See also: IRC log
<GlenD> Chairs, I'm going to need to take off a little early today - may be able to continue via cellphone from the car for the last .5 hr
Picking new scribe for next week
Sergey will scribe next week
Umit had question about resolution of 3617
Umit: Resolution is not clear
<vladB> not yet, will do it
Paul's emal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0180.html
Resolution: Minutes adopted unaminously
Chris to chair next week
Deadline for registration page: 3rd week in October approximately
Get hotel reservations ASAP
<fsasaki> deadline for registration is October 27th
Prasad: all resolutions from F2F are being incorporated
... 27 out of 44 closed
... item a is done
(action 98)
... action 98 should be marked done
... Issue 3720 has been opened for action 98
Paul: Editors should say how 3720 is done when they provide an editor's draft
... 3720 should stay open
until we get the editor's draft
Chris: will update the issue to say it's assigned to the editors
Prasad: item b is in progress
... item c is done (action 95)
Chris: will close action 95
<cferris> done
Prasad: item d is still pending
... item e is done (action 107)
Chris: will mark 107 as done
Prasad: item f is pending. Paul has given feedback that needs to be incorporated
<PaulC> Paul's comment on Primer: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0165.html
Prasad: item g is pending
... action 102 and 108 are in progress
Paul: In answer to Umit's question . . .
Umit: We would like to review and send comments on the primer
... overlap of concerns may result in more
issues
Prasad: We (temporarily) lost one of the editors (Asir) and we needed to pick up some of his AIs. We will have an editors call following this call and review our status. We will target to deliver as soon as possible.
Paul: Question to Felix, is the working draft published?
Felix: It's published
<PaulC> http://www.w3.org/News/2006#item171
Paul: Action 39 is done
DavidO provided the logistics
<PaulC> SFO Jan meeting: http://www.w3.org/2006/09/ws-policy-f2f-logistics.html
<fsasaki> http://www.w3.org/2007/01/ws-policy-f2f-logistics.html
Ashok: Logistics page looks empty
Possibly just a refresh issue
Paul: Information is missing from the page
... We know it's in downtown San Fransisco
... Avoid a
rental car
Chris: Action 92 is pending, he will update the date
Action 96 is pending, Glen will have this done by next week
Paul: Toufic has stated that he does not plan on doing Action 101
Chris: will close the issue
<scribe> ACTION: Paul to reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0130.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-117 - Reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0130.html [on Paul Cotton - due 2006-10-04].
Sergey: planning to open issue concerning policy expressions with no wire manifestation
Fredrick: This seems related to http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3564
Umit: These issues are related but are not the same
... I could open up a new issue
<scribe> ACTION: Sergey to open new issue related to thread on policy expressions with no wire manifestation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Sergey
<scribe> ACTION: sberyozkin to open new issue related to thread on policy expressions with no wire manifestation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - sberyozkin
<cferris> ACTION: Chris to ensure that today's agenda items 7a and 9a s/b clustered together in next week's agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-118 - Ensure that today\'s agenda items 7a and 9a s/b clustered together in next week\'s agenda [on Christopher Ferris - due 2006-10-04].
<cferris> 3721 is also related to the issue we just discussed
<PaulC> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3721
<GlenD> This totally relates to the optionality/requirements-capabilities discussions.
<umit> we should delay the discussion until he is here and the new issue is open. I believe there is a dependency
<PaulC> Dan's reply:
<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0151.html
<FHirsch> +1, part of 3564 thread
Fredrick: Seems related to the other thread
Ashok: Did William mean local policies or local assertions?
Umit: Propose we defer this issue until William can clarify his issue on whether he is talking about polcies or assertions
Sergey: local is not related to optional
<umit> who is the consuming entity? I believe there are several consuming entities here.
<umit> ... it depends on which consumer is ignoring the assertion.
Ashok: Are you asking for the attribute on the assertions or on policies?
<umit> ... We would not need an assertion to be present if the assertion was not meaningful for someone.
Sergey: I don't think we want a local assertion
... We want an assertion that is ignorable by the consuming
entity
... The consuming entity is the entity that is consuming the policy
Fredrick: Recommend delay
<FHirsch> Appears to be related to "advisory" assertions, those to advertise provider capability but not impacting client policy selection
Glenn: Prudent to wait for William
<cferris> paul reminds us all that we can always ask these sorts of clarifying issues via email
Segey 3723 marked as Invalid
<PaulC> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3723
Resolution: Working group agrees that 3723 is invalid
... Working group agrees that 3723 is invalid
<PaulC> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3730
<fsasaki> ACTION: Ashok to draft a proposal for issue 3730 - due to 2006-10-09 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-ws-policy-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-119 - draft a proposal for issue 3730 [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2006-09-27].
<fsasaki> Chris: Ashok will not be at that call. Should someone represent the position?
<fsasaki> Ashok: I will try until next week
<fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
<PaulC> New text is:
<PaulC> The constraints of the [XML 1.0] ID type MUST be met.
