IRC log of ws-addr on 2006-11-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:50:31 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
20:50:31 [RRSAgent]
logging to
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]
20:53:47 [bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
20:58:08 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
20:58:15 [Zakim]
20:58:42 [Zakim]
20:58:43 [Zakim]
20:59:04 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:59:55 [plh]
plh has joined #ws-addr
21:00:07 [Zakim]
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]
21:01:22 [marc]
marc has joined #ws-addr
21:01:29 [Zakim]
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]
21:03:02 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
21:03:50 [MrGoodner]
MrGoodner has joined #ws-addr
21:04:26 [Zakim]
21:04:30 [Zakim]
21:05:00 [plh]
zakim, mute david_hull.a
21:05:00 [Zakim]
David_Hull.a should now be muted
21:05:07 [Zakim]
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]
21:06:21 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
21:06:26 [Zakim]
21:06:27 [Zakim]
21:07:00 [Zakim]
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]
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]
21:18:32 [MrGoodner]
21:19:19 [marc]
marcgoodner: last sentence of 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 is the text in question
21:21:43 [gpilz]
21:21:58 [marc]
guilty == remove text allowing other anon URIs
21:22:03 [gpilz]
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]
21:28:31 [dhull]
21:29:20 [marc]
plh: the change might affect conformance
21:29:52 [dhull]
+1 to Paco
21:29:54 [dhull]
21:30:22 [marc]
21:31:06 [bob]
ack marc
21:31:18 [dhull]
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]
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]
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]
21:44:02 [dhull]
21:45:19 [bob]
ack dhull
21:45:21 [marc]
bob review the issue text
21:46:48 [Paco]
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]
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]
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]
21:54:29 [bob]
ack gil
21:54:51 [dhull]
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]
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]
21:57:05 [gpilz]
21:57:06 [Zakim]
21:57:18 [gpilz]
21:57:34 [Paco]
21:57:43 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
22:05:44 [Paco]
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
22:07:21 [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]
22:11:47 [Paco]
22:13:46 [marc]
dhull: need a way to say stuff like: "can use mail addresses in reply to"
22:14:27 [MrGoodner]
22:15:11 [gpilz]
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]
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]
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]
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]
22:29:08 [bob]
ack mrg
22:29:43 [dhull]
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]
22:32:25 [gpilz]
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]
22:36:34 [gpilz]
22:37:22 [marc]
marc: volunteers to propose a solution
22:37:30 [marc]
gill: volunteers to help
22:38:38 [Zakim]
22:38:40 [Zakim]
22:38:41 [Zakim]
22:38:43 [Zakim]
22:38:45 [Zakim]
22:38:49 [Zakim]
22:38:50 [Zakim]
22:38:51 [Zakim]
22:38:52 [Zakim]
22:38:52 [Katy]
Katy has left #ws-addr
22:38:53 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-addr
22:38:53 [Zakim]
22:38:55 [Zakim]
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 plh
22:39:07 [Zakim]
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