00:00:26 Paul: answer to Felix question: when do we need it? 00:00:33 .. we need the primer material ASAP 00:00:40 .. let people know what we are doing 00:00:57 .. "guidelines about policy assertions" are needed during CR 00:01:24 vladB has joined #ws-policy 00:02:14 .. guidelines are not necessary, but helpful to leave CR 00:02:27 Chris: two documents 00:02:34 .. materials are developed independently 00:03:19 .. and we have to think about timing (e.g. guidelines ready during CR) 00:04:02 Paul: so have a WD primer soon out 00:04:08 .. and focus on the guidelines later 00:05:19 .. let's try to get the primer done, later on getting the guidelines done 00:05:44 .. as the primer WD is public, we will get feedback 00:06:07 Jeff: and the decision of REC track or not? 00:06:37 Paul: we have not decided yet 00:06:55 .. I would publish a WD and note in the status section "we have not decided yet" 00:07:33 .. primer should be ready in about 1 month 00:07:43 .. that the WG can consider WD publication 00:08:09 .. we also support Maryann and Umits work and see if we get work and review going 00:08:10 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 s/Using Policy/Understanding WS-Policy/ 00:08:41 s/Using/Understanding/ 00:08:56 s/ging/going/ 00:09:45 Paul: Maryann, is the document ready for WG review? 00:09:49 Maryann: not yet 00:11:07 action: Maryann to prepare guidelines document - due to 2006-09-16 00:11:08 Created ACTION-102 - prepare guidelines document [on Maryann Hondo - due 2006-09-13]. 00:12:09 Nadalin_ has joined #ws-policy 00:12:42 Chris: we also have to think about dOrchard's versioning material 00:13:04 FrederickHirsch has joined #ws-policy 00:13:12 ACTION: Editors to prepare an editor's draft of the primer (ETA - determined by editors) and send it to the WG 00:13:12 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 Frederick: I offer to help Maryann 00:13:32 topic: Felix (W3C) positions on some issues 00:13:40 See mail at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0064.html 00:15:24 jeffm has joined #ws-policy 00:16:03 jeffm has joined #ws-policy 00:16:22 scribe: cferris 00:16:42 acshok: the usingAdressing says how you annotate wsdl 00:16:58 s/acshok/ashok/ 00:17:12 ashok: would like to put these on equal basis 00:17:54 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 q+ 00:23:55 paulc: my recommendation would be to take this to the director 00:24:12 felix: good hope that it will be resolved like that 00:24:23 paulc: chris and I should draft a note to Bob 00:24:38 monica has joined #ws-policy 00:24:39 paulc: if we go fast enough, we can solve their problem 00:25:21 paulc: the farther along the process... the more comfortable they will be with a reference 00:25:56 ack je 00:26:41 jeffm: see my comment in IRC above 00:29:28 topic: adjourn 00:29:44 The WG appreciates very much that Chris took the effort to be here today 00:30:35 Ashok has left #ws-policy 00:30:39 zakim, who is here? 00:30:39 On the phone I see F2F 00:30:40 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 On IRC I see monica, jeffm, FrederickHirsch, prasad, toufic, maryann, asir, cferris, fsasaki, RRSAgent, Zakim, trackbot 00:30:47 -F2F 00:30:48 WS_Policy()12:00PM has ended 00:30:50 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 ... Asir, Monica, Vladislov, Yakov, bijan, Jong_Lee, Tony, Dave_Orchard 00:31:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-minutes.html fsasaki 15:57:44 RRSAgent has joined #ws-policy 15:57:44 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc 15:57:57 Zakim has joined #ws-policy 15:58:56 zakim, this will be WS_Policy 15:58:56 ok, asir; I see WS_Policy()12:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 15:59:20 WS_Policy()12:00PM has now started 15:59:21 Meeting: WS-Policy F2F Meeting 15:59:26 Chair: Paul Cotton 15:59:27 +??P2 15:59:41 zakim, ??P2 is Fabian 15:59:41 +Fabian; got it 16:00:16 +F2F 16:00:23 rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight 16:00:42 rrsagent, do not start a new log at midnight 16:00:59 Scribe: Maryann Hondo 16:01:08 ScribeNick: maryann 16:02:08 toufic has joined #ws-policy 16:02:27 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0041.html 16:02:41 danroth has joined #ws-policy 16:03:27 +DOrchard 16:03:43 whenry has joined #ws-policy 16:03:43 dorchard has joined #ws-policy 16:04:05 TOPIC: agenda item13 "tarball" on extensibility 16:04:16 paul: update on primer 16:04:24 paul: agreed to 2 documents 16:05:07 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 has joined #ws-policy 16:05:20 david: there is a missing step to publishing the primer 16:05:47 paul: the assumption is that the editors will convert the understanding paper into the prime 16:05:51 primer 16:05:54 GlenD has joined #ws-policy 16:06:24 paul: do it on reqtrac with the flexibility of publishing later 16:07:05 dmoberg has joined #ws-policy 16:08:14 paul: modified the agenda, the first item this morning is item 13 16:09:19 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0041.html 16:09:20 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0041.html 16:09:36 16:09:43 paul: bugs 3617, 3590, 3662 16:10:15 paul: digression- who has bugs outstanding 16:10:22 glen has one 16:10:28 toufic has 2 16:10:50 paul: we currently have 30 bugs 16:11:23 FrederickHirsch has joined #ws-policy 16:11:24 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T16-11-23 16:11:42 daveorchard: is success measured by moving the number up or down? 16:12:26 daveorchard: tie in the versioning info for the primer 16:12:42 asir: item 12 on the agenda 16:13:11 daveorchard: we need to discuss this 16:13:50 paul: action #28 is being moved to be part of the dicussion of item c under agenda topic 13 16:13:59 T 16:14:12 jeffm has joined #ws-policy 16:14:18 TOPIC: versioning policy is not clear 16:14:53 Most recent e-mail on 3617 is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0045.html 16:15:13 Ashok has joined #ws-policy 16:15:24 got it 16:15:30 paul: looking at bug 3617 and message thread 16:16:06 paul: asir, can you summarize umit's proposal 16:16:47 asir: namespaces in policy framework 16:17:09 asir: 3rd bullet in section 2.3 16:17:15 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 has joined #ws-policy 16:18:17 danroth has joined #ws-policy 16:18:49 paul: the material after the or is the same as the information before the or 16:19:14 asir: doesn't hurt to change the 3rd bullet 16:19:33 asir: formulated a concrete proposal 16:19:42 q+ 16:20:47 dave: the proposal for the 3rd bullet, would have expected you keep the other part 16:21:02 asir: read the 3rd bullet as dealing only with pattern facet 16:21:12 jeff: it doesn't say that though 16:21:43 paul: the second clause doesn't relate to the pattern facet, 16:21:57 dave: there are many topics here 16:22:25 jeff: what does preponderance mean? 16:22:40 jeff: i've only seen it used in a legal context 16:22:53 jeff: the majority of the instance ? 