IRC log of ws-addr on 2006-10-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:57:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
20:57:24 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:57:30 [plh]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing
20:57:33 [plh]
Chair: Bob
20:57:33 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
20:57:39 [bob]
bob has joined #ws-addr
20:57:40 [Zakim]
20:57:50 [Dug]
zakim, Doug_Davis is me
20:57:50 [Zakim]
+Dug; got it
20:58:03 [bob]
meeting: WS-Addressing WG Teleconference
20:58:09 [bob]
chair: Bob Freund
20:58:15 [Zakim]
20:58:33 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
20:58:44 [Zakim]
20:59:07 [Zakim]
20:59:23 [bob]
zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
20:59:23 [Zakim]
ok, bob, I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM already started
20:59:42 [Zakim]
20:59:58 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
21:00:02 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
21:00:03 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
21:00:18 [PaulKnight]
PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
21:00:19 [Zakim]
21:00:43 [bob]
zakim, who is here
21:00:43 [Zakim]
bob, you need to end that query with '?'
21:00:56 [bob]
zakim, who is here? dammit
21:00:56 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is here? dammit', bob
21:01:05 [Zakim]
21:01:07 [bob]
zakim, who is here?
21:01:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Dug, Mark_Little, Bob_Freund, David_Illsley, Anish_Karmarkar, Gilbert_Pilz, ??P14
21:01:07 [Zakim]
On IRC I see PaulKnight, Paco, dhull, TonyR, anish, bob, RRSAgent, Zakim, plh, David_Illsley, Dug, pauld
21:01:09 [Zakim]
21:01:18 [Zakim]
21:01:20 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p14 is me
21:01:20 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
21:01:21 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr
21:01:22 [Zakim]
21:01:32 [Dug]
for those unix guys, every type: make love ?
21:01:50 [Dug]
it used to say: sorry, I don't know how to make love
21:02:03 [MrGoodner]
MrGoodner has joined #ws-addr
21:02:09 [Zakim]
21:02:30 [Zakim]
21:03:00 [Zakim]
21:03:49 [bob]
zakim, IBM is paco
21:03:49 [Zakim]
+paco; got it
21:04:07 [bob]
zakim, microsoft is MrGoodner
21:04:07 [Zakim]
+MrGoodner; got it
21:04:09 [yinleng]
yinleng has joined #ws-addr
21:06:42 [bob]
scribe: Paul Knight
21:06:47 [PaulKnight]
scribe: PaulKnight
21:07:01 [Zakim]
21:07:12 [Zakim]
21:07:22 [yinleng]
zakim, ??P21 is me
21:07:22 [Zakim]
+yinleng; got it
21:07:25 [w3circ]
w3circ has joined #ws-addr
21:07:27 [marc]
marc has joined #ws-addr
21:07:27 [PaulKnight]
no changes to agenda
21:08:04 [Zakim]
21:08:16 [PaulKnight]
Minutes approved
21:08:22 [pauld]
zakim, ??P22 is probably me
21:08:22 [Zakim]
+pauld?; got it
21:09:21 [PaulKnight]
Bob: will review CR33 handling in previous minutes
21:09:48 [PaulKnight]
topic: review action items
21:10:17 [PaulKnight]
all action items completed
21:10:48 [PaulKnight]
topic: proposed and new issues
21:11:12 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Metadata issue
21:11:55 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Who will provide policy input?
21:12:46 [PaulKnight]
Paco: is this something we will provide in general framework, or will it be an open-ended job?
21:13:09 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Hope it is not open-ended.
21:13:47 [anish]
21:14:13 [PaulKnight]
plh: This could fit in the WSDL binding document.
21:14:24 [bob]
ack ani
21:14:45 [PaulKnight]
Anish: Hope not in WSDL binding, it is really separate.
21:15:22 [PaulKnight]
Anish: It is about defining attachment points for policy data.
21:16:00 [PaulKnight]
Bob: plh: in policy WG, ar they producing a policy assertion related to this?
