16:01:26 RRSAgent has joined #ws-policy 16:01:26 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc 16:01:43 Zakim has joined #ws-policy 16:02:02 zakim, this will be ws_policy 16:02:02 ok, toufic, I see WS_Policy()12:00PM already started 16:02:20 scribe: toufic 16:03:04 meeting: WS-Policy F2F Day 3 16:03:14 Yakov has joined #ws-policy 16:03:28 Chair: Paul Cotton 16:05:21 agenda for today's meeting is here 16:05:22 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0041.html 16:06:11 vladB has joined #ws-policy 16:06:33 +??P29 16:06:50 prasad has joined #ws-policy 16:06:55 Zakim, ??P29 is Fabian 16:06:57 +Fabian; got it 16:07:04 asir has joined #ws-policy 16:07:55 rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight 16:08:11 rrsagent, do not start a new log at midnight 16:08:38 FrederickHirsch has joined #ws-policy 16:11:44 Paul goes over summary of today's meeting 16:13:27 s/summary/preview/ 16:16:02 TOPIC: Issue 3672 16:16:10 monica has joined #ws-policy 16:16:25 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0031.html 16:16:32 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3672 16:17:17 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0073.html 16:17:28 Ashok has joined #ws-policy 16:18:10 paul: is there anyone that needs this text explained? people ready to vote/adopt? 16:18:34 dorchard has joined #ws-policy 16:19:00 paul: consensus to adopt 16:19:03 +Dave_Orchard 16:19:10 RESOLUTIO: 3672 adopted 16:19:15 Fabian has joined #ws-policy 16:19:24 RESOLUTION: 3672 adopted http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0073.html 16:19:41 RRSAgent, where am I? 16:19:41 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T16-19-41 16:20:01 +[IPcaller] 16:20:06 zakim, ipcaller is me 16:20:06 +bijan; got it 16:20:10 zakim, mute me 16:20:10 bijan should now be muted 16:20:35 related editorial action is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/33 16:20:49 zakim, unmute me 16:20:49 bijan should no longer be muted 16:21:05 +Jong_Lee 16:21:08 zakim, mute me 16:21:08 bijan should now be muted 16:21:10 JongLee has joined #ws-policy 16:21:29 zakim, unmute me 16:21:29 bijan should no longer be muted 16:21:37 TOPIC: Issue 3621 16:21:57 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3621 16:22:32 q+ 16:22:37 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0145.html 16:23:23 bijan: if there's really no interest in WG suggests to drop it 16:23:50 bijan: found some of the text ambiguous 16:24:03 GlenD has joined #ws-policy 16:24:10 I think formal semantics might be useful IFF it helped interoperability 16:24:26 paul: work has some value, but it has to be work that whole WG to take on 16:24:36 paul: typically it's subset of WG 16:25:10 Then it becomes a trade-off between working on formal semantics to help interop/clarity, or some other means like test cases. 16:25:11 paul: encourage participants to raise issues related to formal semantics 16:25:14 Then it becomes a trade-off between working on formal semantics to help interop/clarity, or some other means like test cases. 16:25:16 q? 16:25:37 ashok: worth spending time on bijan's work on policy 16:25:45 -Dave_Orchard 16:25:52 ashok: takes policy statements and translates them to rdf 16:26:08 +Dave_Orchard 16:26:17 ashok: can generate policy models 16:26:17 technically to owl 16:26:25 q? 16:26:33 dan: that's cool. has there been any issues? 16:26:44 ashok: bijan has demo 16:26:52 ac david 16:26:56 ack david 16:27:01 ack do 16:27:02 +Charlton_Barreto 16:27:06 daveo: seems a tradeoff in mechanism between clarity and interop 16:27:39 daveo: in general semantic work can help, but worries about tradeoff 16:27:57 danroth has joined #ws-policy 16:28:06 q+ 16:28:19 zakim, who is here? 16:28:19 On the phone I see F2F, Fabian, bijan, Jong_Lee, Dave_Orchard, Charlton_Barreto 16:28:21 On IRC I see danroth, GlenD, JongLee, Fabian, dorchard, Ashok, monica, FrederickHirsch, asir, prasad, vladB, Yakov, Zakim, RRSAgent, PaulC, whenry, bijan, toufic, jeffm, maryann, 16:28:23 ... charlton, trackbot 16:28:27 ack dan 16:28:47 dan: if there's a mapping of policy to rdf, then doesn't rdf define formal semantics to policy? 