16:23:16 fred: clear definitions might be put in the primer 16:23:49 dave: there might be a case where some cases might not be valid as we go forward 16:24:05 dave: backward compatible not by type but by usage instances 16:24:46 jeff: so someone is considering a change, what's the test to see if it meets this criteria? 16:25:04 dave: you go to the working group and it comes up with its own hueristic 16:25:07 q? 16:25:15 ack fred 16:25:15 fred: why preponderance? 16:25:40 paul: to announce that the working group will make this decision 16:26:15 jeff: if we didn't have this verbiage, if we made any changes we'd have to have a new namespace 16:26:18 paul: no 16:26:49 pau: we have a difference of opinion 16:27:06 paul: david has one interpretation, 16:27:24 dave: reconsidered, and i agree with asir 16:27:55 dave: this bullet has raised a good point and i don't want this point closed off 16:28:11 dave: move the preponderance of instances to apply more broadly 16:28:21 q+ 16:28:43 paul: look at text before the bullets 16:28:57 paul: this is just examples not all cases 16:29:56 paul: what do you want to do to bullet 3? 16:30:38 dave: trying to figure out what umit was referring to, i prefer to keep the status quo 16:30:50 paul: why isn't it a repetition? 16:31:20 dave: its talking about a pattern facet changing, and that some of these are not valid 16:31:46 paul: leave the text and explain to umit, the first part has no impact, all the old cases remain valid 16:32:20 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 s/do that/ not change the namespace 16:33:22 paul: its common for the working group to lock down the namespace in CR 16:33:49 jeff: preponderance means 50& +1 16:33:57 s/&/%/ 16:34:15 jeff: vast majority is different than preponderance 16:34:28 fred: i don't understand either 16:34:42 fred: what are we saying? its majority vote? 16:34:50 paul: its always consensus 16:36:19 paul: we're leaving it subjective 16:36:55 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 paul: summarize..... we change "preponderance" to "vast majority, no change to bullet 1 and make the change to bullet 3 16:37:45 fred: what's the 4th bullet? 16:38:03 rrsagent, where am I 16:38:03 I'm logging. I don't understand 'where am I', asir. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:38:17 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T16-38-03-1 16:38:24 david: you can change value by changing min occurs or extending max occurs 16:38:57 ashok: its peoples inability to parse the sentence 16:39:25 technology is hard. c'est la vie. 16:39:34 Re bullet 1: No change is necessary 16:39:41 Related editorial action is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/23 16:39:51 Re bullet 2: change "preponderence" to "vast majority" 16:40:09 Re bullet 3: s/cardinality of elements/cardinality of elements (i.e. 16:40:36 modifications to minOccurs or maxOccurs attribute value of an element 16:40:53 declaration)/. 16:41:34 paul: we need someone to update the bug with this decision 16:41:41 RRSAgent, where am I? 16:41:41 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T16-41-41 16:42:40 asir: combine 3590 and 3662 16:42:53 paul: why do we have 2 bugs? 16:42:59 dave: because you told me to 16:43:11 paul: can we mark 3590 as a dup? 16:43:36 dave: 3590 the key thing is to have an element extensiblity point for reference 16:43:49 4. The PolicyReference Element is modified to add an element extensibility 16:43:58 point. This should be for any namespace, which means a slight change to the 16:44:06 notation section. This includes specifying that unknown element child content 16:44:12 is ignored. 16:44:53 dave: propose for any namespace, asir prefers other 16:45:10 Point 4 in 3590: 16:45:13 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 dave: add element extensibility and close the issue 16:45:35 dave: then we can decide in 3662 which one 16:45:54 RRSAgent, where am I? 16:45:54 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T16-45-54 16:46:45 RESOLUTION: for 3590 16:46:47 Related editorial action is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/23 16:49:37 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 #4 is agreed to by WG, but element extensibility of ##other vs ##any is decided in 3662 16:51:02 RESOLUTION: for 3617 - make changes to bullet 1,2 3 as indicated above and anchored by http://www.w3.org/@ 16:51:48 http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T16-41-41 16:56:44 TOPIC: bug 3662 and agenda item 13 c 16:57:07 paul: how many people think it should be ##any, ##other,no opinion 16:57:23 paul: ##any ? - 6 16:57:35 paul: ##other? 2 16:57:58 RESOLUTION: 3662 is ##any 16:58:07 rrsagent, where am i? 16:58:07 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T16-58-07 16:58:37 TOP 16:58:44 related editorial action is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/25 16:58:48 TOPIC: agenda item 12 16:59:25 Re 3662 no one could not live with ##any 16:59:50 paul: this proposal is changes for primer 17:00:03 dave: guidelines vs primer 17:00:37 paul: primer is aimed at people to understand the framework and the guidelines are for policy authors where does this belong? 17:00:43 dave: this is a little fuzzy 17:00:57 dave: the primer is for people who don't understand the spec 17:01:15 dave: and guidelines is for people who are writing assertions 17:01:34 dave: there is a secition in what is now the "primer" that talks about versioning 17:01:39 dave: so 17:01:52 paul: so will you update the section? 