20:50:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
20:50:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/11/06-ws-addr-irc
20:50:46 <bob> zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
20:50:46 <Zakim> ok, bob; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
20:51:13 <bob> Meeting: Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference
20:51:24 <bob> Chair: Bob Freund
20:53:03 <bob> Agenda:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Nov/0015.html
20:53:47 <bob> rrsagent, make logs public
20:58:08 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
20:58:15 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
20:58:42 <Zakim> +Bob_Freund
20:58:43 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
20:59:04 <gpilz> gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:59:55 <plh> plh has joined #ws-addr
21:00:07 <Zakim> +Plh
21:00:07 <dhull> dhull has joined #ws-addr
21:00:14 <pauld> pauld has joined #ws-addr
21:00:46 <TonyR> TonyR has joined #ws-addr
21:00:51 <Zakim> +Marc_Hadley
21:01:22 <marc> marc has joined #ws-addr
21:01:29 <Zakim> +??P6
21:01:36 <TonyR> zakim, ??p6 is me
21:01:36 <Zakim> +TonyR; got it
21:01:50 <marc> zakim, who is on the phone
21:01:50 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', marc
21:01:58 <marc> zakim, who is on the phone ?
21:01:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see Tom_Rutt, Bob_Freund, Gilbert_Pilz, Plh, Marc_Hadley, TonyR
21:02:11 <PaulKnight> PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
21:02:50 <Zakim> +Paul_Knight
21:03:02 <Katy> Katy has joined #ws-addr
21:03:50 <MrGoodner> MrGoodner has joined #ws-addr
21:04:26 <Zakim> +David_Hull
21:04:30 <Zakim> +David_Hull.a
21:05:00 <plh> zakim, mute david_hull.a
21:05:00 <Zakim> David_Hull.a should now be muted
21:05:07 <Zakim> +Paul_Downey
21:05:11 <plh> zakim, unmute david_hull.a
21:05:11 <Zakim> David_Hull.a should no longer be muted
21:05:26 <plh> zakim, mute david_hull
21:05:26 <Zakim> David_Hull should now be muted
21:05:38 <plh> zakim, drop david_hull
21:05:38 <Zakim> David_Hull is being disconnected
21:05:40 <Zakim> -David_Hull
21:06:21 <Paco> Paco has joined #ws-addr
21:06:26 <Zakim> +[IBM]
21:06:27 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
21:07:00 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
21:07:20 <pauld> zakim, IPcaller contains Katy
21:07:20 <Zakim> +Katy; got it
21:08:24 <marc> scribe: marc
21:08:24 <bob> scribe: marc
21:09:20 <marc> minutes of last meeting approved
21:09:33 <marc> TOPIC: cr33
21:10:40 <marc> bob: section 5.2.1 of SOAP binding allows for other URIs as anon. did we mean that ? 
21:11:36 <marc> bob: brief discussion and will then vote of this question
21:11:47 <dhull> q? to ask a question
21:11:58 <dhull> q+ to ask a question
21:12:25 <marc> marc: might be better phrased as "do we still mean it"
21:12:34 <bob> ack dhull
21:12:34 <Zakim> dhull, you wanted to ask a question
21:13:12 <marc> dhull: do we have a specific textual change to vote on
21:13:41 <marc> bob: will rip out 5.2.1
21:14:23 <marc> tom: looked for source of the text - not clear that text was explicit in discussion
21:14:50 <Zakim> +GlenD
21:15:21 <marc> editors can't recall where text originated
21:16:08 <pauld> it's in our spec and went through CR-PR-REC
21:16:52 <pauld> so nit-picking on the scribing seems a little mute
21:18:21 <marc> paco: what will be the gain by doing anything
21:18:29 <MrGoodner> q
21:18:32 <MrGoodner> q+
21:19:19 <marc> marcgoodner: last sentence of 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 is the text in question
21:21:43 <gpilz> q+
21:21:58 <marc> guilty == remove text allowing other anon URIs
21:22:03 <gpilz> q-
21:22:08 <marc> not-guilty == keep that text
21:22:17 <bob> ack mrg
21:22:47 <marc> pauld: errate, version 1.1, ?
21:23:17 <dhull> It's not like the text has much force to begin with.  Wouldn't an erratum be enough?