16:28:57 dan: if that work is done, what remains to be done? 16:29:07 paul: he hasn't found time to report that work 16:29:33 paul: not seeing people clamoring that WG needs to add semantic work 16:29:47 paul: asks bijan if he wants to take a formal AI 16:29:57 bijan: i'll do it on my own time 16:30:22 RESOLUTION: Close 3621 with no changes 16:30:32 zakim, where am i? 16:30:32 I don't understand your question, toufic. 16:31:03 RRSAgent, where am i? 16:31:03 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T16-31-03 16:31:19 TOPIC: Issue 3622 16:33:00 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0181.html 16:34:12 zakim, who is here 16:34:12 FrederickHirsch, you need to end that query with '?' 16:34:18 Fabian has joined #ws-policy 16:34:21 FrederickHirsch has joined #ws-policy 16:35:09 scribe relacation done 16:35:33 bijan: ability to express relations between assertions is important 16:35:53 glen, is this kind of like the re-use part of Features in F&P? 16:35:58 q+ 16:36:03 q+ 16:36:15 ack do 16:36:28 daveo: wondering if this is similar to reuse part of features and properties 16:36:43 glen: yes, definitely 16:36:51 glen: one of the things that was intended 16:37:09 ack asir 16:37:13 glen: not the same thing, but reflects similar ideas 16:37:33 asir: thought it was related to 3621, formal semantics, rdf. is that fair? 16:37:41 bijan: i think you misunderstand the issues 16:38:21 bijan: here we are talking about relationships between assertions, not policies in general 16:38:36 more about specific functionalities 16:39:26 paul: is there support for doing this work? 16:40:03 ashok: if you have an assertion with parameters, they all have the same qnames. is that what bijan wants? 16:40:13 paul: example about RM 16:40:32 paul: relationship of those things is then hidden inside parametric nature 16:40:40 paul: not seeing support for this work 16:41:01 RESOLUTION: Issue 3622 Closed (NotFixed) 16:41:08 RRSAgent where am I 16:41:08 RRSAgent, where am i? 16:41:08 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T16-41-08-1 16:41:33 TOPIC: Issue 3623 16:42:20 For the record, BEA was very slightly interested in pursuing this as a way of providing additional re-use mechanism, and this is an candidate for V.Next 16:42:33 s/this/3622(re-use/generality)/ 16:42:38 paul: related to 3694 16:42:49 paul: would rather process it then 16:43:28 TOPIC: Issue 3602 16:43:46 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3602 16:43:57 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0094.html 16:43:59 paul: ashok took an AI for a revised proposal 16:45:09 ashok: we had a lot of discussion on this 16:45:23 ashok: turns out thanks to maryann that we figured out the actual text was exactly right 16:45:40 ashok: actual text conveys semantics 16:45:53 ashok: only problem is that one sentence difficult to understand 16:46:01 ashok: spelt it out with an example 16:47:15 monica has suggestion 16:47:16 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0099.html 16:47:37 q+ 16:47:44 ashok: monica suggests it's too early in the document 16:47:50 -bijan 16:48:20 ashok: with recast, it's not obvious what intent is, so example is required 16:48:33 monica: we have material later in document to address "optional" 16:48:49 monica: guideline to give guidance on how to use 16:49:58 ack maryann 16:50:05 maryann: appreciate the spirit, but change doesn't help clarify difference 16:50:17 maryann: forward reference in document is good idea 16:50:28 q+ 16:50:29 q+ 16:50:35 maryann: also guideline document to help, and include additional references 16:50:36 q+ 16:51:05 paul: what about a forward reference to the example under "optional" 16:51:17 paul: likes example, example helps understanding 16:51:26 paul: that has worked in other WG's 16:51:51 q+ 16:51:56 asir: there is an example in 4.3.1 16:52:12 paul: could we add at end of 4.3.1? 