17:02:00 dave: augment 17:02:12 asir: this is extending the language 17:02:57 CVS version of the primer is http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-primer.html?content-type=text/html;charset=utf-8 17:02:58 paul: what's wrong with targetting this at the primer? 17:03:21 paul: and then seeing what if anything should move to the guidelines? 17:03:25 dave: yes 17:03:54 paul: is your material to supplement or replace section 3.7 17:04:03 dave: there's also 4.4.7 17:04:14 dave: this would be a new 4.4.8 17:05:44 asir: 2 questions- as a user of the framework how do i extend the framework 17:06:05 asir: how can 3rd parties extend 17:06:16 asir: what is the working group strategy for v.next 17:06:40 asir: separate the content to determine if this goes into the nornative document 17:07:13 dave: the problem is that....i gave a number of scenarios, it gives suggestions, but that's the extent 17:07:21 dave: there's a couple of best practices 17:07:38 dave: the material in here is not normative, and not worth being promoted 17:07:44 dave: its more examples 17:08:22 asir: i will point out..... " we can imagine a future version" 17:08:29 q+ 17:08:44 q+ 17:10:05 paul: is there any material that belongs in the framework doc in a non-normative annex 17:11:43 vlad: need to consider assertion version in the guidelines 17:12:43 RESOLUTION: accept this for text to the primer 17:12:53 RRSAgent, where am I? 17:12:53 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T17-12-53 17:13:45 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0159.html 17:13:45 s/this/http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0159.html 17:13:50 related editorial action is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/26 17:14:55 TOPIC: Clarify the relation of overlapping definitions in the fr..., 17:14:55 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3562 17:16:35 RESOLUTION: fixed with the working group draft -- one of the editors to update bug 17:17:01 TO 17:17:11 TOPIC: 3559 - Conformance Sections needed for both specs 17:17:28 proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0027.html 17:17:38 proposal:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0027.html 17:18:04 q+ 17:18:16 q- 17:18:26 yes, can see 17:18:50 paul: does this address 2.0 proposal 17:19:02 paul: if we adopt this there may be an issue 17:19:32 dave: the value facet might change 17:19:40 paul: for what data type? 17:20:11 dave: you might find an issue about conformance....with the preponderance 17:20:37 paul: we would have changed the schema without changing the namespace 17:20:54 RRSAgent, where am I? 17:20:54 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T17-20-54 17:20:55 paul: if there were complaints we wouldn't do that 17:22:03 ack fred 17:22:05 ack mar 17:22:11 ack vla 17:22:55 monica: i sent a note to umit, do we want more detail with respect to conformance 17:23:03 monica: there is work in 17:23:20 monica: OASIS on conformance 17:23:51 monica: asking if we want more detail 17:23:59 paul: this is the same level as wsdl 17:24:09 monica: yes, but do we want more detail 17:24:17 See: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ioc 17:24:19 paul: well here's a proposal to put it it 17:24:45 paul: there would be a way by putting more MUSTS in the spec 17:26:05 monica: if you look at the reference above, you can see the difference between basic and advanced functionality 17:26:29 paul: exit criteria for CR will tease this out 17:27:37 monica: we just might want to address some advanced functionality 17:27:46 related editorial action is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/27 17:28:07 RESOLUTION: 3559 with the text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0027.html 17:28:27 TOPIC: issue 3705 17:29:36 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3705 17:29:37 http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/48 will be an action for the next meeting 17:30:02 TO 17:30:11 TOPIC: break 17:34:30 -Fabian 17:47:41 +??P0 17:48:00 Zakim, ??P0 is Fabian 17:48:00 +Fabian; got it 17:51:25 paul: startup again 17:51:58 paul: glen opened bug 3720 --- terms should be defined.... 17:53:33 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3720 17:53:58 related editorial action is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/28 17:55:18 paul: there is a new bug 3772 17:55:33 paul: not sure how to deal with this yet 17:56:03 TOPIC:17. New issues 17:56:27 TOPIC:17. New issues 17:56:47 a) Using UsingAddressing Extension Element as a WS-Policy assertion, PLH 17:56:47 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3656 17:58:02 asir: in the addressing specification there is a "UsingAddressing" element 17:58:24 asir: which can be used as a wsdl element or a policy element 17:59:19 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 http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-ws-addr-wsdl-20060529/#id2263339 18:00:16 Yakov has joined #ws-policy 18:00:58 ashok: simple question...says points to a policy assertion.....is this one assertion? 18:01:30 glen: the text was meant to be generic since the policy framework was not yet within the w3c 18:01:48 q+ 18:01:55 glen: question is, should we now make it a wsp:Policy assertion 18:01:56 q+ 18:02:19 q- 18:02:31 asir: i can't see why there wouldn't be a normative reference 18:02:32 paulc has joined #ws-policy 18:02:44 asir: there are 17 references already in the primer 18:03:07 q? 18:03:46 asir: timing will be a challenge 18:04:11 asir: phillipe looked at the examples in the primer and approved 18:04:20 q+ 18:04:52 paul: this is a process heavy issue---- was raised at the CG 18:05:05 ack Fab 18:05:30 fabian: i have some confused questions about who is defining the assertions 18:05:43 glenn: +1 18:05:54 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 paul: are you talking about 3619? 18:06:20 fabian: no 18:06:23 ack vlad 18:06:51 (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 vlad: more common question....if addressing defines this, its "outside" the framework if its a wsdl element 18:07:17 vlad: it says it "might be an assertion" 18:07:30 q+ 18:07:39 asir: it can be either a plain wsdl assertion or a policy assertion 18:07:50 vlad: how do we process it if its a wsdl element? 