IRC log of ws-addr on 2006-09-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:48:14 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:48:14 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:48:29 [bob]
zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
19:48:29 [Zakim]
ok, bob; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
19:48:54 [bob]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference
19:49:03 [bob]
Chair: Bob Freund
19:49:50 [bob]
19:52:20 [bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
19:53:14 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
19:53:52 [Jonathan]
Jonathan has joined #ws-addr
19:56:09 [bob]
regrets+ katy
19:57:49 [plh]
plh has joined #ws-addr
19:58:38 [pauld]
pauld has joined #ws-addr
19:58:51 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
19:58:57 [Zakim]
19:59:08 [plh]
tel:+1.617.258.0992 (Office)
19:59:10 [plh]
19:59:14 [Zakim]
19:59:31 [Zakim]
19:59:49 [plh]
zakim, ipcaller is David
19:59:49 [Zakim]
+David; got it
19:59:58 [Zakim]
20:00:01 [David_Illsley]
zakim, mute me
20:00:01 [Zakim]
sorry, David_Illsley, I do not see a party named 'David_Illsley'
20:00:17 [David_Illsley]
zakim, mute David
20:00:17 [Zakim]
David should now be muted
20:00:23 [PaulKnight]
PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
20:00:35 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
20:00:37 [Zakim]
20:00:47 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
20:01:41 [David_Illsley]
zakim, David is really me
20:01:41 [Zakim]
+David_Illsley; got it
20:01:47 [prasad]
prasad has joined #ws-addr
20:01:54 [Zakim]
20:02:00 [Zakim]
+ +1.503.228.aaaa
20:02:05 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:02:18 [Zakim]
20:02:20 [prasad]
zakim, ??P12 is prasad
20:02:20 [Zakim]
+prasad; got it
20:02:25 [bob]
zakim ??P9 is yenling
20:02:26 [Zakim]
20:02:35 [Zakim]
20:02:39 [Zakim]
20:02:42 [pauld]
zakim, aaaa is Anish
20:02:42 [Zakim]
sorry, pauld, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
20:03:04 [pauld]
zakim, .aaaa is Anish
20:03:04 [Zakim]
sorry, pauld, I do not recognize a party named '.aaaa'
20:03:29 [bob]
zakim, whi is on the phone
20:03:29 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'whi is on the phone', bob
20:03:43 [Zakim]
20:03:53 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p0 is me
20:03:54 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
20:04:10 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p9 is yinleng
20:04:10 [Zakim]
+yinleng; got it
20:04:24 [Zakim]
20:05:07 [David_Illsley]
zakim, unmute me
20:05:07 [Zakim]
David_Illsley should no longer be muted
20:05:23 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-addr
20:05:30 [Zakim]
20:05:35 [Zakim]
20:05:44 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
20:05:56 [plh]
zakim, ibm holds Paco
20:05:56 [Zakim]
+Paco; got it
20:06:54 [Jonathan]
Scribe: Jonathan
20:07:02 [Zakim]
20:07:04 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
20:07:20 [GlenD]
GlenD has joined #ws-addr
20:07:31 [Jonathan]
Topic: Agenda Review
20:07:37 [Jonathan]
Meeting: WS-Addressing WG telcon
20:07:39 [Jonathan]
Chair: Bob
20:07:44 [Jonathan]
Agenda accepted
20:07:57 [Jonathan]
Topic: Approval of minutes
20:08:06 [dhull]
minutes look OK
20:08:16 [Jonathan]
Minutes accepted as mailed
20:08:51 [Jonathan]
Bob: Goal to reach conclusion on CR33, which is blocking CR31, which is blocking ending CR.
20:09:03 [Jonathan]
... Been working this for a couple of months, we need to conclude.
20:09:09 [Jonathan]
Topic: Action Items:
20:09:31 [Jonathan]
2006-08-21: cr31 - Tony Rogers to implement CHANGE 1&2 to the table in preparation for CR-31 PENDING
20:09:52 [Jonathan]
... will be done later today
20:10:18 [Jonathan]
Topic: Coordination and New Issues
20:10:49 [Jonathan]
Bob: Policy is requesting a non-normative referenec to WS-Policy.
20:11:00 [Jonathan]
Proposal: "The wsaw:UsingAddressing element MAY also be used in other contexts (e.g., as a policy assertion in a policy framework <such as WS-Policy [REF]>)."
20:11:00 [Jonathan]
20:11:25 [Jonathan]
Philippe: Request didn't go to publich list... link here:
20:11:39 [Jonathan]
20:11:41 [plh]
20:12:12 [Jonathan]
Bob: Controversial?
20:12:23 [Jonathan]
Tony: That's what we were suggesting as well...
20:12:39 [Jonathan]
Bob: No objections heard to adding this as a new issue, closing it by accepting the proposal.
20:12:56 [Jonathan]
Topic: CR033
20:13:15 [Jonathan]
Bob: Proposal 4 was posted last week by Anish, but we didn't have time to go over.
20:13:54 [Jonathan]
Anish: Background: we have the wsaw:Anonymous marker, restricting values of FaultTo and ReplyTo, which we've modified to accomodate "none".