16:52:16 q- 16:52:26 q+ 16:53:07 ack prasad 16:54:14 prasad: example illustrates one scenario where assertion does not occur should be prohibited 16:54:30 ack asir 16:54:40 q+ 16:54:42 ack Fabian 16:54:42 prasad: we should give forward references to concept instead of moving example 16:54:56 fabian: would like to discuss original issue (not example location) 16:55:22 paul summarizes what occured so far on this issue 16:55:54 fabian: maybe just me not understanding second sentence 16:56:11 fabian: example - RM optional 16:56:48 fabian: after normalizing, two different policies that apply to same endpoint, one of which prohibits RM 16:57:04 q+ 16:58:16 paul: consensus is that is correct 16:58:17 q+ 16:58:45 dan: that's not what fabian is saying. asserts that this is causing confusion because impression is that client is prohibited 16:58:48 ack monica 16:58:53 monica: still thinks this is for guidance document 16:58:53 ack vla 16:59:43 q- 16:59:45 ack danroth 16:59:45 vladb: what about introducing a new assertion? 17:00:13 maryann: one solution is a new binding that handles the new assertion and supports the old 17:00:32 maryann: wondering if changing "client" to "entities" 17:00:57 q+ 17:01:11 dan: people are reading the spec and interpreting it in two ways 17:01:20 q+ 17:01:20 dan: we need them to interpret it in one way 17:02:04 maryann: what they're trying to indicate with alternatives/optional is that one alternative doesn't 17:02:09 q+ 17:02:18 maryann: and since you know about the other assertion and you don't include it, then it's prohibited 17:02:37 dan: that's how we understand it, but we need everybody else to understand it that way too 17:03:29 q+ 17:03:59 paul: possible compromise is to add monica's text and example 17:04:47 q+ 17:05:35 +1 to Maryann 17:06:23 q? 17:06:30 ack maryann 17:06:36 ack ashok 17:07:01 ashok: spec speaks of situation where i have to select one policy alternative 17:07:10 q+ 17:07:18 ashok: when you use the word "provider" it looks like policy applies to one direction 17:07:28 ashok: wsp framwork has no direction 17:07:33 q+ 17:07:43 ashok: we don't speak of provider, requester, etc 17:07:59 paul: that's agenda item 29a 17:08:32 q+ 17:08:41 ack asir 17:08:50 asir: supports monica's text with the changes, and provide example and references 17:08:52 ack monica 17:08:54 monica: +1 17:09:06 ack yak 17:09:14 yakov: deep reservations about text - talks about provider, and "applies" policy 17:09:15 q+ 17:09:17 changes to Monica's text are drop 'but' 17:09:40 yakov: not clear what that means about provider applying policy 17:10:02 second change to Monica's text is s/provider/provider of the service/ 17:10:04 q? 17:10:10 yakov: reluctant support, and changes in 3.2 section later 17:10:11 ack prasad 17:10:27 prasad: wanted to address ashok's point in case of optional assertion 17:10:47 prasad: it's up to the client to use which alternative since provider has no preference 17:11:06 prasad: then provider of service decides which alternative was selected 17:11:07 ack wh 17:11:26 whenry: couldn't you just use monica's text and use "provider" and "consumer"? 17:11:32 q+ 17:11:34 ack mary 17:11:51 maryann: don't know if there is consensus in the group, can we take another round? 17:12:12 ack monica 17:12:26 monica: should go ahead and make decision then defer to 29a 17:12:32 ack dan 17:12:50 q+ 17:12:53 dan: we want to allow people to try to send a message, even if they don't understand 17:13:03 ack maryann 17:13:09 dan: word "prohibited" is at issue 17:13:59 paul: proposal on table is to add monica's text, example, and references 17:14:30 paul: pushback is about using the "provider" (maryann, ashok, yakov) 17:14:57 paul: will changing "provider" fix things? 17:15:10 maryann: don't have words right now that can provide consensus 17:15:21 q+ 17:15:24 maryann: intent here is to clarify, and not sure if that clarifies 17:15:41 ashok: unhappy because it implies it works one way and does not work the oterh 17:15:42 q+ 17:15:48 s/oterh/other/ 17:15:51 q+ 17:15:54 what about changing provider to policy subject? 