21:16:05 [PaulKnight]
plh: no
21:16:25 [PaulKnight]
21:18:22 [PaulKnight]
Paco: Not sure where is the right place to do it. Probably a separate document. It is an expansion of our charter.
21:18:27 [w3circ]
21:18:34 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Does the WG want to expand the charter?
21:18:57 [MrGoodner]
21:19:13 [PaulKnight]
plh: A "note" would have no normative status.
21:19:19 [bob]
ack w3circ
21:19:24 [pauld]
21:19:57 [bob]
ack mrgood
21:20:05 [PaulKnight]
Tom Rutt: Do we say in the WSDL binding doc, do we say what qname to use?
21:20:27 [anish]
tom, in wsdl binding doc we have this --
21:20:29 [David_Illsley]
Tom, from the spec: To do so, the creator of an EPR MAY include a WSDL 2.0 description element (or a WSDL 1.1 definitions element) in the metadata property of the EPR.
21:20:31 [PaulKnight]
MrGoodner: Are we clear on what the policy WG is asking?
21:20:58 [anish]
21:21:07 [bob]
ack pauld
21:21:18 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Would the WG like to work in conjunction with the Policy WG on this?
21:21:55 [PaulKnight]
PaulD: Don't fully understand the use case, the requirements, the work needed.
21:21:58 [bob]
ack anish
21:22:19 [PaulKnight]
Anish: Independent of how it is done, or what WG, it is a useful thing to have.
21:22:42 [pauld]
guess I'm unconvinced on the utility of attaching WSDL to an EPR either
21:23:12 [PaulKnight]
Anish: There was no policy WG when we started. It is useful to have the connection to policy. It will be needed for many future use cases.
21:23:28 [w3circ]
21:23:38 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Last time we discussed this, we decided it was the job of the Policy WG.
21:24:23 [PaulKnight]
Bob: If we are not willing to work with them, that is a decision we can make. Then it will be left to some future activity to resolve it.
21:24:33 [bob]
ack w3circ
21:24:38 [Paco]
21:25:10 [plh]
21:25:27 [bob]
ack paco
21:25:33 [PaulKnight]
Tom: We did it for WSDL, are there other aspects to be addessed other than EPR?
21:26:28 [PaulKnight]
Paco: This may be more complex than we think. It opens a lot of related problems. It is not something to take on casually. Do we need to amend the charter?
21:26:36 [bob]
ack plh
21:27:36 [PaulKnight]
plh: agree with Paco. It is different from thw WSDL case, where we were the ones to control it. This is initiated by the Policy WG, and I don't think it is the role of this WG to do it.
21:27:38 [Zakim]
21:28:12 [anish]
q+ to say 'why doesn't ws-policy do this and change their charter if need be? they specify wsdl attachment points too.'
21:28:42 [PaulKnight]
Marc Hadley: Would be surprised if we had to do more than say, "You can put a policy element here."
21:28:45 [bob]
ack anish
21:28:45 [Zakim]
anish, you wanted to say 'why doesn't ws-policy do this and change their charter if need be? they specify wsdl attachment points too.'
21:29:02 [MrGoodner]
21:29:39 [bob]
+1, anish
21:29:53 [w3circ]
+1 anish
21:30:01 [PaulKnight]
Anish: Think the Policy WG should do this. WS-Addressing Core is done; Policy is not done. We would have to keep tracking their work.
21:30:03 [bob]
ack mrg
21:30:09 [plh]
21:30:30 [PaulKnight]
MrG: The task is not well defined.
21:30:43 [bob]
ack plh
21:30:47 [PaulKnight]
MrG: Need to define the expected outcome.
21:30:50 [plh]
21:31:26 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has joined #ws-addr
21:31:32 [PaulKnight]
plh: The Policy WG said "We will not do it now." Are we not stepping on their toes?
21:31:47 [PaulKnight]
Bob: They asked for some participation from this WG.
21:32:30 [PaulKnight]
Bob: The chair described the scope as requiring a couple of people to participate in a couple of joint calls.
21:32:46 [PaulKnight]
plh: no problem to having a joint call
21:33:03 [PaulKnight]
Bob: any objection? None heard.
