IRC log of ws-addr on 2006-09-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:58:56 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:58:56 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:59:10 [TonyR]
zakim, this is addr
19:59:10 [Zakim]
ok, TonyR; that matches WS_AddrWG()4:00PM
19:59:15 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.851.aaaa
19:59:22 [TonyR]
zakim, who is on the phone?
19:59:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P0, +1.919.851.aaaa
19:59:28 [TonyR]
zakim, ?? is me
19:59:28 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
19:59:42 [Dug]
zakim, P0 is me
19:59:42 [Zakim]
sorry, Dug, I do not recognize a party named 'P0'
19:59:52 [Dug]
zakim, ??P0 is me
19:59:52 [Zakim]
I already had ??P0 as TonyR, Dug
20:00:05 [Zakim]
20:00:08 [Dug]
really, 919,851....?
20:00:25 [Dug]
20:00:34 [prasad]
prasad has joined #ws-Addr
20:00:37 [Dug]
zakim, 919 is me
20:00:37 [Zakim]
sorry, Dug, I do not recognize a party named '919'
20:00:45 [Dug]
so what's the right command? :-)
20:00:54 [bob]
meeting: Web Services Addresssing WG Teleconference
20:00:57 [TonyR]
zakim, +1.919 is dug
20:00:57 [Zakim]
+dug; got it
20:01:02 [PaulKnight]
PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
20:01:03 [bob]
chair: Bob Freund
20:01:06 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:01:09 [Dug]
ah, thanks
20:01:19 [Zakim]
20:01:24 [plh]
plh has joined #ws-addr
20:01:39 [Zakim]
20:01:50 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
20:02:00 [Zakim]
20:02:21 [Zakim]
20:02:28 [Zakim]
20:02:49 [Zakim]
20:03:28 [Zakim]
20:03:37 [bob]
20:03:42 [Zakim]
20:03:44 [Zakim]
20:03:49 [TRutt_]
TRutt_ has joined #ws-addr
20:04:24 [Zakim]
20:04:49 [Zakim]
20:05:05 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
20:05:43 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
20:05:54 [Jonathan]
Jonathan has joined #ws-addr
20:06:25 [Dug]
tony - the entire issue around ref-p's is a long an complicated one :-)
20:07:55 [Dug]
But for cr33 I'm hoping that people see that its not an RM issue but a WSA one so we shouldn't spend time talking about whether RM should have used ref-p's or a new anon URI.
20:08:31 [bob]
scribe: anish
20:09:06 [anish]
Topic: minutes of the last meeting
20:09:25 [anish]
minutes are accepted
20:09:33 [anish]
Topic: CR33
20:10:02 [anish]
Bob: katy sent a proposal: do we need to say anything about anon in wsdl at all
20:10:25 [anish]
... had a coordinating chat with wsrx chairs
20:11:01 [anish]
... had a previous discussion with philippe and others to have a larger joint meeting with wsrm WG
20:11:19 [anish]
... previous strawpoll on this was split
20:11:47 [Zakim]
20:11:58 [anish]
... the next wsrx meeting is coming thursday and the chairs are willing to table any comment make by us
20:12:07 [anish]
20:12:32 [Zakim]
20:12:52 [anish]
Bob: the wsrx chairs felt that either this WG or a member of the WG should make a comment to the wsrx WG on CR33
20:13:07 [anish]
... when this is done they will raise that in the WG
20:13:25 [anish]
... they will also talk to OASIS regarding IP concerns
20:13:40 [anish]
Philippe: we don't have any IP concerns at this point
20:13:53 [anish]
Bob: so it is up to them to get clearance from Jamie
20:14:34 [anish]
JM: and this issue would be generic at this point, like your facility does not compose with our facility?