17:15:54 ashok: policies work both ways 17:16:22 paul: problem is that piece of text 17:16:40 paul: give dissenters an explicit AI to respond with an alternative by email 17:16:56 paul: we should not constrain them to that phrase 17:17:19 ACTION: maryann, ashok, yakov to respond with alternative text 17:17:19 Sorry, couldn't find user - maryann, 17:17:38 q? 17:17:41 q- 17:17:43 ack yak 17:17:45 q+ 17:17:48 ack wh 17:18:12 whenry: in terms of provider issue, would be useful to explain what they're afraid of (rationale) 17:18:18 ack fred 17:18:19 whenry: maybe issue doesn't exist 17:18:32 fred: has alternative 17:18:45 fred: concern is that this might affect other things 17:19:27 q? 17:20:17 JongLee has joined #ws-policy 17:20:57 ashok: if we could get fabian to write email about why the old text wasn't right, that would help 17:20:59 q+ 17:21:03 s/concern is that this might affect other things/desire to record clearly current revised proposal, perhaps record concerns with it as issue/ 17:21:06 q- 17:21:17 ack toufic 17:22:07 q+ 17:22:27 toufic: to put in email issue about which policy alternative the "provider" selects to enforce 17:23:01 q- 17:23:15 TOPIC: Issue 3703 17:23:33 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0099.html 17:23:34 ashok: I request fabian to put his concern in a short email. His concern is not clear to me 17:23:44 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3703 17:23:45 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3703 17:24:23 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0077.html 17:24:46 Change SHOULD to MUST 17:26:54 glen: two kinds of extensions - assertions, and extensions to the framework 17:27:07 glen: in either case you should recognise the element 17:27:59 RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0077.html 17:28:05 rrsagent, where am i? 17:28:05 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T17-28-05 17:28:32 TOPIC: Issue 3707 17:28:40 glen, pls read the material I wrote for the primer on versioning 17:28:50 asir: this one is already done 17:28:51 related editorial action is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/34 17:29:54 paul: defn of "nested policy expression" in 2.4 of editors draft resolves this issue 17:30:43 RESOLUTION: Already done http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/34 17:30:50 rrsagent, where am i? 17:30:50 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T17-30-50 17:30:58 TOPIC: Issue 3708 17:31:18 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3708 17:32:12 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0076.html 17:33:11 fred: security considerations are informative 17:34:03 fred: therefore should be "elevated" to the spec document 17:34:14 maryann: isn't that a topic for primer? 17:34:29 fred: most specs have a "security considerations" section 17:35:02 fred: ok with primer if it wants to elaborate, but main point is that it should be in main document 17:35:16 paul: primer might want to point to section in main document 17:35:42 paul: two part proposal: 1. move security considerations into the framwework doc 17:35:50 2. have primer point to that section 17:36:06 prasad: what about attachment doc? 17:36:20 fred: if there are issues unique to the framwork 17:36:54 ACTION: prasad to review next editors draft to see if there are any security considerations from framework doc that apply to attachment doc 17:36:54 Created ACTION-110 - Review next editors draft to see if there are any security considerations from framework doc that apply to attachment doc [on Prasad Yendluri - due 2006-09-21]. 17:37:37 test 17:38:05 asir: clarification - it's going to be part of security considerations section 17:38:42 RESOLUTION: 3708 accept Frederick's proposal AND add pointer in primer 17:38:49 rrsagent, where am i? 17:38:49 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T17-38-49 17:39:14 break 17:40:08 -Dave_Orchard 17:40:42 -Fabian 17:41:03 related editorial actions are 17:41:03 http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/35 17:41:08 http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/36 17:59:16 +??P2 17:59:30 Zakim, ??P2 is Fabian 17:59:31 +Fabian; got it 18:01:35 back from break 18:01:56 +Dave_Orchard 18:02:25 TOPIC: 3694 18:02:57 asir and jonathan marsh to present 18:03:24 WSDL 20 is http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 18:03:42 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0037.html 18:03:56 is the email proposal for this issue 18:04:17 jon: section 9. XML syntax summary 18:04:50 jon: port became endpoint 18:05:08 jon: extensibility model in 2.0 is open content model 18:05:31 jon: there is an order of element at top level 18:06:04 danroth has joined #ws-policy 18:08:49 jon: section 2.14 service component 18:10:40 jon: section 2.3.1 interface faulrs 18:10:47 s/faulrs/faults/ 18:11:07 