18:07:59 asir: that's the 3rd question 18:08:22 vlad: its about all kinds of extensions and how they relate to alternatives 18:08:34 paul: this may be related to the other thread 18:09:03 paulc: we have to gain some experience with this 18:09:24 jeff: should we separate this into 3 items/ 18:09:26 ack GlenD 18:10:00 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 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 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 has joined #ws-policy 18:11:54 jeff: we don't want to restrict the e.g. to just wsp:Policy 18:12:16 From WS-A WSDL binding: 18:12:18 (e.g., as a policy assertion in a policy framework 18:12:28 maybe this could changed to: 18:12:35 (e.g., as a policy assertion in a policy framework such as WS-Policy 18:13:15 jeff: the group could do this as a separate note 18:13:24 jeff: you could do this as a req track note 18:13:36 paul: and it would normatively tie the two together 18:14:28 dmoberg has joined #ws-policy 18:14:30 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 See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0023.html 18:17:32 paul: you didn't answer the question, you ack'd the issue 18:17:48 paul: what happens if they're both there? 18:18:36 paul: if you want to make the information more broadly understood, you would express it in both ways 18:19:28 paul: suggest that at a minimum we should suggest they make the non-normative reference 18:20:12 prasad: as long as they are logically consistent, you could use both representations 18:22:42 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 rrsagent, where am i? 18:22:58 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T18-22-58 18:24:13 ACTION: Asir to respond to phillipe and bob with the resolution for 3656 18:24:13 Created ACTION-104 - Respond to phillipe and bob with the resolution for 3656 [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2006-09-20]. 18:24:56 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3672 18:25:14 TO 18:25:24 TOPIC: Clarify the policy model for Web Services 18:25:24 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3672 18:26:46 yakov: expand the scope of the usecases 18:27:30 yakov: includes 5 entities in a web services model 18:28:02 yakov: each of these might specify policies 18:28:18 yakov: example given was authorization 18:29:05 yakov: don't see any limitations in the specification to preclude this 18:30:36 yakov: replace requestor/provider with entity 18:31:21 q? 18:31:28 ack jeffm 18:32:07 asir: do we get time to review this? 18:32:15 paul: how long do you need? 18:34:05 i asserted that Tony had some concerns and might not have time to repsond 18:34:29 paul: put the discussion on the agenda for tomorrow morning 18:35:07 TOPIC:a) Need a URI structure to refer to WSDL 1.0 definitions, etc. , Ashok 18:35:08 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3599 18:35:51 Proposal in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/att-0033/Proposal_for_Bug_3599.pdf 18:37:48 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 ashok: you may not be able to add the policies to the wsdl 18:38:43 ashok: this spells out a uri scheme to refer to wsdl 1.1 components using the external attachment 18:39:03 ashok: take the uri and use it as a domain expression 18:39:06 -DOrchard 18:39:52 ashok: use the algorithms in 4.1 to work out the effective policies 18:40:11 ashok: at the end also talk about how to attach to other things 18:42:11 ashok: talk briefly about http and jms 18:42:55 paul: obvious question, wouldn't other people find these uri's useful 18:43:30 paul: is there a model of where this goes? 18:43:33 q+ 18:43:39 ashok: that's one of the things we can talk about 18:43:58 ashok: can't ask wsdl because they're not going to work on 1.1 anymore 18:44:29 ashok: whether we want it as normative or non-normative thats ok 18:44:34 paul: can it be a note? 18:44:40 ashok: that is another option 18:44:43 q+ 18:44:51 jeff: notes you don't maintain 18:45:08 ashok: what about as an appendix? 18:45:24 vlad: does anyone own 1.1? 18:45:40 vlad: don't think policy should really own this? 18:45:52 vlad: what about wsi? 18:46:02 jeff: too difficult to do that 18:46:40 prasad: clarification.....we refer to wsdl 1.1 or 1.0? 18:46:45 ashok: type 18:46:50 s/e/o 18:47:12 prasad: when you have your namespace fragment your token should be 1.1 18:47:41 ashok: yes that's a useful thing 18:47:50 q? 18:47:53 ac pr 18:47:55 ack pra 18:47:58 ack pr 18:48:15 dmoberg has joined #ws-policy 18:49:00 asir: question..in attachment draft there is a section 4 that talks about attaching policy to wsdl 1.1 ... this describes a model and a mechanism....is any of this material required to make this work? 18:49:08 ashok: this is something different 18:49:42 ashok: using the external attachment are different ways of doing the same thing.....to do when you can't annotate the wsdl 18:50:08 prasad: here you inline it so not required for section4 18:50:38 asir: uri fragment identifiers are pieces of domain expressions 18:51:08 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 ashok: what work? 18:51:32 asir: more work needs to be done to make this into working draft 18:51:45 paul: ashok is asserting that this can be dropped in.... 18:52:19 paul: there might be a sentence or two that needs to be added 18:52:35 asir: why are we considering domain expressions as part of the work of the working group 18:52:48 paul: not sure this is domain specific 18:52:58 dan: this is domain dependent 18:53:22 paul: why does the external exist then? 18:53:50 asir: external attachment has points of extensibility section 3.4 18:55:31 prasad: so this is within the charter because its just defining a wsdl 1.1 external attachment 18:55:59 jeff: are you making an explicit request for this to be out of scope? 