20:15:01 [mlittle]
mlittle has joined #ws-addr
20:15:16 [anish]
Bob: yes, or if we come to a resolution which results in a conflict then we need to be specific. If our resolution results in no conflict, then we don't have an issue
20:15:33 [anish]
20:15:58 [bob]
ack anish
20:16:22 [Dug]
Bob - I don't think we need a joint meeting since this isn't an RM issue - see previous comment to tony
20:16:58 [anish]
anish: i also sent in a proposal for issue 33
20:17:07 [anish]
bob: lets start with Katy's proposal
20:17:32 [TRutt_]
Anish proposal is at:
20:17:53 [anish]
Paco: we had a discussion about this in IBM. Katy & Umit worked hard in Japan on this. The motivation/attitute was that the anony stuff we don't understand but will help legacy apps
20:18:14 [bob]
regrets+ katy
20:18:15 [anish]
... we are seeing that as specs become more specific, this marker is naively constraining
20:18:32 [anish]
... the fact that there is only one and only one uri for anon isn't true.
20:18:35 [anish]
20:18:53 [anish]
... we thought it was right to ack that and withdraw the bit
20:19:17 [bob]
regrets+ david_illsley
20:19:22 [anish]
... and wait and rely on specifications like policy to fine tuning the back-channel aspect
20:19:53 [anish]
... the proposal is to remove the wsaw:Anonymous tag and indicate support or no support at runtime
20:20:03 [bob]
ack anish
20:20:39 [Paco]
20:20:56 [bob]
anish: Motivation in Tokyo was not due to legacy app considerations
20:21:35 [bob]
... I would like to staticly assert use or non-use of anon
20:22:07 [GlenD]
GlenD has joined #ws-addr
20:22:13 [GlenD]
+1 to Anish
20:22:28 [bob]
... ... I am opposed to removing this marker unless some other feature provides this facility
20:22:38 [dhull]
20:22:39 [GlenD]
also +1 that a Policy assertion, if any, would be in the purview of this group, not WSP
20:22:44 [mlittle]
20:22:44 [Jonathan]
by synchronous, you mean http response channel?
20:22:53 [bob]
... it is not the perview of policy. THIS group[ has the domain knowledge
20:23:13 [TRutt_]
20:23:15 [GlenD]
20:23:16 [prasad]
Can the server that does not support Anon (async response) return a Fault on the back channel that comunicates that?
20:23:17 [bob]
20:23:21 [dhull]
we want to cover a couple of important cases with special markers, but policy is needed for the full answer, so we can't get in the way. Does status quo in fact get in the way?
20:23:28 [anish]
paco: u don't want to model that at the binding level but at the abstract level
20:23:30 [bob]
ack paco
20:23:44 [anish]
... u want to model this at two separate interactions
20:24:01 [GlenD]
Different connection != long running, in general
20:24:19 [Jonathan]
+1to paco
20:24:22 [anish]
... my view is that it is wrong to solve this problem this way
20:24:25 [dhull]
right. Long-running at least mostly implies separate connection, but not vice versa
20:24:28 [bob]
ack TR
20:24:29 [GlenD]
And there are plenty of good reasons to do multi-channel async interactions that aren't long running
20:24:43 [anish]
tom: in agreement with anish
20:24:44 [GlenD]
(cellphones, etc)
20:25:02 [bob]
ack glend
20:25:22 [dhull]
20:25:22 [anish]
glen: i'm also with anish on this, it is fairly important to do that. It may be possible to not have a fault
20:25:46 [anish]
... the interesting case is that there is a fairly imporatnt implementation WCE: duplex channel
20:26:00 [Jonathan]
20:26:05 [anish]
... if there is a duplex channel that handle non-anon uri it would be pretty handy to have this
20:26:11 [bob]
ack dhull
20:26:20 [anish]
daveh: we got here 'cause of doug's analysis
20:27:15 [pauld]
full-duplex and half-duplex? having phone coupler flash-backs
20:27:29 [anish]
... i'm sympathetic to keeping the work, otoh, we have sidestepped the issue with what address i can send you (email, jabber etc)
20:27:34 [Paco]
20:27:45 [anish]
... we should not preclude anything
20:28:14 [bob]
ack jona
20:28:15 [anish]
... we may be good just with a clarification of what all of this implies
20:28:57 [anish]
jonathan: i wanted to talk about what glen was saying. We provide two different bindings: one corresponds with 'required' and other to 'prohibited'
20:29:25 [anish]
... each binding has markup in the wsdl. the anon marker does not give u any additional info
20:29:33 [anish]
Glen: so the transport value is different?