jon: faults have been elevated to peers of operations 18:11:40 jon: operations can refer to faults, and policies can be attached to faults 18:11:53 section 2.2.1 Interface component 18:13:07 section 2.9.1 binding component 18:16:05 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/att-0037/WS-PolicyAttachment-4-WSDL20-09-01-2006.pdf 18:16:49 asir presents contribution: WS-Policy Attachment for WSDL 2.0 18:17:02 4 major pieces: 18:17:10 1. enumerated attachment points 18:17:17 2. describes policy subjects 18:17:34 3. defines an extension to the component model from wsdl 2.0 18:17:46 4. explains how to calculate effective policy for each policy subject 18:18:00 s/enumerated/enumerates/ 18:20:34 ashok: clarification - not required to have policies in wsdl document? 18:20:39 asir: no, just an example 18:30:01 glen: do we make clear enough that the fact a policy exists inside a description doesn't apply to the entire description? 18:30:14 asir: no, there are only four policy subjects 18:33:31 glen: wondering if there is a term that can be introduced to mean "the merge of Policy or PolicyReference elements"? 18:33:38 paul: looking for a macro 18:34:12 asir: probably should use "element policy" as a macro 18:36:06 -Jong_Lee 18:36:21 glen: section 4, eliminate second column and change table title to inclide {policy} 18:36:27 s/inclide/include/ 18:38:22 fred: having trouble understanding how to follow the diagram. inheritance? 18:38:28 asir: these are aggregations 18:38:57 paul: fred wants to know what arrows mean 18:39:10 fred: e.g. between binding and bindingFault 18:40:30 jon: no significance to colour in arrows, just overlap issue 18:41:18 paul: might want to use the same colour for arrows 18:46:24 s/policy" as a macro/policy" as a macro (editorial action)/ 18:46:51 s/same colour for arrows/same colour for arrows (editorial action)/ 18:47:09 paul: do you think this is complete? any areas that you don't think are covered? 18:47:15 asir: thinks it's complete 18:47:44 ashok: when you're doing policy merging to compute effective policy, can you have errors if something goes wrong? 18:48:25 the merge is a very simple operation 18:48:40 asir: the merge is a very simple operation 18:48:54 asir: it's a cross product, nothing more 18:49:31 ashok: suppose an assertion has parameters, and the identical assertion with different values for the parameter... 18:49:55 paul: is this a question about this proposal, or about the merge operation definition? 18:50:18 ashok: question is about merge definition 18:50:26 suppose an assertion has parameters, and the identical assertion with different values for the parameter... 18:50:30 Attachment defn of "merge":a merge consists of serializing each policy as a policy expression, replacing their wsp:Policy element with a wsp:All element, and placing each as children of a wrapper wsp:Policy element. 18:50:30 Attachment defn of "merge": 18:50:32 what happens? 18:50:49 s/what happens/ashok: what happens/ 18:51:00 asir: aggregate behaviour is delegated to domain 18:51:34 asir: example SignedParts - specifics on how to interpret the merge behaviour 18:52:16 paul: section 3.2 in framework doc about aggregate behaviour 18:52:17 Mechanisms for determining the aggregate behavior indicated by the assertions (and their Post-Schema-Validation Infoset (PSVI) content, if any) are specific to the assertion type and are outside the scope of this document. 18:52:59 q? 18:53:03 q? 18:53:28 ashok: doc does not talk about using external attachment mechanism from wsdl 2.0 18:54:16 no, it doesn't do that. requirements that the doc satisfy are spelled out in section 1. Introduction 18:54:38 paul: question was asked yesterday in the context of proposal we have for 1.1 18:55:02 paul: i said we can ask the same question about 2.0 18:56:40 paul: when we adopted conformance text, was it only for framework? 18:56:47 asir: also attachments 18:56:55 paul: so same needs to be done for wsdl 2.0 18:57:15 s/attachments/attachment/ 18:58:11 ACTION: ashok to ask question/raise issue about what WG wants to do about attachments for WSDL 2.0 18:58:11 Created ACTION-111 - Ask question/raise issue about what WG wants to do about attachments for WSDL 2.0 [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2006-09-21]. 