18:56:32 asir: phillipe has mentioned that the w3c sees this as out of scope 18:56:49 vlad: then we make external attachment unusable for implementors 18:57:15 paul: there are no motions on the floor 18:57:24 paul: there are no examples 18:57:40 paul: we need an example of how it would be used 18:58:04 ashok: you would put this in the external attachment where it says domain expression 18:59:21 ashok: need to look at the schema for applies to 19:00:34 ashok: so I'll have to wrap it in an element 19:01:28 paul: if you have a definition of an element it would be a usage of the extensibility point 19:02:30 dan: i see that we're supposed to create an attachment for 1.1 and trying to 19:02:57 dan: to do another one, but is it possible to copy the wsdl and inline it using the existing mechanism 19:03:07 dan: now we'll have 2 mechanisms 19:03:25 ashok: wsdl 2.0 spec defines this and you can do exactly this with 2.0 19:05:05 paul: if you put this is the spec, we will need to test this in CR 19:05:42 dan: the current proposal for 2.0 is an inline method only 19:05:52 paul: same issue exists for 2.0 19:06:33 vlad: this could be an extension to the existing document for only wsdl 1.1 19:07:14 prasad: bigger question on the table is are we in scope or not? 19:08:22 ashok: maybe i should talk to my lawyer :-) 19:09:31 paul: we have an idea of what the technical material is 19:10:49 paul: applies to requires element content so anything inserted has to be wrapped 19:11:13 paul: ms and w3c assert that this is out of scope 19:11:53 paul: oracle, sap, layer 7 19:12:17 yakov: include it 19:12:55 From the charter it seems out of scope but could be a useful (simple) addition 19:13:07 paul: dale "general purpose" mechanism .... ambiguous 19:13:30 paul: glen, monica, its useful 19:13:36 fred: how much work? 19:13:58 asir: should we ask who will implement? 19:14:04 paul : too early to ask this 19:14:56 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 q+ 19:15:32 paul: you explicitly identify features at risk when you go into CR 19:16:34 touf: how is the decision made to remove it? 19:17:25 q+ 19:18:05 ack asir 19:18:10 q+ 19:18:21 monica: doesn't this relate to my question on exit criteria? 19:18:24 paul: no 19:18:50 monica: you can't use exit criteria to indicate something is optional? 19:19:57 paul: just because something is optional doesn't mean you can get away without testing it 19:20:23 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 jeff: to some extent we have latitude to set that 19:20:50 paul: the minimum is 2 and w3c prefers one open source 19:21:15 q- 19:21:19 jeff: some set of things you have 4 implementation, for others you might only have pairwise interoperabiltiy 19:21:28 q 19:21:33 q+ 19:23:29 paul: we have to tell the director when we go into cr 19:23:44 ack fred 19:23:45 fred: what is the risk? 19:24:03 q+ 19:24:14 can we please honor the queue? 19:24:22 q+ 19:24:58 ack fab 19:25:00 fred: in scope 19:25:20 fabian: i don't think anyone can interoperate on external attachment 19:25:36 fabian: as it is today 19:25:38 q- 19:25:54 paul: i have always thought we had to pick a domain for testing 19:26:31 fabian: this is not the same thing 19:26:56 fabian: i don't see why we couldn't define the same thing for policy attachment 19:26:57 ack jeffm 19:27:01 fabian: in scope 19:27:12 jeff: its premature to talk about what is at risk 19:27:35 jeff: not the concept of at risk, but the specific features that are at risk 19:27:48 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 ack asir 19:28:13 asir: more technical work to be done.... 19:28:20 paul: we have a sketch 19:29:05 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 paul: the spec didn't define a media type? 19:30:26 asir: 3023 is the rfc 19:31:29 paul: question is ...are there any conflicts with these frag ids and the way people do it today> 19:31:35 ashok: we will look at that 19:32:36 paul: so unless we define a mime type and the frag ids within the mimetype we might have an issue 19:33:21 Paul - please project http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060327/#ietf-draft 19:36:32 paul: so if we have these fragment ids we need an annex in the document to define the mime types 19:37:00 paul: this could be why the w3c thnks this is out of scope 19:37:43 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 ACTION: paul to discuss the summary of the proposal with the w3c 19:38:11 Created ACTION-105 - Discuss the summary of the proposal with the w3c [on Paul Cotton - due 2006-09-20]. 19:38:19 rrsagent, where am i? 19:38:19 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T19-38-19 19:45:21 -Fabian 20:12:48 vlad has joined #ws-policy 20:27:01 Yakov has joined #ws-policy 20:33:08 dorchard has joined #ws-policy 20:34:57 scribe: Ashok 20:36:18 Restarting after lunch 20:36:47 quit 20:37:00 vladB has joined #ws-policy 20:38:38 PaulC has joined #ws-policy 20:40:32 PaulC: Consider using XPtr to point directly into the XML --- Bug 3599 20:40:57 ACTION: Ashok to review 3599 proposal ked using XPtr 20:40:57 Created ACTION-106 - Review 3599 proposal ked using XPtr [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2006-09-20]. 20:42:25 Items 18b and c queued up for Thu morning 20:43:12 Agenda for this afternoon: 20:43:17 20. Issues requiring more discussion or proposal (con't), Chair (11:00 am PDT) 20:43:17 d) Optional Assertions may not be usable in all circumstances, Umit 20:43:17 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3564 20:43:17 e) Semantics of successful intersection determined by domain-specific assertion content, Glen D 20:43:17 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3577 20:43:18 Action item: 20:43:20 http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/83 20:43:22 f) The absence of an assertion should not mean that the behavior is "explicitly prohibited" 20:43:24 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3602 20:43:26 See also: 20:43:28 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0110.html 20:43:40 +Dave_Orchard 20:44:43 Asir: on 3564, Umit took an action to prepare text for the primer 20:45:11 http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/83 20:45:23 asir has joined #ws-policy 20:45:26 This was Action 83 ... it's closed ... pts to 3577 20:45:30 link to the minutes http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-ws-policy-minutes.html#item24 