20:29:35 [bob]
ack paco
20:29:36 [anish]
jonathan: yes
20:30:22 [anish]
Paco: i want to note that when u wnat to indicate async reply, u already know that
20:30:29 [anish]
20:30:36 [anish]
... it doesn't help us
20:30:56 [anish]
... we dont' understand how this is done. The marker is so restricted.
20:31:17 [bob]
ack anish
20:31:19 [anish]
... better to be done as a policy
20:32:40 [bob]
anish: It is a nice interoperable way to indicate to clients their right to use sync/async messaging
20:33:22 [plh]
20:34:20 [bob]
ack plh
20:34:40 [anish]
Philippe: don't understand paco's point
20:34:59 [anish]
... don't see how this would work with in-only and out-only
20:35:12 [anish]
paco: no, two in-only operations
20:35:37 [bob]
My point is that the anon url implys ONLY the implicit use of an underlying protocol's back channel
20:36:16 [anish]
anish: how do u do this without a bpel engine
20:36:19 [plh]
s/in-only and out-only/in-only and out-only, since out-only is being removed from WSDL 2.0/
20:36:38 [anish]
paco: what people do is use partner-links
20:37:00 [anish]
... mixing abstract-level and binding-level
20:37:05 [Jonathan]
20:37:14 [anish]
paco: it is the right solution for some
20:37:22 [anish]
20:37:44 [anish]
glen: different between long-running and async
20:37:50 [anish]
20:37:51 [dhull]
+1 to glen
20:38:12 [anish]
paco: again mixing abstract and bindings
20:38:13 [bob]
ack jona
20:38:29 [dhull]
20:38:40 [bob]
ack anish
20:39:04 [GlenD]
Just because the fallacies of distributed computing exist does NOT mean that it isn't possible to successfully build a worthwhile stack of distributed computing abstractions.
20:39:06 [bob]
anish: How does moving this to policy solve this problem?
20:39:23 [anish]
paco: policy has a composibility framework
20:41:08 [GlenD]
Whether it's policy or WSDL markup really doesn't matter, IMHO. It's metadata which in at least some cases gets checked for compatibility with a communicating peer. C'est ca.
20:41:15 [bob]
anish: policies can conflict as well
20:41:22 [anish]
paco: policy allows separate assertion
20:41:23 [dhull]
"It's all metdata" -GD
20:41:30 [dhull]
20:42:58 [anish]
anish: but the policy assertions will still conflict
20:43:05 [bob]
paco and anish discuss relative merits of solving the problem in policy or WSDL
20:43:13 [bob]
s dhull
20:43:17 [anish]
dhull: don't see the conflict
20:43:34 [bob]
ack dhull
20:43:35 [anish]
20:43:50 [anish]
... if rm is enabled then u just change the WSDL
20:44:04 [bob]
s/s dhull$//
20:44:08 [Zakim]
20:44:10 [anish]
... i also don't agree with the assertion that the marker is redundunt to the binding
20:44:10 [Dug]
dave - it sounds like "optional" means any non-addressable URI - is this true?
20:44:16 [Dug]
(to you)
20:44:57 [bob]
ack anish
20:45:23 [dhull]
no. It just means that anon is acceptable but not required. If you don't give anon, you have to look elsewhere to find out what you can give.
20:45:42 [dhull]
It means what it says it means: Anon is optional.
20:45:57 [dhull]
At least that's how I read the text.
20:46:07 [bob]
20:46:28 [Dug]
ok - as long as 'optional' can mean anon, any non-addressable URI or - then ok :-)
20:47:12 [Dug]
20:47:20 [dhull]
It's a bit of a technical point. Optional doesn't implicitly prohibit or allow any particular non-anon. It's silent on that.