20:14:06 [bob]
zakim, who is making noise
20:14:06 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is making noise', bob
20:14:23 [dorchard]
zakim, mute me
20:14:23 [Zakim]
DOrchard should now be muted
20:14:32 [dorchard]
zakim, who's speaking?
20:14:38 [David_Illsley]
zakim, mute me
20:14:39 [Zakim]
David_Illsley should now be muted
20:14:44 [Zakim]
dorchard, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: anish (81%), GlenD (9%)
20:14:47 [Jonathan]
... WS-RX came up with an anonymous template, with slightly different semantics. It says "the current backchannel that has the same uuid as the current makeconnection."
20:15:00 [dorchard]
zakim, mute GlenD
20:15:00 [Zakim]
GlenD should now be muted
20:15:13 [Jonathan]
... This isn't composible with wsaw:Anonymous.
20:15:34 [Jonathan]
... We need instead to talk about addressable endpoints rather than equivalent to our anonymous URI.
20:15:51 [Jonathan]
... Some folks asked for something runtime verifiable.
20:17:05 [Jonathan]
... The wsaw:isAnon flag in the message allows the service to verify that the non-Anon URI still should go on the backchannel.
20:17:28 [bob]
20:17:28 [Jonathan]
... Proposal here:
20:18:01 [Jonathan]
... Under "required" and "prohibited", the address has to be anon, none, or marked isAnon="true".
20:18:39 [Jonathan]
... Other specs could use this to define variants of anon or none.
20:18:59 [dhull]
20:19:42 [bob]
ack dhull
20:20:12 [Jonathan]
David: In allowing none with anon, how did we deal with HTTP response?
20:20:28 [Jonathan]
... HTTP users will no be able to handle none.
20:22:20 [Jonathan]
... To the issue, the changes are interesting, signalling anonymity by something other than through a URI.
20:22:36 [Jonathan]
... Our core is extensible.
20:22:48 [Jonathan]
... Seems to obviate the need for the anon URI.,
20:23:41 [Jonathan]
... Have we thought through how the two work together, and how disruptive it is to what we have,
20:23:48 [anish]
20:23:48 [dorchard]
q+ to ask about putting in the core
20:24:06 [bob]
ack anish
20:24:44 [Jonathan]
Anish: I think it's fairly limited. If this is marked in the WSDL, when you send a request, your FaultTo or ReplyTo can be any URI.
20:24:49 [Jonathan]
20:25:14 [Jonathan]
Anish: If the client doesn't understand it, it simply won't put it in...
20:25:31 [bob]
ack dorch
20:25:32 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to ask about putting in the core
20:25:45 [Jonathan]
DaveO: What about putting it in core?
20:25:45 [Paco]
20:26:13 [Jonathan]
... saw Jonathan's note, agreed putting wsdl-markers into runtime stuff seems suspect.
20:26:32 [Jonathan]
... sent recent mail about putting it into the core (straw man). I'll make the argument it's not an incompatible change.
20:26:49 [Jonathan]
... We could put this in the Core namespace, and look at sending/receiving behaviors.
20:27:03 [Jonathan]
... We can see how forward/backward compatible it is.
20:27:15 [Jonathan]
... I squinted and think it might be a compatible change.
20:27:31 [bob]
20:27:47 [Jonathan]
... If someone comes along and says it's a non-compatible change to the core, then it's hard to want to do as an extension.
20:27:52 [dhull]
+1 in that the document doesn't matter
20:28:22 [Jonathan]
... In a sense this is adding a kind of typing behavior. We only provide a URI there, but we don't have a model for filling in your own values.
20:28:44 [Jonathan]
... Adding run-time typing might be an important change to do.
20:28:50 [dorchard]
zakim, mute me
20:28:50 [Zakim]
DOrchard should now be muted
20:29:00 [bob]
ack jona
20:29:53 [Jonathan]
Jonathan: Marker might mean: ignore any validation you might do based on wsaw:Anonymous="required".
20:30:45 [Jonathan]
Anish: no, that means in the ReplyTo and FaultTo must either be wsa anonymous, none, or any other URI.
20:30:57 [TonyR]
20:31:23 [Jonathan]
Jonathan: what's the difference?
20:31:52 [dorchard]
Jonathan's point about "ignoring validation" is somewhat true, the marker does say "ignore the value".
20:32:07 [Jonathan]
Anish: I don't ignore it, I include the recognition of wsaw:isAnon.
20:32:18 [dorchard]
Jonathan: There is no restriction on the value if the anon attrib is set.
20:32:59 [gpilz]
20:33:02 [dorchard]
Jonathan: When WS-A processor sees this, then it ignores the value, therefore it's core
20:33:20 [dorchard]
jonathan: there are 2 different ways of looking at this
20:33:25 [dhull]
so if the server sees isanon=true, then it basically pretends the [address] was anon?
20:33:41 [Jonathan]
Jonathan: Thinks there are two ways to look at this proposal.
20:33:43 [dorchard]
jonathan: 1 way is that the wsdl is overridden, the other is overridiing core validation.
20:33:46 [bob]
ack paco
20:33:59 [gpilz]
20:34:19 [Jonathan]
Paco: Is the intent that when you've got the flag, you can put any URI, or one that represents the backchannel?