21:33:05 [TomRutt]
yes to call
21:33:33 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Who will participate? Paco, Gil, Tom Rutt
21:34:10 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Others? Three is probably enough. I will try to set up a time, via email.
21:34:40 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Can we run through the CR 31 work by Tony?
21:34:51 [PaulKnight]
topic: CR31
21:35:21 [PaulKnight]
Tony: changed cells related to wsa: prohibited
21:35:37 [PaulKnight]
Bob: So we need to also finish CR33?
21:35:49 [PaulKnight]
Tony: yes.
21:35:59 [PaulKnight]
topic: CR33
21:36:04 [anish]
21:36:27 [PaulKnight]
Anish: Will go through email. Link is pasted in chat.
21:37:23 [PaulKnight]
Anish: Describing option 1 and option 2.
21:38:14 [PaulKnight]
Marc: Define older client in this framework.
21:38:46 [marc]
Old == CR
21:39:11 [PaulKnight]
Anish: The namespace becomes interesting in option 2
21:41:07 [PaulKnight]
Anish: In option 2, we keep UsingAddressing, add two more extensions.
21:41:57 [marc]
q+ to ask whether compatibility concern is related to question of progression directly to PR or via second LC
21:42:24 [marc]
zakim, IPcaller is me
21:42:24 [Zakim]
sorry, marc, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller'
21:42:37 [marc]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
21:42:37 [Zakim]
sorry, marc, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]'
21:43:20 [TonyR]
zakim, who is on the phone?
21:43:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Dug, Bob_Freund, David_Illsley, Anish_Karmarkar, Gilbert_Pilz, TonyR, Tom_Rutt, Plh, Paul_Knight, paco, MrGoodner, David_Hull, Marc_Hadley, yinleng, pauld?
21:43:21 [PaulKnight]
Anish: Describing scenarios with older and newer clients.
21:43:35 [bob]
21:44:27 [bob]
sorry, zakim, IPcaller is really really marc
21:44:55 [PaulKnight]
Anish: The other issue with namespaces - we will need a new schema in option 2.
21:45:05 [bob]
ack ipca
21:45:21 [bob]
ack [IPc
21:45:21 [Zakim]
[IPcaller], you wanted to ask whether compatibility concern is related to question of progression directly to PR or via second LC
21:45:53 [PaulKnight]
Marc Hadley: Why are we focusing on this?
21:46:20 [PaulKnight]
Anish: MrG raised the question.
21:47:12 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Between these two options, it appears that people may have a preference?
21:48:04 [plh]
21:48:44 [bob]
ack plh
21:48:55 [PaulKnight]
Anish: Subtracting from the schema requires a namespace rev, but not necessarily adding to an extension point. We would be removing wsaw:Anonymous.
21:49:21 [MrGoodner]
21:49:29 [PaulKnight]
plh: We still own the namespace; we can still change the schema. However, we need to be careful.
21:49:36 [bob]
ack mrg
21:49:37 [David_Illsley]
21:50:04 [marc]
q+ to ask about expressivity vs existing Anonymous element
21:50:23 [bob]
ack david
21:50:25 [PaulKnight]
MrG: If we are making substantive changes, a new namespace would be appropriate. If we take away a marker, we should have a new namespace.
21:50:46 [bob]
ack [IPc
21:50:46 [Zakim]
[IPcaller], you wanted to ask about expressivity vs existing Anonymous element
21:51:11 [PaulKnight]
Some implementatoins are using these elements.
21:51:21 [MrGoodner]
+1 Marc
21:51:29 [PaulKnight]
marc: Not sure what we are trying to achieve.
21:52:04 [PaulKnight]
Paco: Untying the semantics from the anonymous URI.
21:52:12 [David_Illsley]
PaulKnight, my comment was that wsaw:Action and wsaw:UsingAddressing are widely implemented - only 1 known implementation of wsaw:Anonymous
21:52:33 [MrGoodner]
21:52:45 [bob]
ack mrg
21:53:35 [marc]
my comment was that the proposed markup is no more expressive than the current markup - wondering what was wrong with the current marker
21:54:13 [marc]
paco noted that policy recommends differentiation by qname so our use of attributes in the Anon element goes against that
21:54:22 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Now we have an explanation and two options. Are we prepared to decide?