20:47:28 [pauld]
made this proposal at the 14-Aug telcon, but thought/thinks this is too late given it impacts our core and SOAP recs, no?
20:47:34 [Dug]
so its like not having the marker at all then?
20:47:56 [dhull]
It's sort of an expiclit default, I gues.
20:48:07 [Dug]
20:48:13 [GlenD]
not quite - IIRC it indicates that nothing horrible will happen if you do use anon, but it's not required
20:48:25 [pauld]
and if we have this on-the-wire and WSDL marker and they differ ?
20:48:28 [bob]
Anish: review his proposal located at
20:48:30 [GlenD]
as opposed to no marker, you use anon, and you get silence (no fault, no response)
20:48:41 [bob]
20:48:42 [dhull]
""optional": This value indicates that a response endpoint EPR in a request message MAY contain an anonymous URI as an address."
20:48:47 [Dug]
although, I'm still confused at how a WSA-only client knows that only anon/none is allowed and not
20:48:48 [Jonathan]
20:49:00 [GlenD]
20:49:03 [dhull]
It doesn't. You need more bits for that.
20:49:08 [Dug]
since wsa doesn't define any other marker for the wsa-only to look at to know this
20:49:36 [Dug]
so you want wsa to define another marker?
20:49:44 [dhull]
That's right. That's why I say you need something else (Policy?) to say, e.g., "You can use mailto:" or "You can use*"
20:50:02 [dhull]
No. Not at this point. Might have been nice.
20:50:03 [GlenD]
allowedBindings=... :)
20:50:17 [dhull]
20:50:19 [Dug]
so your proposal is to tweak the wording of "optional" and, at some point, add some other policy marker?
20:50:53 [bob]
ack jona
20:51:02 [dhull]
Yeah. "Tweaking" would be just amplifying the (implicit) disclaimer.
20:51:46 [GlenD]
20:51:54 [GlenD]
this one is still funny no matter how many times I hear it :)
20:52:04 [bob]
20:52:38 [GlenD]
"oh, the old 'why isn't wsa:To an EPR?' joke..."
20:52:54 [dhull]
Stop me if you've heard this one before
20:54:05 [Dug]
LOL trying to imagine an entire spec written like that
20:54:18 [dhull]
No! Stop!
20:54:51 [bob]
ack glend
20:54:52 [anish]
jonathan: what about was:To?
20:55:07 [anish]
anish: not really an issue. it is independent of RM
20:56:33 [anish]
glen: really needs to be in the core
20:57:01 [dhull]
+1 to nice thing to do, but +1 to concerns about intrusiveness
20:58:31 [Jonathan]
20:58:34 [anish]
anish: yes, but don't see this as a fundamental problem
20:58:44 [bob]
ack jona
20:59:28 [anish]
jonathan: it seems like could be stuck in the metadata section
20:59:58 [anish]
... if u imagine that this could go in a metadata, it is an epr extension and not an address extension
21:00:13 [anish]
... this would have introduced a fair bit of change in makeconnection thing
21:03:10 [Dug]
21:03:12 [anish]
jonathan: concerned about extended eprs
21:03:18 [anish]
21:03:29 [bob]
ack dug
21:03:48 [anish]
dug: want to see that discussion doesn't go into what rm may or may not do. this is a wsa issue
21:04:11 [anish]
jonathan: i thought we were going to file an issue against wsrm
21:04:20 [anish]
dug: yes, but this is a wsa issue
21:04:33 [anish]
bob: anon is a back channel, not an issue of addressability
21:05:02 [anish]
tony: i disagree
21:05:10 [anish]
... none is used in both things
21:06:01 [bob]
21:07:47 [bob]
+1 Jonathan
21:08:01 [pauld]
+1 to not allowing others to specify URIs 'special' to WS-Addressing
21:08:56 [Dug]
how can we possibly think that no other spec for all eternity would never need to define a new special uri? seems so limiting.
