:44 [maryann]
yakov: there is a usefullness for this mechanism
22:21:15 [maryann]
yakov: i don't see how we can do it as a soap header
22:21:53 [maryann]
yakov: i see the need, but we would need a specific proposal
22:22:22 [danroth]
22:22:29 [maryann]
paul: there may be consensus that there's a need, but not a need to do it in the framework
22:22:53 [monica]
22:23:10 [maryann]
paul: with the schedule we have its pretty compelling to be able to do it with the existing extensibility
22:24:06 [danroth]
22:24:14 [maryann]
paul: should we put this on hold?
22:25:04 [PaulC]
use the extensibility mechanism to define a asseriont called "notify" that does what 3639 asks for.
22:25:26 [PaulC]
in this way the framework does not have to be modified AND the assertion can be written and used RIGHT away.
22:25:47 [Ashok]
END 3639
22:26:18 [PaulC]
ack monica
22:27:23 [Ashok]
monica: will send mail usecase that applies to 3639
22:28:14 [Ashok]
START 3620
22:28:54 [Ashok]
PaulC: I sent mail that this was out of scope
22:29:17 [Ashok]
GlenD: We discussed on call and people said they needed to see more
22:29:48 [Ashok]
GlenD: Its not a fully-fleshed proposal just to give people a hint ...
22:30:59 [danroth]
22:31:13 [PaulC]
Glen's proposal:
22:31:15 [asir]
22:31:22 [PaulC]
Ack dan
22:31:46 [jeffm]
22:31:53 [asir]
MEX is at
22:32:01 [Ashok]
GlenD: Need to decide how policy attached to Endpoint interacts with policies attached to other WSDL subjects.
22:32:15 [PaulC]
22:32:23 [PaulC]
Ack asir
22:33:56 [Ashok]
PaulC: W3C did not add this to charter because it thought solution may come from other parts of the industry
22:34:16 [Ashok]
JeffM: You are talking abt a private spec --- MEX
22:34:56 [Ashok]
GlenD: How many layers of the stack do I need to know to get work done
22:35:09 [jeffm]
22:35:28 [jeffm]
acutally, why are we talking about MEX - -isn'
22:35:36 [jeffm]
isn't that out of scope?
22:36:04 [PaulC]
ack PaulC
22:36:24 [PaulC]
Ack jeffm
22:36:40 [asir]
22:37:06 [Ashok]
jeffm: we have an epr ...
22:37:58 [Ashok]
which has a metadata container which has a MEX container which can contain a policy
22:38:31 [Ashok]
GlenD: lets have a strawpoll to ask if this is in scope
22:38:40 [monica]
22:38:44 [monica]
22:39:01 [PaulC]
acl asir
22:39:15 [Ashok]
asir: explains MEX ...
22:39:18 [PaulC]
ack asir
22:40:09 [monica]
thanks prasad - typo
22:40:55 [Zakim]
22:41:50 [PaulC]
DavidO: we are on agenda 25 a)
22:42:04 [PaulC]
Policy Attachment to WS-Addr EndpointReferences
22:43:22 [jeffm]
22:43:32 [PaulC]
ack monica
22:44:13 [Ashok]
Monica: we shd separate whether issue is in scope with whether MEX is in scope
22:44:56 [Ashok]
DaveO: Glen said "when it is standarized by W3C" ... that may or may not happen
22:45:37 [Ashok]
DaveO: Issue abt which spec decides what goes in a MEX section
22:46:13 [GlenD]
22:46:17 [PaulC]
ack jeffm
22:46:20 [Ashok]
DaveO: Or if MEX shd decide where and how what goes into MEX
22:46:37 [Ashok]
JeffM: Clarify yr conclusion, pl, Dave
22:47:08 [Ashok]
DaveO: I wasn't drawing a conclusion ... just clarifying tradeoffs
22:48:46 [Ashok]
JeffM: I don't understand what Schema has to do with this at all
22:49:18 [Ashok]
JeffM: We have a problem ... we can use the hook the we have to put policy in an EPR
22:50:15 [Ashok]
JeffM: Why wait some unknown ant of time. If MEX went to standards track today we cd not use it for an year or year and a have.