21:55:21 [dhull]
21:55:44 [bob]
ack dhull
21:56:11 [PaulKnight]
Dhull: Have we ruled out the purely syntactic approach?
21:57:01 [anish]
21:57:04 [PaulKnight]
Dhull: My email described this point.
21:57:21 [marc]
21:57:23 [PaulKnight]
Bob: I had not captured it as a proposal for this issue.
21:57:47 [PaulKnight]
Paco: We discussed it briefly on the last call.
21:58:02 [pauld]
21:58:28 [PaulKnight]
Bob: A sysntactic approach which may or may not have a regexp defining what the backchannel may be.
21:58:36 [bob]
21:58:42 [bob]
ack anish
21:59:01 [pauld]
zakim, IPCaller contains marc
21:59:01 [Zakim]
sorry, pauld, I do not recognize a party named 'IPCaller'
21:59:17 [bob]
zakim, [IPcaller] is marc
21:59:17 [Zakim]
sorry, bob, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]'
21:59:18 [pauld]
zakim, [IPCaller] contains marc
21:59:19 [Zakim]
sorry, pauld, I do not recognize a party named '[IPCaller]'
21:59:26 [PaulKnight]
Anish: Would this go inside a policy or WSDL extension, or is it independent of the notion of backchannel? Looking at the qname, would you understand it?
21:59:50 [pauld]
zakim, IPcaller contains marc
21:59:50 [Zakim]
sorry, pauld, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller'
22:00:08 [bob]
zakim, where is the party?
22:00:08 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, bob.
22:00:31 [PaulKnight]
Dhull: You would have to look at what patterns were allowed or not. It tells the client what form of address could be used in the ReplyTo EPR.
22:00:32 [MrGoodner]
22:01:24 [marc]
q- anish already covered my point
22:01:35 [marc]
22:02:35 [PaulKnight]
anish: what if I don't want to change the WSDL, but for instance enable Reliability, because I want to tweak the policy and not the WSDL?
22:04:24 [gpilz]
22:05:25 [bob]
ack mrg
22:05:29 [PaulKnight]
Dhull: It boils down to whether you want to find what is supported - directly or not.
22:06:19 [Dug]
22:07:04 [PaulKnight]
MrG: The real problem is the way the RM anon URI might be used without RM. There would be no policy assertions in the WSDL. Not sure this is an improvement.
22:07:31 [PaulKnight]
MrG: the OASIS WS-RX TC is also looking at related issues.
22:07:34 [bob]
ack gpilz
22:07:48 [Paco]
22:08:34 [bob]
ack dug
22:08:48 [PaulKnight]
Gpilz: Some expressivity would be lost.
22:08:59 [MrGoodner]
22:09:09 [MrGoodner]
22:10:05 [gpilz]
zakim, who is making noise?
22:10:16 [Zakim]
gpilz, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Bob_Freund (65%), Plh (4%)
22:10:30 [PaulKnight]
Bob: We were focusing on Anish and Paco's proposal, then discussed David Hull's proposal. We need to focus on selecting the best approach.
22:10:42 [anish]
22:10:57 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Does the group favor David's approach, or anish and Paco's?
22:11:00 [bob]
ack paco
22:11:48 [dhull]
q+ to talk about async task force
22:12:51 [MrGoodner]
22:13:00 [PaulKnight]
Paco: I would be worried about implementing mechanisms without having a clear use case for it. So far, having a simple marker for backchannel or not is sufficient.
22:13:01 [bob]
ack anish
22:14:25 [PaulKnight]
Anish: Third possibility: wsaw:Address constraint as suggested by David Hull could be a child element of the response. It can solve some problems.
22:14:50 [bob]
ack dhull
22:14:50 [Zakim]
dhull, you wanted to talk about async task force
22:14:58 [PaulKnight]
Anish: It is interesting to consider a hybrid approach.