21:09:46 [anish]
more discussion about how wsrm anon and how it would conflict or not with another anon uri
21:10:56 [Zakim]
21:11:11 [anish]
bob: given that this issue was raised by the wsrx team member. The context is wsrm. Is there a way that RM can do what they want to do.
21:11:52 [anish]
... addressing doesn't allow rm to do what they want to do. We could say: here is a way to do it without having a conflict
21:12:12 [anish]
... are there ways to solving the problem without changing the spec
21:12:13 [Dug]
21:12:13 [anish]
21:12:17 [TRutt_]
21:12:31 [bob]
ack ani
21:14:21 [gpilz]
I thought it was this working group that decided that the service provider had no business cracking open an examining refP's ?
21:14:30 [gpilz]
21:14:43 [GlenD]
I believe we are silent on that, Gil.
21:14:49 [anish]
anish: wsrm can use refps, but it goes in identification/comparison issue that no one want to go into
21:15:05 [gpilz]
my mistake then
21:15:07 [GlenD]
we might say it's not a great idea, but it certainly don't say you can't. :)
21:15:19 [dhull]
that's our general approach, no?
21:15:30 [Dug]
that's quite a change for current impls - I doubt most look at anything other than the wsa:To of the outgoing message
21:15:46 [Zakim]
21:16:35 [anish]
bob: they want to send a msg from one pt to another such that the destn can respond on the back channel with content whcih contains a msg selected by something in the request message which in this case is a special version of anon uri template or potentially someother info.
21:16:59 [TRutt_]
q+ again
21:18:01 [anish]
... we said that URIs are the way to identify, but we still have parameters
21:18:10 [anish]
... gets to what is a resources etc
21:18:27 [bob]
ack trutt
21:18:35 [Dug]
I'm such a 2nd class citizen :-)
21:18:54 [anish]
tom: this is a difficult issue. the trouble is that everyone has a different view. My interpretation is that refps is for higher layer
21:19:12 [anish]
... but everyone thinks of layering in a different way
21:19:27 [anish]
21:19:34 [gpilz]
I don't think of WS-Addressing as a "layer" at all; more like a utility library
21:19:44 [anish]
+1 to gil
21:20:00 [anish]
tom: anybody here can speak to what wsrx committee can agree to
21:20:12 [bob]
ack dug
21:21:03 [anish]
Dug: wrt whether we can do what rm needs to do, I don't know. If u want to push back on rx and say rework your proposal, that would be ok. But all the questions about refps have to be addressed
21:21:15 [anish]
... identification, opacity, change in processing model for the server
21:21:20 [bob]
ack again
21:21:45 [gpilz]
21:21:46 [anish]
... it is a radical change and RM did want to limit changes
21:22:01 [anish]
... check for special uri is not a big deal but looking for refps is
21:22:20 [anish]
... another problem is that wsa 'anon' uri is for a particular back channel
21:22:24 [TRutt_]
s/tom: anybody/tom: nobody/
21:22:30 [anish]
... wsrm 'anon' is any back channel
21:23:05 [anish]
... some people think of wsa as a layer some think of it as a utility library
21:23:18 [dhull]
21:23:31 [dhull]
21:23:33 [pauld]
actually I think WS-A should have been burnt into SOAP
21:23:45 [dhull]
+1 to answering the questions concretely
21:23:45 [Jonathan]
"layers" are an abstraction allowing a variety of implementation strategies. Breaking "layers" usually prevents some implementation strategies.
21:23:56 [anish]
bob: i intention was to provide a guideline for a solution
21:23:57 [bob]
21:24:00 [anish]
21:24:40 [bob]
ack anish
21:25:38 [anish]
anish: don't view wsa as a separate layer, but more as a utility api
21:26:24 [bob]
ack gpil
21:26:34 [Dug]
I still think even if RM changes this just postpones the issue since I think some other spec, at some point, may need to define some new special URI and they're in trouble.