20:34:50 [dhull]
20:35:14 [Jonathan]
Anish: As far as this marker goes, and as far as WSDL validation goes, then it follows the rules for the marker. You still need to process the special URI.
20:35:31 [Jonathan]
Paco: What if I give you an addressable URI with wsaw:isAnon="true"?
20:35:57 [Jonathan]
Anish: wsaw:Anonymous="required" means the response will always be on the backchannel.
20:36:21 [Jonathan]
... The specific URI in the EPR may have a specific meaning.
20:36:30 [Jonathan]
Paco: That meaning has to be compatible with the backchannel behavior?
20:36:43 [Jonathan]
... My question is about the backward compatibility issue:
20:36:49 [dorchard]
zakim, unmute me
20:36:49 [Zakim]
DOrchard should no longer be muted
20:37:11 [Jonathan]
... A client sends this marker to an old endpoint. Maybe the old endpoint doesn't understand the marker, it will choke because it doesn't understand the URI.
20:37:19 [Jonathan]
... But the WS-A processor will still choke.
20:37:43 [Jonathan]
DaveO: If WS-A processing is done first, it will choke. A layer before addressing might be able to handle it.
20:38:48 [Jonathan]
Paco: Suppose you have WS-A deployed, and we have RM deployed (assume somebody uses special backchannel). Now we publish this spec with the new flag, everyone crashes
20:38:49 [gpilz]
20:39:02 [Jonathan]
(not sure I got that whole thing).
20:39:08 [Jonathan]
DaveO: Not backward compatible?
20:39:15 [Jonathan]
Paco: Not convinced it won't break existing endpoints.
20:39:38 [Jonathan]
... A client sends to a previously deployed endpoint. The endpoint breaks.
20:40:09 [Jonathan]
Gil: You're presuming that you can already use the WS-RM URI. But that's why we have this issue in the first place.
20:40:33 [Jonathan]
Paco: Concerned about pushing something to the runtime something we should do in the WSDL.
20:40:59 [Jonathan]
... I think we're too tight in assuming who will manage connections.
20:41:18 [Jonathan]
Anish: Seem to be pointing to the previous proposal.
20:41:35 [Jonathan]
Paco: Yes, sorry to go back there. We should have a better marker than a runtime artifact.
20:42:06 [Jonathan]
DaveO: Do you see any way we can support WS-RM's anonymous with wsaw:Anonymous?
20:42:28 [Jonathan]
... Any change to RM that isn't also incompatible with WS-Addressing?
20:42:52 [Jonathan]
Paco: You put it well - we're assuming to much about how much validation we do.
20:42:58 [anish]
btw, paco, i would be ok with the previous proposal (or some version of it)
20:43:12 [Jonathan]
DaveO: Even changing the marker is not compatible.
20:43:20 [Jonathan]
Paco: Marker isn't done yet. We can change that.
20:43:40 [dorchard]
20:43:41 [anish]
20:43:42 [Jonathan]
... Sympathetic to the problem, but don't like this solution for the backward compatibility reasons.
20:43:55 [gpilz]
20:43:58 [bob]
ack tonyr
20:44:10 [dorchard]
zakim, mute me
20:44:10 [Zakim]
DOrchard should now be muted
20:44:31 [Jonathan]
Tony: Jonathan recorded Anish as saying that anonymous=required means anon, none, or any other uri, but should say any other uri with anon=true.
20:45:21 [Jonathan]
... Thinks Jonathan misminuted it.
20:47:22 [Jonathan]
Jonathan: Trying to tease out what "any other uri" means.
20:47:24 [GlenD]
Tony was exactly right - when isAnon="true" that means "do NOT interpret this URI in the naive way (by just trying to send to it) - something special is going on"
20:47:45 [bob]
20:47:51 [bob]
ack dhull
20:47:52 [Jonathan]
Tony: You need something to process that special URI.
20:49:11 [Jonathan]
DaveH: Only difference between an EPR with an addressable value, and the same EPR with isAnon="true" is...
20:49:38 [Jonathan]
scratch above line.
20:50:05 [Jonathan]
DaveH: What's the difference to an anon-like address and an anon-like address marked as isAnon?
20:50:20 [Jonathan]
Tony: Should be no difference on the wire.
20:50:27 [gpilz]
20:50:33 [Jonathan]
DaveH: We're just spelling anonymous differently.
20:50:43 [bob]
ack anish
20:50:49 [Paco]
20:51:09 [Jonathan]
Anish: We want to see WS-A and WS-RM composable. We aren't right now.
20:51:43 [Jonathan]
... I don't want to make it hard to turn on RM on an endpoint that only operates on the backchannel - without removing things from the WSDL.
20:52:01 [Jonathan]
... Several ways to solve this problem.
20:52:21 [Jonathan]
... We can ask WS-RM to redesign, which they already rejected.
20:53:12 [Jonathan]
... They sent one proposal to loosen the tightness between the marker and WS-A anon.
20:53:28 [Jonathan]
... I wrote up the isAnon marker proposal.
20:53:43 [Jonathan]
... I don't want to see that these two spescs aren't compatible. Worst solution possible.