22:15:21 [PaulKnight]
Dhull: Agree.
22:15:44 [Paco]
22:16:35 [bob]
ack mrg
22:16:36 [PaulKnight]
Dhull: I don't think it is a complex new feature. The term backchannel is an undefined term itself, and it may also be complex for composability.
22:17:01 [Dug]
marc - that's not a WSA issue - that's an RM issue
22:17:59 [PaulKnight]
MrG: Using a backchannel marker without a mention of the URIs may not be helpful. It may not be appropriate to cover it here rather than RM.
22:18:59 [bob]
ack paco
22:19:31 [dhull]
22:20:00 [bob]
ack dhull
22:20:03 [PaulKnight]
Paco: Can we separate the issues of CR33 based on our proposal from the possibility of using David's mechanism?
22:20:23 [pauld]
or close with no action
22:21:27 [MrGoodner]
+1 pauld
22:22:04 [dhull]
But Paul --- we've talked about it this long ... surely we must take *some* action ...
22:22:13 [dhull]
22:22:46 [MrGoodner]
update wsaw:Anon as not being useful as a policy assertion?
22:23:13 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Options : option 1 - composability with policy - define text element
22:24:34 [Zakim]
22:25:32 [PaulKnight]
Paco: That is not really a separable issue.
22:26:19 [PaulKnight]
Bob: No matter which we use, we need to deal with composability with policy.
22:26:51 [Zakim]
22:26:55 [dhull]
Ironically, my biggest problem with the marker proposal is composability
22:27:04 [PaulKnight]
Bob: can we choose between option 1 and option 2 in the proposal by Paco and Anish?
22:27:57 [PaulKnight]
Bob: any objection to limiting the choice of solutions for CR 33 to those two options?
22:28:15 [PaulKnight]
MrG: It does not solve composability issue.
22:29:03 [PaulKnight]
MrG: Once you have the backchannel marker, you have no idea what will be on the wire.
22:29:18 [PaulKnight]
Dhull: Not clear which will compose best.
22:29:38 [PaulKnight]
Paco: What is non-composability argument against using the marker?
22:30:02 [MrGoodner]
22:30:13 [MrGoodner]
22:30:29 [anish]
isn't this similar to what we have done with 'anon' uri?
22:30:50 [anish]
'anon' uri does not mean anything outside the context of a particular binding
22:32:33 [MrGoodner]
22:33:49 [MrGoodner]
22:33:50 [anish]
22:34:52 [bob]
ack ani
22:36:13 [PaulKnight]
Extended discussion of meaning and use of backchannel.
22:37:37 [TomRutt]
22:37:41 [dhull]
nutshell: Where is it defined and how?
22:38:41 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
22:38:44 [PaulKnight]
Bob: We are replowing some old ground here.
22:38:46 [Zakim]
22:39:07 [PaulKnight]
Dhull: A fresh answer to anonymous may be sprouting from the old ground.
22:39:47 [bob]
ack tomr
22:40:00 [PaulKnight]
Dhull: Backchannel is not defined well.
22:40:55 [PaulKnight]
Tom Rutt: Semantics still not well defined. It is up to the endpoint to know how to handle the URI.
22:41:01 [MrGoodner]
22:43:52 [PaulKnight]
Paco: Dhull's proposal provides more information than is needed.
22:44:35 [PaulKnight]
Dhull: It is needed, because backchannel is not clearly defined.
22:44:53 [Zakim]
22:45:04 [pauld]
pauld has left #ws-addr
22:45:04 [PaulKnight]
Paco: In case of http, backchannel is known.
22:45:16 [bob]
ack mrgack mrg
22:45:31 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Backchannel as a term appears to be undefined and unused.
22:46:38 [Dug]
22:46:50 [bob]
ack mrg
22:47:09 [PaulKnight]
MrG: There is no marker for this. You don't know that RM is in use in every case. There is an interoperability issue.
22:48:56 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Want to keep discussion focused on CR33 options in front of us.
22:49:00 [Zakim]
22:49:27 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Choose one of the options, or close with no action. We can't directly work on RM.