21:23:52 <marc> bob: how we do it is not relevant, will do minimum necessary
21:23:57 <MrGoodner> I think errata is enough
21:24:21 <MrGoodner> it doesn't seem to impact the wsa namespace
21:24:23 <marc> formal vote:
21:24:28 <marc> IBM - not guilty
21:24:37 <marc> BT - guilty
21:24:46 <marc> Microsoft: guilty
21:24:55 <marc> Sun - guilty
21:25:09 <marc> tibco - not guilty
21:25:21 <marc> Nortel - guilty
21:25:34 <marc> W3C - guilty
21:25:44 <marc> BEA - not guilty
21:25:54 <marc> CA - guilty
21:26:06 <GlenD> GlenD has joined #ws-addr
21:26:17 <marc> Fujitsu - guilty
21:26:34 <marc> Hitachi - guilty
21:26:50 <marc> 8 guilty, 3 not guilty
21:28:28 <plh> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-modify
21:28:31 <dhull> q+
21:29:20 <marc> plh: the change might affect conformance 
21:29:52 <dhull> +1 to Paco
21:29:54 <dhull> q-
21:30:22 <marc> q+
21:31:06 <bob> ack marc
21:31:18 <dhull> q+
21:31:58 <bob> ack ipcaller
21:32:07 <marc> marc: agree with paco, change put other uri out-of-scope for WS-A spec but doesn't preclude it
21:32:10 <bob> ack [IPcaller]
21:32:15 <bob> ack dhull
21:32:36 <pauld> so the lack of a MUST means a change doesn't impact conformance, and could fall into "3. Corrections that MAY affect conformance, but add no new features"
21:32:52 <marc> dhull: saw text as guidance, doesn't affect conformance
21:33:30 <plh> 2. Corrections that do not affect conformance
21:33:30 <plh>     Editorial changes or clarifications that do not change the technical content of the specification.
21:33:32 <dhull> +1
21:33:53 <marc> bob: does WG feel change is not related to conformance
21:34:03 <pauld> s/3. Corrections that MAY affect conformance, but add no new features/Corrections that do not affect conformance/
21:34:03 <marc> WG: assents
21:35:17 <marc> bob: part 2 deals with failure of WSDL binding to support usage promoted by text we have voted to remove
21:35:43 <marc> bob: close 33 without action ?
21:36:24 <marc> paco: what about the proposals
21:36:57 <marc> bob: do we all agree that we need to do something to compose better with policy ?
21:37:05 <marc> WG assents
21:37:43 <marc> bob: deal with cr33 on its basis and then look at proposals to better support policy
21:39:45 <MrGoodner> q+
21:40:02 <bob> ack mrg
21:40:07 <marc> paco: don't want to close cr33 until we have dealt with policy proposals
21:40:35 <marc> mrg: only anon marker needs to be fixed
21:41:37 <marc> paco: do we have a specific proposal ?
21:42:29 <marc> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/Overview.html#cr33
21:44:02 <dhull> q+
21:45:19 <bob> ack dhull
21:45:21 <marc> bob review the issue text
21:46:48 <Paco> q+
21:46:50 <marc> dhull: anon=optional seems to leave the door open to using RM anon but really it just pertains to WS-A anon
21:47:29 <bob> ack paco
21:47:40 <dhull> actually, it's anon=required that just pertains to WS-A anon.  Optional leaves things open.
21:48:18 <Katy> q+
21:48:28 <marc> paco: markers as designed not useful, issue is not with text in soap binding
21:48:31 <bob> ack katy
21:48:45 <marc> katy: have lost track of rx requirement
21:48:48 <dhull> A&P proposal speaks to a different issue
21:49:44 <dhull> RX requirement is actually already satisfied
21:50:01 <gpilz> q+
21:50:42 <dhull> Doesn't think WSA anon definition is restrictive at all
21:50:51 <bob> ack gpil
21:51:03 <marc> katy: when soap binding came out it was possible for rx to use their anon uri but with wsdl binding we restrict that
21:53:01 <marc> gill: is it possible to define a policy that restricts to anon only and then expand that to allow rx anon ?
21:53:06 <marc> glen: yes
21:53:33 <gpilz> q+
21:54:29 <bob> ack gil
21:54:51 <dhull> q+
21:54:52 <marc> paco: such usage would contravene policy usage recommendations
21:55:03 <marc> glen: no it wouldn't
21:55:15 <marc> paco: yes it would
21:55:19 <marc> repeat
21:56:11 <bob> ack dhull
21:56:17 <marc> paco: going to have to ignore the marker because it is badly designed
21:56:24 <marc> q+
21:57:05 <gpilz> q+
21:57:06 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
21:57:18 <gpilz> q-
21:57:34 <Paco> q+
21:57:43 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
21:57:49 <bob> ack [IPcaller]
21:58:09 <bob> zakim, IPcaller is marc
21:58:09 <Zakim> +marc; got it
21:59:41 <bob> ack paco
21:59:51 <gpilz> q+
22:00:33 <marc> marc: unclear which marker are badly designed - i think everyone agrees that the original formulation doesn;t work with policy but several options have been proposed - some by paco - are any of these ok in paco's opinion
22:01:17 <marc> paco: some are ok, disagreeing with glen proposal for rx to create an assertion that overrides the ws-a one
22:01:46 <MrGoodner> q+
22:03:06 <bob> ack gpil
22:03:25 <marc> dhull: composability not limited to rx
22:05:10 <dhull> so that means we're going back to LC?