20:54:14 [Jonathan]
... Second edition of Core, kicking back to WS-RM, etc. anything is better.
20:54:25 [bob]
ack gpil
20:54:47 [Jonathan]
Gil: Wanted to answer DaveH, what's the difference when you add isAnon=true. Trying to communicate it one more time.
20:55:17 [Jonathan]
... Imagine you have a service that needs to be reliable. Need to retry responses when it determines it must.
20:55:34 [Jonathan]
... Now imagine Alice and Bob connecting to the service. Neither supports a listener.
20:56:07 [Jonathan]
... From the service's perspective, if it needs to resend a response back to Alice, it can't disambiguate between Alice and Bob.
20:56:33 [Jonathan]
... Both are addressed using the anonymous URI. It's got no information to correlate the replies.
20:56:54 [Jonathan]
... We've split out the fact of anon meaning use the back channel, leaving the uuid to disambiguate Alice and Bob.
20:57:07 [Jonathan]
DaveH: Gets that, talked about sending a cookie along.
20:57:35 [Jonathan]
Gil: Alice's wire and Bob's wire are different wires.
20:57:45 [Jonathan]
DaveH: You can't disambiguate that from the request.
20:58:00 [Jonathan]
Gil: Might need to create a new sequence, so you need to know who it came from.
20:58:07 [Jonathan]
DaveH: Can't use wsa:From?
20:58:14 [Jonathan]
Gil: At risk?
20:58:36 [Jonathan]
DaveH: Might be a good use for it.
20:58:36 [bob]
ack paco
20:59:20 [Jonathan]
Paco: With the isAnon marker, when I use the wsaw:Anonymous="required", that means the service trusts you to send a URI that encodes "anonymoous".
20:59:44 [Jonathan]
... Key point is that when you use the flag, you trust the client.
20:59:53 [Jonathan]
Tony: That's how I understand it.
21:00:08 [Jonathan]
Paco: You either send the real thing, or we trust you. We give up validation.
21:00:59 [Jonathan]
... if this is fundamentally changing the meaning of the marker. Why don't we make the marker informational: "I always send the response on the backchannel."
21:01:21 [Jonathan]
Anish: I'm fine with proposal 1 which is about asserting what the service can and cannot do.
21:01:42 [Jonathan]
... If the service says it can't do callbacks, it will send a fault.
21:01:58 [Jonathan]
... The complaint was the requirement is too fuzzy. I think that's OK.
21:02:21 [Jonathan]
Paco: Looks like when we put in this marker, and suspend validation.
21:03:44 [Jonathan]
Jonathan: In the absence of WSDL, does isAnon="true" change any behavior?
21:03:56 [Zakim]
21:03:57 [Jonathan]
Tony: Yes, the response will come on the backchannel.
21:04:27 [chad]
chad has joined #ws-addr
21:04:46 [Jonathan]
Anish: Can't say anything about what the behavior might be without WSDL.
21:05:08 [pauld]
can't help thinking this belongs in core
21:05:12 [dhull]
21:05:24 [pauld]
and that ship has sailed, for 1.0 anyway
21:06:09 [pauld]
chad, question: options for cr33, again
21:06:24 [pauld]
chad, option 0: Status Quo
21:06:55 [dhull]
chad, option 1: Status quo, but clarify that "optional" makes no statement about what other addresses will work
21:07:35 [dhull]
chad, option 2: Remove wsaw:anonymous and use Policy
21:07:35 [Jonathan]
Anish: Doesn't change behavior. The client is asserting it's anonymous.
21:07:44 [gpilz]
21:07:53 [gpilz]
21:08:05 [TonyR]
chad option 9: misunderstand the proposal
21:08:14 [marc]
marc has joined #ws-addr
21:08:15 [TonyR]
chad, list options
21:10:13 [Jonathan]
21:11:27 [TonyR]
chad option 4: provide a marker to let a URI slide past the wsaw:Anonymous validation (Anish's proposal of today)
21:12:38 [TonyR]
chad option 5: provide a marker to indicate that a URI requires a response on the backchannel
21:13:02 [pauld]
chad, options?
21:13:56 [dorchard]
q+ to ask about option #4
21:14:20 [dorchard]
zakim, unmute me
21:14:20 [Zakim]
DOrchard should no longer be muted
21:14:23 [TonyR]
chad option 3: Remove wsaw:anonymous and use policy (Katy's proposal)
21:14:54 [Jonathan]
option2: <wsaw:NewConnection> proposal
21:15:01 [Jonathan]
chad, option 2: <wsaw:NewConnection> proposal
21:15:02 [bob]
ack dorch
21:15:02 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to ask about option #4
21:15:38 [Jonathan]
DaveO: If I make up a new URI that means "don't use the backchannel", and I mark it as isAnon="true"
21:15:59 [dhull]
q+ to comment on option 0
21:16:07 [Jonathan]
... that means that if someone has wsaw:Anonymous="required", I will process it.
21:16:23 [Jonathan]
Anish: Yes, but the service will still need to process that URI, if it understands it.
21:16:42 [Jonathan]
DaveO: I'm just going to inject this in there so that WS-A isn't going to fault either.
21:16:47 [gpilz]
21:16:51 [Jonathan]
Anish: Paradox.