18:59:08 paul: do we believe that this proposal, modified by editorial changes, and addition of conformance text for wsdl 2.0 based on text from yesterday, resolves wsdl attachment issue? 18:59:31 RESOLUTION: 3694 with proposal as amended 18:59:36 rrsagent, where am i? 18:59:36 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T18-59-36 19:00:38 s/3694 with proposal as amended/3694 accepted with proposal as amended/ 19:02:05 ACTION: paul to send an email to the chair of SAWSDL WG informing of the proposal adopted today 19:02:05 Created ACTION-112 - Send an email to the chair of SAWSDL WG informing of the proposal adopted today [on Paul Cotton - due 2006-09-21]. 19:02:33 TOPIC: Agenda Item 29a 19:03:02 3694 editorial action is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/37 19:03:08 agenda is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0041.html 19:05:31 jeffm has joined #ws-policy 19:05:37 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0007.html 19:07:08 asir: 3705 deals with this issue 19:08:29 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3705 19:09:13 q+ 19:09:28 when you select one policy alternative, does that apply to all messages between two participants? 19:09:30 q? 19:09:30 q+ 19:10:14 ack asir 19:10:28 asir: a message exchange may be described by a policy on policy subjects 19:10:44 asir: also may be one for input, one for output, one for fault 19:10:50 asir: multiple possibilities 19:11:23 asir: all policies are chosen from the different policy subjects, which describes the exchange 19:11:36 ashok: reading of the spec is you select effective policy 19:11:45 glen: which portion of the spec? 19:11:55 maryann: intersection 19:12:37 intersection is an operation which takes in two policies and produces one 19:13:13 ack GlenD 19:13:26 glen: the reality is that you have a hierarchical set of policies 19:13:37 ashok: maybe we should put words behind it? 19:14:13 asir: attachment spec, Section 4.1 19:14:39 q+ Jonathan 19:16:18 glen: in WS model section there is mention of requester, provider, etc 19:16:33 glen: for each message that is exchange, there is an agreed upon policy set 19:17:22 jon: effective policy vs. relevant policy is confusing 19:17:36 paul: move on to Q2 19:18:37 glen: we said moot to the question - the notion of a single policy alternative applying to the whole interaction between client and server does not apply 19:18:48 paul: different selected policies at different levels 19:19:15 -Dave_Orchard 19:19:21 glen: authors of assertions should make clear the direction 19:19:31 glen: guidelines should clarify 19:19:58 paul: Q3 is delayed - will deal with it on 3639 19:20:43 TOPIC: Issue 3619 19:21:05 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3619 19:22:04 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0052.html 19:23:35 asir: talking about example in 3.4 (external attachment mechanisms) 19:24:33 asir: bob is asking for a normative description, not a fictitious example 19:24:48 paul: this is an example of normative material above 19:24:52 q+ 19:25:06 paul: does the normative material address the issue, or are they asking us to add to the normative material 19:25:20 ashok: there is no normative material, just a statement that you may use it 19:25:46 paul: using EPR in appliesTo 19:26:04 this means to me that the scope of it is the EPR 19:26:49 paul: we can a sentence that clarifies that this is the scope 19:26:55 glen: don't believe that's sufficient 19:27:32 paul: we can try to answer that question as it applies to EPR 19:27:47 paul: but that's an extensibility point. why do we do it for EPR? 19:28:13 ashok: because it's a particular usage 19:30:41 paul: our response maybe should be: we think you should, but in this case, here's an example 19:30:54 ashok: if we have done the work, why don't we put it in? 19:31:03 glen: because it might not apply to our spec 19:31:23 glen: ok with doing the work, and deciding later where it goes 19:33:14 ACTION: glen to draft a response to the WS-A WG, and keep it on member list 19:33:14 Created ACTION-113 - Draft a response to the WS-A WG, and keep it on member list [on Glen Daniels - due 2006-09-21]. 