<cferris> acribeNick: fsasaki
<cferris> scribeNick: fsasaki
RESOLUTION: WG agrees with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0107.html to resolve 3752
<toufic> chris, i actually just signed on to say that I'm pretty sick in bed today and won't be attending
<toufic> i apologise to the WG
<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0108.html
<PaulC> Tony's proposal is in: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3753#c2
Fabian: there are assertations from security policy, but not in a valid context
... this is confusing for
people who are not from the security context
... we should state "the example is from sec. pol, but not a valid one"
... that was my
initial proposal.
... Tony made another proposal, Dan said that is good to him
Paul: adopting Tonys proposal would be o.k. with you?
Fabian: yes, I only think the reference to the example does not fit anymore
... in sec. 4.1 or 4.3.1
... removing the reference might resolve this. The reference is in section 4.1, not 4.3.1
Paul: so change example 1.1., and this example here to give both normal and not-normal form of a policy?
Fabian: yes
<PaulC> Issue 3753
<PaulC> Proposal:
<PaulC> 1. Replace Example 1-1 with Tony's example from http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3753#c2
<PaulC> 2. Move the old Example 1-1 down to the location where it is referred to in Section 4.1
RESOLUTION: fixing 3753 with Pauls proposal
Paul: this will be delayed
Paul: action 38 is still open
<PaulC> Issue 3639
<PaulC> ACTION: 115 to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0175.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06]
Fabian: this is a policy with at least 2 alternatives
... and you can't infer which policy applies to a
message
Ashok: how would this situation arise?
Paul: why is it not clear how the server would reply?
Fabian: not sure
Paul: handle this via mail
Ashok: still working on this
<Yakov> welcome back too
<PaulC> Issue 3599 is pending Ashok's study.
<PaulC> Issue 3602
Maryanne: action 109 is completed
<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0176.html
Ashok: Also need to add an example
<PaulC> Ashok suggests:
<PaulC> We should also add a pointer here to an example such as the one I proposed at the f2f which would appear later in the document after optional and alternative has been defined.
Ashok's example: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0094.html
<maryann> that sounds like a good suggestion to me
Dan: Can we just reuse the example in this section: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Optional_Policy_Assertions
<Yakov> +1
<maryann> i would rather use examples already in the spec if possible
<PaulC> Example at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-20060731/#Optional_Policy_Assertions
<monica> +1
<PaulC> Issue 3602 Proposal:
<PaulC> 1. Adopt text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0176.html
<PaulC> 2. Add a forward pointer to the example in Section 4.3.1 Optional Policy Assertions
<PaulC> 3. Add words in the reference to explain that the assertion should not apply.
Monica: There seems to already be text in 4.3.1 that describes the example
Ashok: The text in 4.3.1 looks reasonable
... Maybe we need something stronger: must not be applied or
processed for example
... Maryann's text is fine
<monica> The @wsp:Optional attribute in Line (02) of the first policy expression indicates that the assertion in Line (02) is to be included in a policy alternative whilst excluded from another; it is included in Lines (03-05) and excluded in Line (06). Note that @wsp:Optional does not appear in the normal form of a policy expression.
<maryann> i think the line you need is right before 4.3.2- ashok
<umit> it seems to me that Ashok is actually looking for the negation of the assertion to be applied to the alternative...
<monica> reference: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Optional_Policy_Assertions
<umit> i got in the queue to ask whether that is what is being asked.
<maryann> there are 2 examples
RESOLUTION: Accept two part proposal to resolve 3602
<PaulC> Issue 3719
<PaulC> See Dan's reply: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0148.html
<PaulC> Awaiting reply to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0159.html
<scribe> ACTION: danroth to get a response for message 158 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-ws-policy-minutes.html#action07 (double of action08)]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - danroth
<fsasaki> ACTION: Daniel to get a response for message 158 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-ws-policy-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-120 - Get a response for message 158 [on Daniel Roth - due 2006-10-04].
<PaulC> Issue 3619
<PaulC> Action 113 on Glen is pending.
<fsasaki> issue 3712
<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0187.html
<PaulC> Proposal is in two parts:
<PaulC> 1. Attached word doc contains changes to Framework
Vlad: I'm fine with this proposal
<PaulC> 2. Addition in email message 0187.html for Attachment.
RESOLUTION: Adopt the proposal in message in 187
... Adopt the proposal in message in
187 (for issue 3712) to close 3712
Umit: Why are we considering XPointer?
Paul: there is no WSDL 1.1 specific MIME type
... if you try and use a fragment ID, its definition is
applicable to the MIME type
... Ashok's proposal used an undefined MIME type
Ashok: We could request a MIME type for WSDL 1.1
Umit: Concerned about implementation support for XPointer
Paul: to follow up with the W3C about the possibility of assigning a MIME type to WSDL 1.1
... Felix stated
this was out of scope