20:45:40 FrederickHirsch has joined #ws-policy 20:45:53 http://www.w3.org/2006/08/30-ws-policy-minutes.html#item24 20:46:01 asir: Action was recorded incorrectly 20:46:32 PaulC: we fixed that 20:46:36 dmoberg has joined #ws-policy 20:48:14 Ashok has joined #ws-policy 20:48:34 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0075.html 20:49:06 PaulC: has anyone looked at this material? I bet not. 20:49:18 + 20:49:19 We think the operative material for 3564 is at: 20:49:22 q+ 20:49:24 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/att-0054/ws-policy-assertionauthors-V1.html#optional-policy-assertion 20:51:08 PaulC: The guidelines doc has some wording to handle this -- Maryann says 20:51:30 danroth has joined #ws-policy 20:51:51 PaulC: Let's wait for Maryann to get back ... you all shd review material 20:52:32 PaulC: Start discussion on 3577 ... there has been email discussion 20:54:15 There are two e-mails on this issue 20:54:18 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0015.html 20:54:44 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0170.html 20:55:36 -Dave_Orchard 20:56:34 danroth: issue is abt domain-specific intersection ... spec speaks only abt Qname matching 20:56:42 daveo has joined #ws-policy 20:57:16 danroth: this is often not enough so we need to say something abt domain-specific intersection 20:57:20 +DOrchard 20:58:02 danroth: onus is on intersection doer to understand domain-specific intersection 20:58:34 DavidO: we are on 3577 agenda item 20 e) 20:59:53 thx pc 21:01:05 + 21:01:09 q+ 21:01:35 Discussion of when domain-specific assertion is required 21:01:40 Dan: the requirement for domain specific intersection requirements can be queued off the QNAME 21:02:19 If the policy processor understands the QNAME then it should know if specific intersection knowledge is needed and available. 21:02:29 q? 21:02:44 GlenD: wsp:Policy element proliferation is a problem 21:04:05 GlenD: Take some usecases and say if yr mail addresses them 21:05:05 ack Fred 21:05:14 DavidO is next on the queue 21:05:34 q+ 21:06:04 Frederick: Isn't there a case where you may not understand that a particular QName has special semnatics? 21:06:12 dmoberg has joined #ws-policy 21:06:51 q+ 21:07:02 danroth: I cd not come up with a case that requires this flag. 21:07:28 DavidO: would really like an motivated use case for a change here 21:08:06 Ack dan 21:08:08 GlenD: Explains use of the attribute 21:08:13 Ack glend 21:08:50 GlenD: Another solution is to disallow domain-specific intersection. That's a bad idea. 21:09:12 GlenD: So lets look at test and see if we can clarify 21:09:58 q+ 21:10:21 Ack fred 21:10:52 Frederick: This mustUndertand come out in the wash... 21:11:03 PaulC: No consensus for change 21:11:09 vladB has joined #ws-policy 21:12:39 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 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 DaveO: Is there some guidance for assertion authors? 21:16:40 General confusion abt what Dave said 21:17:33 q+ 21:17:50 DaveO: You can decide to use many QNames or one QName with parameters 21:18:13 PaulC: If you don't recognize the QName you fault 21:19:01 GlenD: need a generic domain independent intersection algorithm 21:19:10 PaulC: Cannot do that 21:20:08 q+ 21:20:25 Guidance in the framework and guidelines for authoring assertions 21:20:25 if there is domain specific intersection, it is indicated by the QName of the assertion. 21:20:28 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 ack dan 21:20:42 ack glend 21:21:43 danroth: guidance on using parameters or nested policy ... nested policy used in intersections ... parameters are not 21:23:33 PaulC: I see 2 actions. Resolve by asking editors to add text in IRC re mapping from Qname to this bit. 21:23:57 PaulC: Guidelines for authoring assertions. 21:24:33 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 ACTION: Asir, to add above text in spec. 21:25:04 Sorry, couldn't find user - Asir, 21:25:38 ACTION: asir to add above text 21:25:38 Created ACTION-107 - Add above text [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2006-09-20]. 21:25:49 related editorial action is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/29 21:26:04 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 RESOLVED: 3577 by these changes 21:27:30 PaulC: Add sentence ... If you do not recog Qname it is a mistake to do domain independent intersection. 21:27:54 Glen is going to correct this. 21:27:59 GlenD: amends above 21:28:14 If you don't recognize a QName, you cannot guarantee anything about the compatibility of the intersected alternatives. 21:29:12 ACTION: maryann to add this guidance in guidelines document 21:29:12 Created ACTION-108 - Add this guidance in guidelines document [on Maryann Hondo - due 2006-09-20]. 21:29:31 rrsagent, where am i 21:29:31 I'm logging. I don't understand 'where am i', Ashok. Try /msg RRSAgent help 21:29:33 RRSAgent, where am I? 21:29:33 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T21-29-33 21:30:12 Updated editorial action is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/29 21:31:23 Vlad: There is no domain independent intersection 21:32:01 END 3577 21:32:13 Start 3602 21:32:17 q+ 21:32:21 I don't understand the statement 'there is no domain independent intersection' 21:33:51 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 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 danroth: what does this mean? 21:34:36 intersection mechanism must know (i.e.recognize) the assertion, which is domain-dependent 21:35:09 See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0110.html 21:35:38 danroth: if a client sees an assertion in one alternative and not in another he cannot send a msg ... explictly prohibited 21:36:56 danroth: another interpretation is that all it means that I don't do that but you can try 21:37:07 dmoberg has joined #ws-policy 21:37:49 maryann: you are supposed to declare what you know ... so if it's not there you cannot do it 21:38:52 Dan's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0110.html 21:39:08 maryann has joined #ws-policy 21:39:26 -DOrchard 21:40:07 Ashok: wording is correct ... no change is needed 21:40:59 q+ 21:41:33 danroth: if we clarify that client can send the msg that wd fix the problem 21:42:51 ACTION: Ashok to send additional clarifying wording for 3602 21:42:51 Created ACTION-109 - Send additional clarifying wording for 3602 [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2006-09-20]. 