21:27:02 [anish]
gil: A lot of overlap between wsa and wsrm
21:27:24 [anish]
... wsa concerns were the top motivator for the existing solution
21:27:49 [anish]
... chrisf was adamant on not requiring change to wsa implementation (wrt refps)
21:27:53 [anish]
... so was daveo
21:28:23 [Dug]
proposal: change MUST to SHOULD
21:28:37 [TRutt_]
21:28:52 [TonyR]
21:29:00 [anish]
bob: so u are positing that wsrx read wsa specification and consult common members and decided to write a spec that violate ws-addressing
21:29:15 [anish]
gil: this was the least violation of wsa construct
21:29:17 [anish]
21:29:17 [Dug]
violate is a bit strong :-)
21:29:31 [anish]
... other violation were worse
21:29:46 [TRutt_]
21:29:56 [dhull]
can we at least agree on whether there /was/ a violation
21:30:03 [anish]
glen: what was the violation?
21:30:10 [anish]
bob: they use a different URI for anon
21:30:14 [anish]
glen: which we allow
21:30:18 [Dug]
but WSA defines URI with behavior??? why can't others?
21:30:25 [anish]
bob: jonathan now thinks that this was a mistake
21:30:56 [anish]
tom: wsrm spec has two major uses for the new anon with makeconnection
21:31:00 [anish]
... one is replyTo use
21:31:03 [bob]
ack trutt
21:31:15 [anish]
... their use of this for ackTo has no concern to ws-addr
21:31:55 [bob]
ack tonyr
21:32:32 [Dug]
21:32:33 [bob]
ack anish
21:32:33 [anish]
tony: the idea about layering -- it is like RM is trying to write the layering to fit it's stuff in. Some way if we could separate the layer, i would be more interested in that.
21:34:39 [bob]
ack dug
21:34:55 [anish]
anish: not a violation but a need to work more closely
21:35:12 [anish]
dug: change 'MUST' to 'SHOULD' was also another proposal makde
21:35:17 [anish]
21:36:24 [Dug]
21:37:10 [anish]
bob: do folks feel comfortable with an issue to be raised with wsrm WG
21:37:49 [TRutt_]
21:37:55 [anish]
... like we think u should use refp
21:37:57 [anish]
21:38:18 [bob]
ack tru
21:38:32 [anish]
tom: and clarify about replyTo
21:38:42 [bob]
ack ani
21:38:51 [Zakim]
21:38:55 [Zakim]
21:39:47 [Dug]
21:39:52 [anish]
jonathan: another way is to use wsa:From header
21:40:03 [Dug]
21:40:43 [anish]
paco: there is no evidence that we are converging on a solution that will move us from the status quo
21:40:47 [Dug]
how can RM come to a conclusion if WSA can't?
21:40:50 [TRutt_]
21:41:04 [bob]
ack tru
21:41:10 [anish]
tom: this mechanism does not have a problem with acks to
21:41:37 [anish]
... i don't think we should speak to what they would agree to
21:41:46 [Dug]
21:42:02 [Dug]
well, they did already
21:42:18 [anish]
21:42:18 [Dug]
21:42:43 [anish]
bob: personally our response should be narrowly constrained to the request made to us
21:43:06 [bob]
ack anish
21:43:27 [anish]
anish: would like to know how folks feel about my proposal
21:43:48 [anish]
paco: don't dislike it, but concerned about going back to core
21:44:10 [anish]
jonathan: not clear to me either
21:44:48 [anish]
bob: more discussion on the proposal is needed, but thinking about our response to wsrm WG
21:44:57 [anish]
... we can continue headbanging
21:45:06 [gpilz]
everyone seems worried about sending core back to last call or some such; what about an errata?
21:45:22 [anish]
gil -- i don't think core is affected at all
21:45:43 [anish]
bob: i would like to send a response to wsrx
21:45:47 [bob]
ack dug
21:46:14 [anish]
dug: in the response back to me or wsrm about having to rethink it. we would need more information
21:46:47 [TRutt_]
The problem seems to be the use of wsrm:anonWithPolling with ReplyTo has implications on the definiton of anonymous marker in using addressing
21:46:57 [anish]
bob: i'm of the opinion that the TAG issue were relevant in W3C, but not necessarily have to go over other WGs.