22:05:10 <bob> ack mrg
22:05:32 <marc> quick poll confirms that everyone agrees that current syntax is broken wrt policy
22:05:41 <dhull> q+
22:05:44 <Paco> q+
22:05:59 <marc> mrg: we just need to fix it wrt ws-a anon
22:06:09 <bob> ack dhull
22:06:42 <bob> ack paco
22:07:10 <marc> dhull: use case is indicating haw async response can be sent
22:07:21 <marc> paco: having same discussion as last week
22:07:30 <dhull> q+ to propose a way forward
22:09:53 <bob> ack dhull
22:09:53 <Zakim> dhull, you wanted to propose a way forward
22:10:17 <marc> bob: don't think ws-a has exclusive on back-channel, we need to find a way to get out of the way of future specs
22:10:34 <marc> q+
22:11:47 <Paco> q+
22:13:46 <marc> dhull: need a way to say stuff like: "can use mail addresses in reply to"
22:14:27 <MrGoodner> q+
22:15:11 <gpilz> q+
22:15:35 <bob> ack [IPcaller]
22:16:55 <dhull> but it's useful to say "I can't do anythng *but* anon" (or "I can't do anything *but* email")
22:16:59 <bob> ack paco
22:17:08 <bob> ack mrg
22:17:54 <marc> marc: going over ground we covered in Japan F2F. think we need a way to state "i can do ws-a anon" and "I can't do ws-a anon" but not have assertions that shut out others
22:18:04 <gpilz> q-
22:18:08 <dhull> q+ to talk about going over ground covered
22:18:36 <marc> mrg: not worried if our assertion shuts out others
22:21:30 <bob> ack dhul
22:21:30 <Zakim> dhull, you wanted to talk about going over ground covered
22:22:22 <marc> q+
22:22:58 <marc> dhull: think we have new information now that requires revisiting Japan decision
22:23:42 <bob> ack [IPcaller
22:24:18 <dhull> +1 on relevance of policy
22:24:41 <TomRutt> TomRutt has joined #ws-addr
22:26:09 <dhull> q+
22:26:36 <marc> marc: use of policy brings level of expressiveness that a WSDL marker doesn't have, the two marker proposed are all we need to define, other specs can define others
22:26:43 <bob> ack  dhull
22:27:39 <dhull> Katy calls in from Moon Base 1 :-)
22:28:42 <MrGoodner> q+
22:29:08 <bob> ack mrg
22:29:43 <dhull> q+
22:29:52 <bob> ack dhull
22:31:21 <marc> dhull: in what way is our current markup policy unfriendly ? does policy have a "this and this but not that"
22:31:26 <gpilz> q+
22:32:25 <gpilz> q-
22:32:50 <marc> paco: second is an open issue with policy WG, first is that assertion qname should capture meaning not attribute value or content
22:35:47 <Zakim> -[IBM]
22:36:34 <gpilz> +1
22:37:22 <marc> marc: volunteers to propose a solution
22:37:30 <marc> gill: volunteers to help
22:38:38 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
22:38:40 <Zakim> -Paul_Downey
22:38:41 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
22:38:43 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
22:38:45 <Zakim> -TonyR
22:38:49 <Zakim> -Bob_Freund
22:38:50 <Zakim> -Marc_Hadley
22:38:51 <Zakim> -David_Hull.a
22:38:52 <Zakim> -Paul_Knight
22:38:52 <Katy> Katy has left #ws-addr
22:38:53 <gpilz> gpilz has left #ws-addr
22:38:53 <Zakim> -GlenD
22:38:55 <Zakim> -Plh
22:38:57 <TonyR> TonyR has left #ws-addr
22:38:58 <pauld> pauld has left #ws-addr
22:39:00 <bob> thanks for scribing, Marc
22:39:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/11/06-ws-addr-minutes.html plh
22:39:07 <Zakim> -marc
22:39:08 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
22:39:10 <Zakim> Attendees were Tom_Rutt, Bob_Freund, Gilbert_Pilz, Plh, Marc_Hadley, TonyR, Paul_Knight, David_Hull, Paul_Downey, [IBM], [Microsoft], Katy, GlenD, marc
22:40:40 <plh> zakim, bye
22:40:40 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ws-addr
22:42:37 <TomRutt> TomRutt has left #ws-addr
22:51:49 <bob> bob has left #ws-addr