21:17:20 [Jonathan]
DaveO: Two levels of validation. WSDL-based, WS-A. We'll hope these aren't incompatible.
21:17:39 [Jonathan]
... Thought the proposal was a bit more strongly-typed. Guess not.
21:17:43 [anish]
21:17:47 [bob]
ack dhull
21:17:47 [Zakim]
dhull, you wanted to comment on option 0
21:17:52 [dorchard]
zakim, mute me
21:17:52 [Zakim]
DOrchard should now be muted
21:18:24 [Jonathan]
DaveH: From what I could tell, some is based on the misconception that wsaw:Anonymous="optional" means any URI will work. It doesn't, just that you can put anon URI there.
21:18:30 [TonyR]
chad, list options
21:18:32 [Jonathan]
... Might want to emphasize that point in the text.
21:18:44 [Jonathan]
... which could be composed with Option 0 - status quo.
21:18:54 [dorchard]
q+ to ask about Paco's "kind of proposal"
21:20:11 [Jonathan]
Option 0.1 Status quo, but clarify that "optional" makes no statement about what other addresses will work
21:20:19 [Jonathan]
Option 2: Change MUST to SHOULD
21:20:26 [marc]
q+ to ask about option 3
21:20:29 [Jonathan]
chad, Option 2: Change MUST to SHOULD
21:20:39 [Jonathan]
chad, Option 0.1 Status quo, but clarify that "optional" makes no statement about what other addresses will work
21:20:49 [anish]
21:20:50 [dorchard]
21:20:58 [Jonathan]
chad, Option 0: Status quo, but (possibly) clarify that "optional" makes no statement about what other addresses will work
21:21:17 [bob]
ack gpilz
21:21:30 [pauld]
chad, say hi
21:21:32 [Jonathan]
Gil: Dug preferred Option 1 so each specification can maintain lists of URIs with anonymous semantics.
21:21:40 [Jonathan]
... right?
21:21:58 [anish]
chad, list options
21:21:59 [bob]
21:22:01 [Jonathan]
Bob: Loosen MUST to SHOULD so that you could rationalize the conflict.
21:22:18 [Jonathan]
Gil: Core already allows other URIs with anonymous semantics, right>?
21:22:22 [Jonathan]
Bob: right.
21:22:24 [bob]
ack anish
21:22:36 [Jonathan]
chad, Option 1: Change MUST to SHOULD
21:22:45 [Jonathan]
chad, option 2: <wsaw:NewConnection> proposal
21:22:46 [TonyR]
chad option 1: change MUST to SHOULD (allows for other specs to define anon URIs)
21:22:48 [Jonathan]
chad, options?
21:23:19 [Jonathan]
Anish: Server needs to understand the URI in the address. If the server doesn't it will barf or make assumptions.
21:23:23 [dorchard]
zakim, unmute me
21:23:23 [Zakim]
DOrchard should no longer be muted
21:23:37 [Jonathan]
... Personally I like (2)...
21:23:43 [bob]
21:24:22 [Jonathan]
Anish: Regardless of whether isAnon is present or not, there is a URI which, if specified ala WS-RM, if the service doesn't understand that URI and know what to do, it will fault or do something strange.
21:24:33 [Jonathan]
... The service still has to understand what that URI means.
21:25:10 [Jonathan]
... I like (2) because it still validates, just says the service can/can't/must use backchannels.
21:25:31 [bob]
21:25:41 [bob]
ack dorch
21:25:41 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to ask about Paco's "kind of proposal"
21:26:11 [Jonathan]
DaveO: Were you talking about option 1 earlier?
21:26:21 [Jonathan]
Paco: Thinks 1 is closer.
21:26:26 [Jonathan]
Paco: Thinks 2 is closer.
21:26:47 [bob]
ack marc
21:26:47 [Zakim]
marc, you wanted to ask about option 3
21:27:00 [Jonathan]
Marc: Option 3, does this mean?
21:27:04 [Jonathan]
DaveO: Duck and run.
21:27:05 [dorchard]
zakim, mute me
21:27:05 [Zakim]
DOrchard should now be muted
21:28:22 [dhull]
21:29:02 [Jonathan]
Joanthan: Indicates frustration with the baked-ness of wsaw:Anonymous, perhaps we shouldn't be RECOMMENDING this yet.
21:29:18 [Jonathan]
Jonathan: Policy is a distraction.
21:29:33 [GlenD]
GlenD has joined #ws-addr
21:30:00 [Jonathan]
DaveH: Idea is that policy might be a more composable framework for solving these kinds of problems better.
21:30:06 [anish]
i would like to speak against proposal 3 -- without that, there is no way to specify "async" request response, like what rosettanet wants
21:30:17 [anish]
that ==> wsaw:Anonymous
21:30:24 [Jonathan]
... Seems like a serious alternative to coming up with a special-purpose hard-wired WSDL marker.
21:30:42 [dorchard]
21:30:44 [bob]
ack dhull
21:30:50 [gpilz]
21:31:03 [TonyR]
chad, list options
21:31:06 [dorchard]
zakim, unmute me
21:31:06 [Zakim]
DOrchard should no longer be muted
21:31:12 [bob]
ack dorch
21:31:15 [gpilz]
21:31:17 [Jonathan]
DaveO: Does 2 solve RM's problem?