22:50:27 [PaulC]
ack glend
22:50:29 [Ashok]
PaulC: I will take strawpoll
22:51:10 [monica]
monica has joined #ws-policy
22:51:15 [Ashok]
GlenD: When we designed the metadata section in WS-Addr we used policy as a usecase
22:52:04 [Ashok]
GlenD: So that when had policy we cd use it immediately
22:52:23 [Ashok]
STRAWPOLL: Is this in scope?
22:52:30 [Ashok]
BEA: Abstain
22:53:11 [Ashok]
CA: Abstain
22:53:17 [Ashok]
MS: Out of scope
22:53:28 [Ashok]
IBM: Abstain
22:53:32 [Ashok]
Oracle: In scope
22:53:39 [Ashok]
W3C: Out-of scope
22:53:48 [Ashok]
Nokia: Abstain
22:53:56 [Ashok]
Layer7: Abstain
22:54:06 [Ashok]
Sonic: In scope
22:54:13 [Ashok]
SAP: Abstain
22:54:40 [Ashok]
WebMethods: No
22:54:48 [Ashok]
Iona: Abstain
22:55:12 [Ashok]
SUN: Abstain
22:55:56 [Ashok]
PaulC: I don't see a consensus for doing this work. I'm decalring this out of scope.
22:56:29 [Ashok]
PaulC: Can anyone not live with not doing the vote. Yes from Sonic, Oracle
22:56:55 [Ashok]
FH: can we do more work so that some votes may change?
22:57:25 [Ashok]
GlenD: Explains what the Ws-Addr spec provides
22:57:31 [Ashok]
22:57:34 [toufic]
22:58:31 [PaulC]
ack toufic
22:59:12 [Ashok]
CORRECTION: PaulC: Can anyone not live with not doing the work. Yes from Sonic, Oracle
23:00:06 [jeffm]
23:01:39 [PaulC]
ack jeffm
23:01:54 [Ashok]
Discussion on whether Glen's solution is useful. DaveO pushes back
23:03:17 [Ashok]
JeffM: The issues that Dave just raised isn't going to get defined by MEX but needs to be defined by the Policy WG.
23:03:35 [monica]
23:03:41 [GlenD]
GlenD has joined #ws-policy
23:03:53 [Ashok]
PaulC: It was explicitly left out of the charter. So I'm going to rule it's out of scope.
23:04:24 [Ashok]
PaulC: If Oracle and Sonic want to approach the W3C they are welcome to.
23:05:05 [Ashok]
PaulC: 3620 is closed. I will assign to vNext.
23:05:32 [Ashok]
PailC: ... It's not vNext, it's Future Consideration.
23:05:44 [Ashok]
23:05:59 [monica]
23:07:10 [Ashok]
PaulC: We will do Bijan's 3 issues at 9AM tomorrow. The 3602 for which Ashok will provide wording.
23:07:40 [Ashok]
23:10:13 [Zakim]
23:12:08 [Zakim]
23:13:00 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-policy
23:17:46 [asir]
RRSAgent, where am I?
23:17:46 [RRSAgent]
23:18:03 [asir]
rrsagent, please show the actions
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
I see 11 open action items saved in :
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Asir to respond to phillipe and bob with the resolution for 3656 [1]
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: paul to discuss the summary of the proposal with the w3c [2]
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ashok to review 3599 proposal ked using XPtr [3]
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: item to [4]
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Asir, to add above text in spec. [5]
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: asir to add above text [6]
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: maryann to add this guidance in guidelines document [7]
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ashok to send additional clarifying wording for 3602 [8]
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: FrederickHirsh to close issue with above another [9]
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: FrederickHi to close issue with above anchor [10]
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: FrederickHirsch to close issue with above anchor [11]
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:18:03 [asir]
rrsagent, please set these logs world-visible
23:18:03 [asir]
rrsagent, draft minutes
23:18:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate asir
23:20:33 [Zakim]
23:31:06 [jeffm]
jeffm has joined #ws-policy
01:05:00 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, F2F, in WS_Policy()12:00PM
01:05:01 [Zakim]
WS_Policy()12:00PM has ended
01:05:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were Fabian, F2F, DOrchard, Dave_Orchard