22:49:35 [bob]
ack dug
22:49:50 [MrGoodner]
22:49:50 [MrGoodner]
22:50:37 [PaulKnight]
Dug: CR33 is just about whether other URIs can be defined. WSA does not have to define how they are used, just whether to allow the extensibility point.
22:50:44 [bob]
ack mrg
22:51:19 [anish]
22:51:26 [PaulKnight]
MrG: If the extensibility point is defined without clear rules, it will not be composable.
22:51:33 [bob]
ack anis
22:51:56 [PaulKnight]
Dug: It is not WSA's problem to address.
22:52:14 [Zakim]
22:52:34 [Dug]
only one URI can be in wsa:ReplyTo at a time - the spec that defines that URI defines what goes on the wire - its not a WSA issue.
22:53:25 [PaulKnight]
Anish: How about the hybrid approach? David Hull proposed address constraints, which could be used with the proposals by Paco and myself. It would have a child element describing address constraints.
22:55:29 [PaulKnight]
MrG: How the constraints are expressed is the issue.
22:55:47 [PaulKnight]
Anish: The constraints are constraints, not another policy assertion.
22:56:33 [PaulKnight]
Bob: One approach is to define anonymous as the base URI and the constraint as a facet to define how it is extended.
22:56:53 [Zakim]
22:56:55 [anish]
22:57:07 [PaulKnight]
David Hull: fell off line
22:57:30 [Zakim]
22:57:39 [PaulKnight]
Bob: We need to make a decision.
22:57:57 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Can we reach a decision tonight?
22:58:08 [TomRutt]
22:58:29 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Can we take the approach Paco and Anish have suggested?
22:58:35 [anish]
22:58:50 [Zakim]
22:59:13 [PaulKnight]
Bob: To solve CR33, the approach defined in Anish and Pacos' proposal ,either option 1 or 2, is acceptable? Any objections?
22:59:16 [Zakim]
22:59:23 [PaulKnight]
Dhull: Object
22:59:38 [PaulKnight]
Dhull: Don't see how it will work.
23:00:47 [PaulKnight]
Bob: extend meeting for 5 minutes? No objection.
23:00:53 [bob]
acxk tomr
23:01:01 [bob]
ack tomr
23:01:02 [PaulKnight]
Tom: will support one or other of those.
23:01:47 [Dug]
using anon URI doesn't solve cr33
23:01:51 [PaulKnight]
Marc Hadley: cold support either , if anonymous URI is used in place of backchannel.
23:02:02 [PaulKnight]
23:02:03 [bob]
23:02:30 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Will need to continue discussion next week.
23:02:50 [PaulKnight]
Bob: We have not used backchannel as a term anywhere in our specification.
23:02:53 [Zakim]
23:02:55 [marc]
e.g. wsaw:WASResponseUsingAnonymousOnly
23:03:10 [Zakim]
23:03:11 [Zakim]
23:03:12 [Zakim]
23:03:13 [PaulKnight]
Bob: discuss on mailing list
23:03:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate plh
23:03:15 [Zakim]
23:03:17 [Zakim]
23:03:18 [Zakim]
23:03:22 [Zakim]
23:03:23 [Zakim]
23:03:25 [Zakim]
23:03:28 [Zakim]
23:03:38 [Zakim]
23:03:49 [Dug]
MarcH - could you send a proposal to the list? so people can noodle it?
23:03:54 [bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
23:03:57 [plh]
zakim, disconnect gil
23:03:57 [Zakim]
Gilbert_Pilz is being disconnected
23:03:58 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
23:03:59 [Zakim]
Attendees were Dug, Mark_Little, Bob_Freund, David_Illsley, Anish_Karmarkar, Gilbert_Pilz, Tom_Rutt, Plh, TonyR, Paul_Knight, David_Hull, paco, MrGoodner, Marc_Hadley, yinleng,
23:04:01 [Zakim]
... pauld?
23:04:07 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
23:04:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
23:04:32 [plh]
plh has left #ws-addr
23:07:41 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr
23:32:23 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has left #ws-addr