21:31:28 [Jonathan]
Anish: I think so.
21:31:51 [dorchard]
zakim, mute me
21:31:51 [Zakim]
DOrchard should now be muted
21:31:53 [GlenD]
Gotta run, folks. I'm going to abstain on this one, assuming we vote in the next 30 min.
21:32:15 [Jonathan]
... It makes assertions about whether the backchannel can be used.
21:32:19 [Jonathan]
... or must
21:32:32 [Zakim]
21:32:55 [bob]
21:33:09 [Jonathan]
Gil: specifically lists the URIs that indicate the backchannel.
21:33:29 [Jonathan]
Anish: Just shows examples of URIs that indicate the backchannel...
21:33:31 [Zakim]
21:34:55 [anish]
vote: 2, 4, 5, 1
21:34:56 [Jonathan]
vote: 3,0
21:34:58 [gpilz]
vote 2, 5, 4, 1
21:35:02 [David_Illsley]
vote 3,2,1
21:35:05 [pauld]
vote: 3, 0
21:35:11 [Paco]
vote: 3, 2, 1
21:35:13 [gpilz]
vote: 2, 5, 4, 1
21:35:20 [marc]
vote: 0, 4
21:35:23 [dhull]
vote: 0, 3, 5, 4
21:35:27 [TonyR]
vote 5, 3, 0, 9, 4, 1
21:35:40 [PaulKnight]
vote 3,2,0
21:36:08 [David_Illsley]
vote: 3,2,1
21:36:08 [Jonathan]
chad, votes?
21:36:09 [plh]
vote 1, 0, 3, 2
21:36:09 [PaulKnight]
vote: 3, 2, 0
21:36:21 [Jonathan]
chad, votes?
21:36:24 [plh]
vote: 1, 0, 3, 2
21:36:25 [TonyR]
vote: 0, 5, 3, 9, 4, 1
21:36:30 [Jonathan]
chad, votes?
21:37:07 [pauld]
chad, count
21:37:08 [chad]
Question: options for cr33, again
21:37:08 [chad]
Option 0: Status quo, but (possibly) clarify that "optional" makes no statement about what other addresses will work (3)
21:37:08 [chad]
Option 1: change MUST to SHOULD (allows for other specs to define anon URIs) (1)
21:37:08 [chad]
Option 2: <wsaw:NewConnection> proposal (2)
21:37:08 [chad]
Option 3: Remove wsaw:anonymous and use policy (Katy's proposal) (5)
21:37:10 [chad]
Option 4: provide a marker to let a URI slide past the wsaw:Anonymous validation (Anish's proposal of today) (0)
21:37:13 [chad]
Option 5: provide a marker to indicate that a URI requires a response on the backchannel (0)
21:37:15 [chad]
Option 9: misunderstand the proposal (0)
21:37:17 [chad]
11 voters: anish (2,4,5,1),David_Illsley (3,2,1),dhull (0,3,5,4),gpilz (2,5,4,1),Jonathan (3,0),marc (0,4),Paco (3,2,1),pauld (3,0),PaulKnight (3,2,0),plh (1,0,3,2),TonyR (0,5,3,9,4,1)
21:37:20 [chad]
Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
21:37:22 [chad]
Round 2: First elimination round.
21:37:24 [chad]
Eliminating candidadates without any votes.
21:37:26 [chad]
Eliminating candidate 4.
21:37:28 [chad]
Eliminating candidate 5.
21:37:30 [chad]
Eliminating candidate 9.
21:37:32 [chad]
Round 3: Eliminating candidate 1.
21:37:34 [chad]
Round 4: Eliminating candidate 2.
21:37:36 [chad]
Round 5: Eliminating candidate 0.
21:37:38 [chad]
Candidate 3 is elected.
21:37:40 [uyalcina]
uyalcina has joined #ws-addr
21:37:40 [chad]
Winner is option 3 - Remove wsaw:anonymous and use policy (Katy's proposal)
21:38:51 [dorchard]
zakim, unmute me
21:38:51 [Zakim]
DOrchard should no longer be muted
21:39:00 [Jonathan]
Bob: 0 and 3 are the most popular options.
21:39:13 [Jonathan]
DaveO: Might want to do a runoff between 3, 0, 2
21:39:49 [pauld]
chad, drop option 9
21:39:49 [chad]
dropped option 9
21:40:07 [pauld]
chad, drop option 4
21:40:07 [chad]
dropped option 4
21:40:12 [jeffm]
jeffm has joined #ws-addr
21:40:49 [pauld]
chad, drop option 1
21:40:49 [chad]
dropped option 1
21:40:51 [anish]
chad, list options
21:41:00 [pauld]
chad, drop option 5
21:41:00 [chad]
dropped option 5
21:41:06 [pauld]
chad, count
21:41:06 [chad]
Question: options for cr33, again
21:41:06 [chad]
Option 0: Status quo, but (possibly) clarify that "optional" makes no statement about what other addresses will work (4)
21:41:06 [chad]
Option 2: <wsaw:NewConnection> proposal (2)
21:41:06 [chad]
Option 3: Remove wsaw:anonymous and use policy (Katy's proposal) (5)
21:41:06 [chad]
11 voters: anish (2),David_Illsley (3,2),dhull (0,3),gpilz (2),Jonathan (3,0),marc (0),Paco (3,2),pauld (3,0),PaulKnight (3,2,0),plh (0,3,2),TonyR (0,3)
21:41:07 [TonyR]
vote: 0,3,2
21:41:09 [chad]
Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
21:41:11 [chad]
Round 2: Eliminating candidate 2.