21:46:58 [anish]
21:46:59 [anish]
21:47:13 [TRutt_]
21:47:24 [anish]
dug: if that is what the WG feels then i would like to see such a note to ignore the TAG
21:47:51 [bob]
ack ani
21:51:21 [TRutt_]
The ws-rx group has a mechanism which is optimized for use in wsrm:acksTo. The key point of this new issue is that its use for ReplyTo has implications on the wsa:wsdlbinding's definition of the anonymous tag of the usingAddressing wsdl marker. relay the original issue cr33 from Dug back to them
21:51:22 [Dug]
21:51:41 [Dug]
21:51:47 [bob]
ack tru
21:51:48 [anish]
anish: will take an action to send an email exploring the core issue
21:52:06 [Dug]
tom - MakeConnection was not written for acksTo !!!!
21:52:08 [Zakim]
21:52:29 [Dug]
21:52:36 [anish]
tom: relaying the original issue from dug back to them would be the best way to go procedurely
21:53:27 [anish]
bob: yes, we could say that things don't quite work right
21:54:02 [anish]
bob: i agree that tom's way is a good way to move forward
21:54:21 [Dug]
21:54:56 [anish]
... are folks willing to allow me to open an issue on wsrx with the meat of Dug's issue to us -- i.e., u r right, it is broken
21:55:50 [pauld]
thrust of issue should be, if you mint your own magic URIs then it's broken
21:55:53 [anish]
ACTION: bob to send an email to WSRX that this is an issue
21:56:08 [gpilz]
can we get big L's tatooed on our foreheads at the same time?
21:56:44 [anish]
Jonathan: come up with a couple of nits
21:56:58 [anish]
... editorial issues, rx issues
21:57:14 [anish]
bob: will look at them
21:58:10 [Zakim]
21:58:44 [anish]
Jonathan: prefer that we send the comments as ws-addr
21:58:49 [anish]
bob: do i have your consent?
21:58:52 [anish]
no objections
21:59:05 [anish]
meeting adjurned
21:59:09 [Zakim]
21:59:11 [Zakim]
21:59:11 [Zakim]
21:59:13 [Zakim]
21:59:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate plh
21:59:17 [Zakim]
21:59:18 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
21:59:19 [Zakim]
21:59:19 [Zakim]
21:59:21 [Zakim]
21:59:22 [Zakim]
21:59:22 [Zakim]
21:59:24 [Zakim]
21:59:25 [Zakim]
21:59:25 [plh]
zakim, bye
21:59:25 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were +1.919.851.aaaa, TonyR, Bob_Freund, dug, Prasad_Yendluri, Plh, Tom_Rutt, Paul_Knight, Marc_Hadley, Anish_Karmarkar, Paul_Downey,
21:59:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-addr
21:59:29 [Zakim]
... David_Hull, Gilbert_Pilz, Jonathan_Marsh, [IBM], GlenD, Mark_Little
21:59:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate plh
22:00:14 [bob]
no worries, anish. I have even tried to scribe while more than half blind
22:00:23 [bob]
thanks for scribing, I appreciate it
22:00:34 [anish]
np, am sick as a dog today
22:01:25 [plh]
Present: TonyR, Bob_Freund, Doug, Prasad_Yendluri, Philippe, Tom_Rutt, Paul_Knight, Marc_Hadley, Anish_Karmarkar, Paul_Downey, David_Hull, Gilbert_Pilz, Jonathan_Marsh, Paco, GlenD, Mark_Little
22:01:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate plh
22:04:14 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr
22:07:10 [plh]
hum, someone should teach Doug to use /me to make comments off minutes
22:55:49 [TRutt__]
TRutt__ has joined #ws-addr
23:14:04 [TRutt__]
TRutt__ has left #ws-addr