21:42:56 ack ashok 21:43:14 ack toufic 21:43:29 DONE with 3602 21:43:52 START WITH 3613 --- Frederick's issue 21:44:27 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0036.html 21:44:40 +Dave_Orchard 21:46:23 FrederickHirsch has joined #ws-policy 21:46:25 Frederick: Suggested minor editorial changes ... and there is a suggestion in a subsequent msg for some wording in the primer 21:46:49 PaulC: What kind of example do you want in the primer? 21:47:41 FH: We may not need example if we resolve another issue ... so no change needed 21:48:22 RESOLUTION: Close 3613 with the explanation in the msg above. 21:48:32 RRSAgent, where am I? 21:48:32 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T21-48-32 21:49:25 ACTION: FrederickHirsh to close issue with above another 21:49:25 Sorry, couldn't find user - FrederickHirsh 21:50:01 ACTION: FrederickHi to close issue with above anchor 21:50:01 Sorry, couldn't find user - FrederickHi 21:51:05 ACTION: FrederickHirsch to close issue with above anchor 21:51:05 Sorry, couldn't find user - FrederickHirsch 21:51:32 START 3549 21:53:16 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0038.html 21:53:24 RRSAgent, where am I? 21:53:24 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T21-53-24 21:54:01 RESOLUTION: Close 3549 with proposal in above mail. 21:54:26 END 3549 21:54:34 related editorial action is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/30 21:55:32 PaulC: You had updated 3577 with material you proposed to add to the guidelines document 21:56:35 Correction .... 3564 21:56:57 PaulC: WG shd review the text 21:57:25 CLOSE 21:57:52 START 3638 21:59:26 ashok: there's a sentence in the spec that indicates that assertions are not ordered 22:00:00 ashok: there are assertions in securitypolicy that specifically add ordering as part of the assertion type 22:00:28 glen: do they want a specific order to the processing? 22:00:50 ashok: yes 22:01:22 Dan's e-mail is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0011.html 22:01:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0011.html 22:01:36 oops, scooped! :) 22:01:37 glen: instead of qname....do you want something else? 22:02:10 ashok: so if we accept dan's premise we should add some text 22:02:56 paul: it says that already 22:03:24 ashok: you can add assertions that indicates runtime behavior 22:03:45 ashok: it wold be good to have some text to that effect 22:05:22 Add the following text after the quoted text in 3638: 22:05:24 However, domain authors can write assertions that control the order in which behaviours are applied. 22:05:27 RRSAgent, where am I? 22:05:27 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T22-05-27 22:05:29 rrsagent, where am i> 22:05:29 I'm logging. I don't understand 'where am i>', maryann. Try /msg RRSAgent help 22:06:27 RESOLUTION: Close 3638 by adding above text after the text quoted in the mail. 22:06:34 s/>/? 22:06:39 related editorial action is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/31 22:07:14 CLOSE 3638 22:07:26 START 3639 22:08:07 ashok: what we would like is a method of referring from a message to the policy 22:08:10 q+ 22:08:26 See thread at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0032.html 22:08:37 q- 22:08:47 ashok: you could use this mechanism to indicate a selected althernative 22:09:11 glen: do you want us to define a soap header? 22:09:15 ashok: yes 22:10:58 q+ 22:10:59 danroth: in my mail i argued any option is acceptable 22:11:11 dan: you could use any of the alternatives that were produced from the intersection of the client/provider 22:11:23 glen: might have an assertion that doesn't show up on the wire 22:11:41 q+ 22:11:53 q+ 22:12:11 glen: the header would tell you which policy alternative was selected 22:12:30 -Dave_Orchard 22:12:54 vlad: if you look at the message exchange you might need more 22:13:33 ack vladb 22:13:37 ack ashok 22:13:38 vlad: if you have message exchanges you might want to indicate the alternative selected for the response as well 22:14:06 ashok: i have a certain privacy policy.... this message can actually point to that policy 22:14:17 ack asir 22:14:44 asir: there is a separation of concerns of protocol vs metadata 22:15:12 relying on metadata at runtime violates the protocol 22:15:21 glen: it might be useful 22:15:27 asir: but its not required 22:16:21 paul: no one has defined a header for this 22:16:48 asir: if its not mandatory, this could be expressed as a behavior 22:17:10 ashok: how is it added? 22:17:20 paul: use the extensibility to do this 22:17:23 danroth has joined #ws-policy 22:17:26 q+ 22:17:28 ashok: it would be nice to do it one way 22:17:57 ashok: you don't have to use it but if you want to do it, there is a standard way 22:18:22 paul: once you put the must understand on it 22:18:33 jeff: that's always true 22:19:22 glen: if you're going to send this information, there is a well known structure for it 22:19:40 ack dan 22:19:43 q+ 22:19:57 dan: just talking about one solution for solving the ambiguity problem on the wire 22:20:03 dan: there's lots of ways to do this 22:20:32 ack yakov 22:20:44 yakov: there is a usefullness for this mechanism 22:21:15 yakov: i don't see how we can do it as a soap header 22:21:53 yakov: i see the need, but we would need a specific proposal 22:22:22 q+ 22:22:29 paul: there may be consensus that there's a need, but not a need to do it in the framework 22:22:53 q+ 22:23:10 paul: with the schedule we have its pretty compelling to be able to do it with the existing extensibility 22:24:06 q- 22:24:14 paul: should we put this on hold? 22:25:04 use the extensibility mechanism to define a asseriont called "notify" that does what 3639 asks for. 22:25:26 in this way the framework does not have to be modified AND the assertion can be written and used RIGHT away. 22:25:47 END 3639 22:26:18 ack monica 22:27:23 monica: will send mail usecase that applies to 3639 22:28:14 START 3620 22:28:54 PaulC: I sent mail that this was out of scope 22:29:17 GlenD: We discussed on call and people said they needed to see more 22:29:48 GlenD: Its not a fully-fleshed proposal just to give people a hint ... 22:30:59 q+ 22:31:13 Glen's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0028.html 22:31:15 q+ 22:31:22 Ack dan 22:31:46 ttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0028.html 22:31:53 MEX is at http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/09/mex/ 22:32:01 GlenD: Need to decide how policy attached to Endpoint interacts with policies attached to other WSDL subjects. 22:32:15 q+ 22:32:23 Ack asir 22:33:56 PaulC: W3C did not add this to charter because it thought solution may come from other parts of the industry 22:34:16 JeffM: You are talking abt a private spec --- MEX 22:34:56 GlenD: How many layers of the stack do I need to know to get work done 22:35:09 q+ 22:35:28 acutally, why are we talking about MEX - -isn' 22:35:36 isn't that out of scope? 22:36:04 ack PaulC 22:36:24 Ack jeffm 22:36:40 q+ 22:37:06 jeffm: we have an epr ... 22:37:58 which has a metadata container which has a MEX container which can contain a policy 22:38:31 GlenD: lets have a strawpoll to ask if this is in scope 22:38:40 q+\ 22:38:44 q+ 22:39:01 acl asir 22:39:15 asir: explains MEX ... 22:39:18 ack asir 22:40:09 thanks prasad - typo 22:40:55 +Dave_Orchard 22:41:50 DavidO: we are on agenda 25 a) 22:42:04 Policy Attachment to WS-Addr EndpointReferences 22:43:22 q+ 22:43:32 ack monica 22:44:13 Monica: we shd separate whether issue is in scope with whether MEX is in scope 22:44:56 DaveO: Glen said "when it is standarized by W3C" ... that may or may not happen 22:45:37 DaveO: Issue abt which spec decides what goes in a MEX section 22:46:13 q+ 22:46:17 ack jeffm 22:46:20 DaveO: Or if MEX shd decide where and how what goes into MEX 22:46:37 JeffM: Clarify yr conclusion, pl, Dave 22:47:08 DaveO: I wasn't drawing a conclusion ... just clarifying tradeoffs 22:48:46 JeffM: I don't understand what Schema has to do with this at all 22:49:18 JeffM: We have a problem ... we can use the hook the we have to put policy in an EPR 22:50:15 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 ack glend 22:50:29 PaulC: I will take strawpoll 22:51:10 monica has joined #ws-policy 22:51:15 GlenD: When we designed the metadata section in WS-Addr we used policy as a usecase 22:52:04 GlenD: So that when had policy we cd use it immediately 22:52:23 STRAWPOLL: Is this in scope? 22:52:30 BEA: Abstain 22:53:11 CA: Abstain 22:53:17 MS: Out of scope 22:53:28 IBM: Abstain 22:53:32 Oracle: In scope 22:53:39 W3C: Out-of scope 22:53:48 Nokia: Abstain 22:53:56 Layer7: Abstain 22:54:06 Sonic: In scope 22:54:13 SAP: Abstain 22:54:40 WebMethods: No 22:54:48 Iona: Abstain 22:55:12 SUN: Abstain 22:55:56 PaulC: I don't see a consensus for doing this work. I'm decalring this out of scope. 22:56:29 PaulC: Can anyone not live with not doing the vote. Yes from Sonic, Oracle 22:56:55 FH: can we do more work so that some votes may change? 22:57:25 GlenD: Explains what the Ws-Addr spec provides 22:57:31 Discussion 22:57:34 q+ 22:58:31 ack toufic 22:59:12 CORRECTION: PaulC: Can anyone not live with not doing the work. Yes from Sonic, Oracle 23:00:06 q+ 23:01:39 ack jeffm 23:01:54 Discussion on whether Glen's solution is useful. DaveO pushes back 23:03:17 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 q+ 23:03:41 GlenD has joined #ws-policy 23:03:53 PaulC: It was explicitly left out of the charter. So I'm going to rule it's out of scope. 23:04:24 PaulC: If Oracle and Sonic want to approach the W3C they are welcome to. 23:05:05 PaulC: 3620 is closed. I will assign to vNext. 23:05:32 PailC: ... It's not vNext, it's Future Consideration. 23:05:44 s/PailC/PaulC/ 23:05:59 q- 23:07:10 PaulC: We will do Bijan's 3 issues at 9AM tomorrow. The 3602 for which Ashok will provide wording. 23:07:40 s/The/Then/ 23:10:13 -Dave_Orchard 23:12:08 +DOrchard 23:13:00 dorchard has joined #ws-policy 23:17:46 RRSAgent, where am I? 23:17:46 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T23-17-46 23:18:03 rrsagent, please show the actions 23:18:03 I see 11 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-actions.rdf : 23:18:03 ACTION: Asir to respond to phillipe and bob with the resolution for 3656 [1] 23:18:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T18-24-13 23:18:03 ACTION: paul to discuss the summary of the proposal with the w3c [2] 23:18:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T19-38-10 23:18:03 ACTION: Ashok to review 3599 proposal ked using XPtr [3] 23:18:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T20-40-57 23:18:03 ACTION: item to [4] 23:18:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T20-43-18 23:18:03 ACTION: Asir, to add above text in spec. [5] 23:18:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T21-25-04 23:18:03 ACTION: asir to add above text [6] 23:18:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T21-25-38 23:18:03 ACTION: maryann to add this guidance in guidelines document [7] 23:18:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T21-29-12 23:18:03 ACTION: Ashok to send additional clarifying wording for 3602 [8] 23:18:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T21-42-51 23:18:03 ACTION: FrederickHirsh to close issue with above another [9] 23:18:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T21-49-25 23:18:03 ACTION: FrederickHi to close issue with above anchor [10] 23:18:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T21-50-01 23:18:03 ACTION: FrederickHirsch to close issue with above anchor [11] 23:18:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-irc#T21-51-05 23:18:03 rrsagent, please set these logs world-visible 23:18:03 rrsagent, draft minutes 23:18:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-minutes.html asir 23:20:33 -DOrchard 23:31:06 jeffm has joined #ws-policy 01:05:00 disconnecting the lone participant, F2F, in WS_Policy()12:00PM 01:05:01 WS_Policy()12:00PM has ended 01:05:04 Attendees were Fabian, F2F, DOrchard, Dave_Orchard