21:41:13 [chad]
Round 3: Eliminating candidate 0.
21:41:15 [dorchard]
vote: 2
21:41:15 [chad]
Candidate 3 is elected.
21:41:17 [chad]
Winner is option 3 - Remove wsaw:anonymous and use policy (Katy's proposal)
21:41:28 [Jonathan]
vote: 3,0
21:41:31 [anish]
vote: 2, 0
21:41:32 [David_Illsley]
vote: 3
21:41:37 [dorchard]
vote: 2, 0
21:41:37 [PaulKnight]
vote: 3, 0
21:41:38 [pauld]
vote: 3,0
21:41:39 [dhull]
vote: 0, 3
21:41:39 [gpilz]
vote: 2
21:41:41 [uyalcina]
21:41:43 [marc]
vote: 0
21:41:43 [Paco]
vote: 3
21:41:51 [jeffm]
vote: 2,0
21:41:56 [plh]
vote: 3,0,2
21:42:18 [pauld]
chad, votes?
21:42:36 [uyalcina]
21:43:03 [pauld]
chad, count
21:43:03 [chad]
Question: options for cr33, again
21:43:03 [chad]
Option 0: Status quo, but (possibly) clarify that "optional" makes no statement about what other addresses will work (4)
21:43:03 [chad]
Option 2: <wsaw:NewConnection> proposal (4)
21:43:03 [chad]
Option 3: Remove wsaw:anonymous and use policy (Katy's proposal) (6)
21:43:03 [chad]
14 voters: anish (2,0),David_Illsley (3),dhull (0,3),dorchard (2,0),gpilz (2),jeffm (2,0),Jonathan (3,0),marc (0),Paco (3),pauld (3,0),PaulKnight (3,0),plh (3,0,2),TonyR (0,3,2),uyalcina (0,2)
21:43:07 [chad]
Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
21:43:08 [chad]
Round 2: Tie when choosing candidate to eliminate.
21:43:10 [chad]
Tie at round 1 between 0, 2.
21:43:12 [chad]
Tie broken randomly.
21:43:14 [chad]
Eliminating candidate 0.
21:43:17 [chad]
Candidate 3 is elected.
21:43:18 [chad]
Winner is option 3 - Remove wsaw:anonymous and use policy (Katy's proposal)
21:44:20 [dorchard]
zakim, mute me
21:44:20 [Zakim]
DOrchard should now be muted
21:46:58 [dorchard]
zakim, unmute me
21:46:58 [Zakim]
DOrchard should no longer be muted
21:47:03 [Jonathan]
Option 3: 6
21:47:05 [Jonathan]
Option 2: 2
21:47:10 [Jonathan]
Option 0: 1
21:47:27 [anish]
21:47:29 [anish]
21:47:49 [bob]
21:47:55 [bob]
21:48:01 [bob]
IBM: 3
21:48:07 [plh]
s/MS3/MS: 3/
21:48:11 [bob]
CA: 3
21:48:32 [bob]
BEA: 2
21:48:44 [bob]
21:48:48 [dhull]
21:49:12 [pauld]
feels people who voted for 3 also voted for 0
21:49:35 [marc]
SUN: 0
21:49:49 [bob]
21:49:51 [anish]
21:49:59 [bob]
ack ani
21:50:05 [dhull]
q+ to understand the objection to 3
21:50:13 [bob]
Oracle: 2
21:50:20 [Zakim]
21:50:28 [Jonathan]
Anish: Option 0 doesn't solve the RM issue, but throws out the baby with the bathwater.
21:50:57 [Jonathan]
... Taking away wsaw:Anonymous after all the work we did loses the really important use case I discussed earlier.
21:51:01 [plh]
s/throws/doesn't throw/
21:51:07 [marc]
i think Anish said that option 3 throws out the baby with the bathwater
21:51:14 [dorchard]
21:51:32 [Jonathan]
... Saying a service needs to provide a callback channel.
21:51:37 [bob]
21:52:14 [Jonathan]
Paco: Don't like 0, because we now have to choose between WS-A and RM.
21:52:27 [Jonathan]
Anish: Provides feedback to the WS-RM WG that they need to rethink.
21:53:11 [anish]
yes, i meant option 3 throws the baby out with the bathwater, not option 0
21:53:17 [Jonathan]
Bob: Option 3 is a significant change, in the expectation of what information is carried in the WSDL. Option 0 continues to keep pressure on RM to figure out an alternative way to get the job done.
21:53:20 [anish]
thx marc, that's what i meant
21:53:57 [Jonathan]
Bob: Objections with the clear winner (3). We'll see if option 0 is something people can live with.
21:54:27 [Jonathan]
Marc: I'd like to point out that we already say we can use Anonoymous in policy.