19:33:51 lunch break 19:34:13 Q? 19:35:28 -Charlton_Barreto 19:35:36 be back at 13.30 19:36:25 For the log: I pointed out to Paul that I still have a question pending on issue 3619. I posted it to the mailing list yesterday. I will resend if nobody picks up on it in time. 19:37:12 -Fabian 19:39:37 My email is archived at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0072.html 19:57:10 vladB has joined #ws-policy 20:31:25 maryann has joined #ws-policy 20:31:46 m 20:36:23 +Charlton_Barreto 20:36:26 -F2F 20:36:27 +F2F 20:53:25 danroth has joined #ws-policy 20:58:26 http://www.flickr.com/photos/cathycotton/sets/72157594149030363/show/ 20:58:47 back from lunch breaks 20:59:43 TOPIC: Issue 3709 21:00:47 RRSAgent, where am I> 21:00:47 I'm logging. I don't understand 'where am I>', asir. Try /msg RRSAgent help 21:00:50 RRSAgent, where am I? 21:00:50 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T21-00-50 21:00:55 RESOLUTION: Fixed deemed editorial, assigned to editors 21:01:23 related editorial action is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/38 21:01:57 TOPIC: Issue 3710 21:02:23 fred: text of proposal has two different topics 21:03:03 fred: we can deal with this in two parts 21:04:07 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3710 21:04:09 asir: a & b sound ok 21:04:25 asir: I don't understand item 3 - what does it say? 21:04:44 paul: descendant is not a defined term 21:05:09 paul: this is the best text we could capture 21:05:22 dan: this text is saying what we dont' do 21:05:31 dan: this space is very large 21:05:46 dan: if this text never existed, would anyone have a problem? 21:05:58 q+ 21:06:00 paul: combination with item a is what led us here 21:06:59 remember we're writing for an audience of people who will develop these policies, not just for us 21:07:21 maryann: it only says what it doesn't do about arbitrary processing, but it's specific about the rest 21:07:30 maryann: definitely support this 21:08:08 RESOLUTION: 3710 resolved by material in the bug report 21:08:10 RRSAgent, where am I? 21:08:10 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T21-08-10 21:08:48 TOPIC: Issue 3711 21:09:14 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3711 21:09:36 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0100 21:11:16 Proposed text is: Similarly, by repeatedly distributing wsp:All over wsp:ExactlyOne," 21:11:53 paul: no objections to resolving it with this text 21:12:08 RESOLUTION: accept text in the bug report 21:12:14 rrsagent, where am i? 21:12:14 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T21-12-14 21:12:19 thanks asir :) 21:12:25 TOPIC: 3712 21:12:41 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3712 21:12:53 related editorial action for 3711 - http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/40 21:12:57 +DOrchard 21:13:03 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3712 21:13:34 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0083.html 21:14:39 q+ 21:14:45 q+ 21:15:14 ack Jonathan 21:15:20 ack maryann 21:15:22 ack Fabian 21:15:28 ack Fred 21:15:58 fred: sounds like it trats policyReference as a standalone definition 21:16:04 paul: that is the intent 21:16:21 ack asir 21:16:33 asir: policyReference is a global element in schema 21:16:44 framework doesn't provide semantics 21:17:09 asir: how it applies to others such as wsdl 2.0, uddi, etc 21:17:39 q+ 21:17:41 paul: anybody that wants to use policyReference has to define the semantics where it's used 21:18:02 vladB: this is an artificial division between the two specs 21:18:26 vladB: if I receive a wsdl with this specification, and i don't see it here 21:18:30 Q+ 21:18:58 paul: vlad is saying when I see a policyReference mentioned, it's not clear which spec it's referring to 21:19:23 asir: when it's near an attachment point, attachment spec applies 21:19:32 asir: when it's elsewhere, it's framework 21:19:42 vladB: maybe we need two different elements 21:19:47 ack maryann 21:19:52 maryann: could we define it more clearly here? 21:20:00 dorchard has joined #ws-policy 21:20:24 ack Fred 21:20:27 maryann: the words you said are not in this spec 21:21:00 fred: it seems that what's being said is that policyReference is a first class 21:21:37 fred: in section 3 of framework we could have a section between 3.2 and 3.3 that talks about policyReference 21:21:48 fred: explains how it's used 21:21:55 fred: other documents would refer to it 21:22:12 asir: section 3 is about data model. no reference at this level 21:22:23 fred: maybe should be between sec 3 and 4 21:22:43 fred: where would i put it in the table of contents? 21:24:17 paul: at the heart of the proposal and request is to pull the text and make it standalone 21:24:25 paul: so both specs can refer to it 21:25:24 paul: i agree it belongs in section 4, not 3 21:25:52 paul: need a proposal to take it out, and add a statement that mentions that the semantics are defined elsewhere, and refer to it 21:26:52 ACTION: asir to provide a proposal for 3712 21:26:53 Created ACTION-114 - Provide a proposal for 3712 [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2006-09-21]. 21:27:59 TOPIC: Issues 3719/3722 21:28:17 Duplicates (committed twice?) 21:28:44 rrsagent, where am I? 21:28:44 See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T21-28-44 21:29:25 RESOLUTION: duplicate of 3719 21:29:46 TOPIC: 3719 21:30:23 s/duplicate of/3722 is duplicate of/ 21:30:38 paul: he's asking for more levels of indirection 21:30:57 paul: e.g. policy reference to uddi entry which points to another policy 21:31:07 does the current spec restrict you? 21:32:54 the current specs combined (framework and attachment) provide for that requirement 21:33:48 ACTION: Dan to respond back explaining the description we just had, and asking whether that satisfies the requirement 21:33:48 Sorry, couldn't find user - Dan 21:34:16 zakim, dan is danroth 21:34:16 sorry, toufic, I do not recognize a party named 'dan' 21:34:25 zakim, danroth is dan 21:34:25 sorry, toufic, I do not recognize a party named 'danroth' 21:35:38 I'm here 21:36:12 ACTION: ACTION: danroth to respond back explaining the description we just had, and asking whether that satisfies the requirement 21:36:12 Sorry, couldn't find user - ACTION: 21:36:25 ACTION: danroth to respond back explaining the description we just had, and asking whether that satisfies the requirement 21:36:25 Sorry, couldn't find user - danroth 21:37:08 zakim, bye 21:37:08 leaving. As of this point the attendees were F2F, Fabian, Dave_Orchard, bijan, Jong_Lee, Charlton_Barreto, DOrchard 21:37:08 Zakim has left #ws-policy 21:37:22 rrsagent, draft minutes 21:37:22 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-minutes.html toufic 21:37:37 rrsagent, bye 21:37:37 I see 9 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-actions.rdf : 21:37:37 ACTION: maryann, ashok, yakov to respond with alternative text [1] 21:37:37 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T17-17-19 21:37:37 ACTION: prasad to review next editors draft to see if there are any security considerations from framework doc that apply to attachment doc [2] 21:37:37 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T17-36-54 21:37:37 ACTION: ashok to ask question/raise issue about what WG wants to do about attachments for WSDL 2.0 [3] 21:37:37 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T18-58-11 21:37:37 ACTION: paul to send an email to the chair of SAWSDL WG informing of the proposal adopted today [4] 21:37:37 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T19-02-05 21:37:37 ACTION: glen to draft a response to the WS-A WG, and keep it on member list [5] 21:37:37 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T19-33-14 21:37:37 ACTION: asir to provide a proposal for 3712 [6] 21:37:37 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T21-26-52 21:37:37 ACTION: Dan to respond back explaining the description we just had, and asking whether that satisfies the requirement [7] 21:37:37 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T21-33-48 21:37:37 ACTION: ACTION: danroth to respond back explaining the description we just had, and asking whether that satisfies the requirement [8] 21:37:37 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T21-36-12 21:37:37 ACTION: danroth to respond back explaining the description we just had, and asking whether that satisfies the requirement [9] 21:37:37 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-irc#T21-36-25 21:37:45 rrsagent, please set these logs world-visible