21:54:37 [Jonathan]
Jonathan: wsaw:UsingAddressing can be used in policy.
21:54:43 [Jonathan]
Paco: Bad way to do anonymous.
21:55:05 [Jonathan]
DaveO: If we're saying wsaw:Anonymous doesn't compose with policy, we should go down that path.
21:55:33 [Jonathan]
Bob: Formal objections against Option 3?
21:55:37 [Jonathan]
DaveO: Yes
21:55:39 [Jonathan]
Anish: Yes
21:56:04 [Jonathan]
DaveH: But you might be OK if it were replaced with a policy marker instead.
21:56:04 [anish]
yes, jonathan, thx
21:56:15 [Jonathan]
DaveO: Yes, but fixing it and removing it are different.
21:57:16 [Jonathan]
Jonathan: Can live with Option 0 if we open a new issue about redesigning wsaw:Anonymous as policy assertions.
21:57:23 [dhull]
q+ to make a quick plug for WSN
21:57:41 [Jonathan]
Paco: Still has some problems with dealing with non-WS-A "special" URIs.
21:57:57 [Jonathan]
... Just recasting it as policy doesn't fully solve the problem.
21:58:02 [Jonathan]
Anish: Might be easier as a policy.
21:58:15 [Jonathan]
DaveO: Paco, you were pushing for 3 in preference for 2?
21:58:33 [anish]
jonathan had sometime back suggested that instead of one wsaw:Anonymous marker we should have 3 different markers
21:58:41 [anish]
which help from a policy POV
21:58:50 [Jonathan]
Paco: 2 will probably tell us we can solve RM's problem. We can live waiting until we solve this problem better, but first cast as a policy assertion, then with the "special" URI problem.
21:59:13 [Jonathan]
DaveO: We want something like this. Can you live with something like what RM has, cast it as a policy, and go from there?
22:00:51 [Jonathan]
Jonathan: Worried about trying to fix the "RM problem" as we cast into policy assertions. Still not sure we can't satisfy RM by tweaks there.
22:01:23 [Jonathan]
DaveO: Don't want to preclude tweaking to accomodate RM.
22:01:31 [Jonathan]
Paco: Not just an RM problem.
22:02:36 [Jonathan]
Jonathan: Postponing the debate on whether we change or RM does.
22:03:06 [Jonathan]
Bob: Put 33 on a backburner while we explore recasting as a policy assertion.
22:03:25 [Zakim]
22:03:29 [Jonathan]
Jonathan: What do we tell RM?
22:04:25 [Jonathan]
Bob: Any objections to leave 33 open while we entertain a new proposal working the policy assertion.
22:04:27 [Jonathan]
22:04:47 [dorchard]
zakim, mute me
22:04:47 [Zakim]
DOrchard should now be muted
22:04:54 [Jonathan]
Bob: Any takers to craft the proposal?
22:05:01 [Jonathan]
Anish & Paco volunteer.
22:05:50 [Jonathan]
DaveH: WS-Notification is being voted on as an OASIS standard. Needs 15% of membership to vote. If there is anyone who also is an OASIS member, please vote.
22:06:04 [Jonathan]
Bob: Thanks for the forebearance.
22:06:07 [pauld]
pauld has left #ws-addr
22:06:12 [Zakim]
22:06:13 [Jonathan]
... Came further today.
22:06:18 [Zakim]
22:06:19 [Jonathan]
22:06:19 [Zakim]
22:06:20 [Zakim]
22:06:20 [Zakim]
22:06:23 [Zakim]
22:06:24 [Zakim]
22:06:24 [Zakim]
22:06:25 [Zakim]
22:06:25 [Zakim]
22:06:27 [Zakim]
22:06:32 [Jonathan]
RRSAgent, set log member
22:06:33 [TonyR]
22:06:39 [Jonathan]
rrsagent, draft minutes
22:06:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Jonathan
22:06:43 [bob]
zakim, make logs public
22:06:43 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'make logs public', bob
22:06:50 [Zakim]
22:06:52 [bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
22:06:54 [Jonathan]
22:07:01 [plh]
zakim, make logs public-visible
22:07:01 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'make logs public-visible', plh
22:07:07 [plh]
rrsagent, make logs public-visible
22:07:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate plh
22:07:24 [bob]
zakim, give me patience
22:07:24 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'give me patience', bob
22:07:27 [plh]
zakim, drop marc
22:07:27 [Zakim]
Marc_Hadley is being disconnected
22:07:29 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
22:07:30 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bob_Freund, Plh, Jonathan_Marsh, Paul_Downey, David_Illsley, +1.503.228.aaaa, prasad, Paul_Knight, anish, Gilbert_Pilz, Marc_Hadley, TonyR, yinleng, DOrchard,
22:07:32 [plh]
zakim, bye
22:07:32 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-addr
22:07:33 [Zakim]
... David_Hull, Paco, GlenD, JeffM
22:07:43 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:07:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
22:07:48 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
22:08:05 [bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
22:08:15 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:08:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
22:08:33 [Jonathan]
thx bob, you can take it from here..
22:08:47 [bob]
Jonathan, thanks for scribing
22:11:53 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr