20:54:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
20:54:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/11/13-ws-addr-irc
20:55:12 <bob> zakim, thia will be ws_addrwg
20:55:12 <Zakim> I don't understand 'thia will be ws_addrwg', bob
20:55:28 <bob> zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
20:55:28 <Zakim> ok, bob; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
20:56:02 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
20:56:09 <Zakim> +Bob_Freund
20:56:28 <bob> Meeting: Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference
20:56:38 <bob> Chair: Bob Freund
20:56:38 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
20:57:53 <bob> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Nov/0041.html
20:57:58 <David_Illsley> David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
20:58:12 <gpilz> gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:58:22 <Zakim> +David_Illsley
20:59:39 <Zakim> +Mark_Little
20:59:42 <Katy> Katy has joined #ws-addr
21:00:47 <MrGoodner> MrGoodner has joined #ws-addr
21:01:18 <Zakim> +??P8
21:01:36 <yinleng> yinleng has joined #ws-addr
21:01:50 <bob> zakim P8 is MrGoodner
21:01:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
21:01:58 <PaulKnight> PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
21:02:05 <Zakim> + +1.919.771.aaaa
21:02:11 <bob> zakim, ??P8 is MrGoodner
21:02:11 <Zakim> +MrGoodner; got it
21:02:27 <Zakim> +Paul_Knight
21:02:35 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
21:02:50 <bob> zakim, aaaa is Dug
21:02:50 <Zakim> +Dug; got it
21:03:17 <bob> zakim, [IPcaller] is Katy
21:03:17 <Zakim> +Katy; got it
21:04:25 <Zakim> +??P13
21:04:29 <yinleng> zakim, ??P13 is me
21:04:29 <Zakim> +yinleng; got it
21:05:25 <bob> zakim, who is here
21:05:25 <Zakim> bob, you need to end that query with '?'
21:05:37 <bob> zakim, who is here?
21:05:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see Bob_Freund, Gilbert_Pilz, David_Illsley, Mark_Little, MrGoodner, Katy, Dug, Paul_Knight, Tom_Rutt, yinleng
21:05:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see PaulKnight, yinleng, MrGoodner, Katy, gpilz, David_Illsley, RRSAgent, Zakim, bob
21:07:08 <dhull> dhull has joined #ws-addr
21:07:17 <bob> scribe: David Illsley
21:07:27 <Zakim> +Dave_Hull
21:07:32 <Zakim> -Mark_Little
21:07:34 <David_Illsley> Bob: Adding item to agenda
21:07:54 <David_Illsley> Bob: discussion of schedule of coming calls
21:08:01 <David_Illsley> Agenda accepted
21:08:17 <David_Illsley> RESOLUTION Minutes Nov 6th Accepted
21:08:45 <David_Illsley> Schedule of Upcoming Calls - Recognised holidays coming up
21:09:04 <David_Illsley> Proposal: No calls on Dec25th and Jan1st
21:09:27 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
21:09:29 <David_Illsley> Bob: How do folks feel about meeting on Nov 20th?
21:09:49 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
21:10:37 <David_Illsley> Bob: 3 reservations, no objections to cancellations
21:10:54 <David_Illsley> Bob: 11/20, 12/25, 1,1 Cancelled
21:11:38 <Zakim> -Katy
21:12:01 <David_Illsley> One objection to Nov 27th so having call
21:12:20 <TonyR> TonyR has joined #ws-addr
21:12:47 <David_Illsley> Bob: Marc and Gill have completed their action item
21:12:52 <Zakim> +??P9
21:13:00 <TonyR> zakim, ??p9 is me
21:13:00 <Zakim> +TonyR; got it
21:14:21 <bob> proposed new iisue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Nov/0027.html
21:14:36 <David_Illsley> Bob: 1 proposed new issue - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Nov/0027.html
21:14:44 <Katy> Katy has joined #ws-addr
21:14:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
21:15:17 <TomRutt> TomRutt has joined #ws-addr
21:17:05 <David_Illsley> Discussion of whether this is an issue
21:18:08 <David_Illsley> Action: Paul Knight to review document and issue to advise on response
21:18:56 <David_Illsley> Bob: Discussion of Proposal 7 for closure of CR33
21:19:25 <bob> topic proposal 7 for cr33 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Nov/0026.html
21:19:30 <David_Illsley> Gil: Straightforward - represent everything as a positive asserton in a ws-policy friendly manner
21:19:59 <Dug> Dug has joined #ws-addr
21:20:06 <David_Illsley> 3 assertions - AddressingRequired to indicated addressing required - use wsp:Optional to make it optional
21:20:31 <Zakim> +Doug_Davis
21:20:35 <Zakim> -Dug
21:20:53 <Dug> zkim, Doug_Davis is me
21:20:56 <David_Illsley> Gil: AnonymousReplies indicates repies can be sent to anonymous, NonAnonymousReplies to non-anonymous uris
21:21:00 <Dug> zakim, Doug_Davis is me
21:21:01 <Zakim> +Dug; got it
21:21:08 <David_Illsley> Gil: Lets not get hung up on exact names yet
21:22:12 <David_Illsley> Katy: 3 policy assertions - are they mututally exclusive or would you expect AnonymousReplies  and NonAnonymousReplies  to only be there is AddressingRequired is there
21:22:40 <David_Illsley> Gil: expect AnonymousReplies doesn't make much sense without AddressingRequired
21:23:06 <David_Illsley> Tony: Think you can support AnonymousReplies without AddressingRequired but not NonAnonymousReplies 
21:23:15 <dhull> Would someone please mute please mute please mute please mute
21:23:51 <Dug> zakim, mute me
21:23:51 <Zakim> Dug should now be muted
21:24:06 <David_Illsley> Katy; So AddressingRequired mandates addressing and the AnonymousReplies extends that so I think it should be nested to avoid illegal combinations
21:24:22 <David_Illsley> Gil: Would tend to agree but can't speak for Marc
21:24:30 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
21:24:36 <MrGoodner> q+
21:25:02 <David_Illsley> Katy: WS-Foo assertion would have to be nested as well otherwise the WS-Foo assertion wouldn't mean anything without AddressingRequired
21:25:23 <bob> ack mrg
21:25:33 <David_Illsley> Gil: Seems combining policy assertion is going to have these problems
21:25:38 <Katy> Sorry - lost telephon connection, dialing back in
21:25:40 <Zakim> -Bob_Freund
21:26:05 <David_Illsley> MarcG: Generally not a problem to leave an assertion which allows nesting open to nesting by other specifications
21:26:07 <Zakim> +Bob_Freund
21:26:22 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
21:26:58 <David_Illsley> MarcG: I have lost how this proposal is related to the WSDL Binding Doc and the further we get into discussions about nested policy how we can reflect that back into the WSDL Binding doc
21:27:17 <Katy> q+
21:27:27 <David_Illsley> Bob: Was the groups intention that we have wsdl markers and policy assertions that map 1-1 - If things have changed we need to reflect that
21:27:39 <bob> ack katy
21:28:15 <David_Illsley> Katy: a question which came up a while ago is whether people actually need the anonymous marker available in wsdl
21:28:28 <gpilz> q+
21:28:38 <David_Illsley> MarcG: Happy is that's the decision of the group but where is it then documented
21:28:50 <bob> ack gpil
21:29:07 <TonyR> s/Happy is/Happy if/
21:29:19 <David_Illsley> Gil: I'm not clear how MarcH assumed this would be reflected in the WSDL doc - assumed that as a flat set of elemented they could replace the existing ones in the wsdl doc
21:30:14 <David_Illsley> Gil: If we have to go down the route of experimenting with nesting then maybe we have to look at doing this in policy alone
21:30:14 <Katy> q+
21:30:41 <David_Illsley> Gil: Notes that people who speak up on havin the anonymous fnction in wsdl aren't on the call, specificall anish
21:30:44 <bob> ack katy
21:30:48 <dhull> You need to be able to say "I support only anon" and "I don't support anon at all".
21:30:55 <dhull> somehow
21:32:00 <David_Illsley> Katy: We all agree that we need the anonymout semantics - but will anyone need to do this with wsdl - if everyone is moving to use ws-policy it doesn't make sense to move forward and jump through hoops to define wsdl specific elements
21:33:08 <David_Illsley> Bob: Another WG made many changes to a CR namespace and moved to PR because of agreement between implementors
21:33:09 <MrGoodner> q+
21:33:24 <bob> ack mrg
21:33:26 <David_Illsley> MarcG: Using usingAddressing marker as an assertion
21:34:11 <David_Illsley> MarcG: don't think we can move forward without changing anonymous marker because anonymous element cannot be used in ws-polict
21:34:40 <David_Illsley> Bob: If we can round up all implementors and get them to agree then we can short circuit a lot of w3c process
21:35:04 <David_Illsley> MarcG: We need to get people together to discuss what's been implemented
21:35:50 <David_Illsley> Katy: We are using UsingAddressing in WSDL and not Anonymous and would look to use anonymous function in policy
21:36:11 <David_Illsley> MarcG Using UsingAddressing and have no current plans on using anonymous function
21:36:32 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
21:36:57 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
21:37:02 <David_Illsley> Bob: 2 people using UsingAddressing but not anonymous. So if we have a wsdl and policy assertion for UsingAddressing that would fit with implementations
21:37:52 <David_Illsley> Gil: The question is how do I feel with only having this inws-policy and no wsdl
21:38:19 <David_Illsley> Gil: I'm fine with it and I think I misspoke when talking about anish
21:38:30 <David_Illsley> Gil: I don't see the need to be able to do it 2 ways
21:39:14 <David_Illsley> TomR: Qnames which can be used as policy with the same semantics is how it worked. We're talking about separate rather than nested.
21:40:21 <David_Illsley> TomR: we wanted to make them policy friendly and anishs proposal with separable asertions and I don't want to lose that
21:40:55 <MrGoodner> q+
21:40:57 <Katy> q+
21:41:04 <David_Illsley> Bob: Gil, assuming the proposal put forward was accepted by the group would it be possible in wsdl
21:41:33 <David_Illsley> Gil: From my point of view these aren't really separable - the examples bear this out
21:41:47 <David_Illsley> TomR: For clarification you're proposing nesting
21:41:57 <bob> ack mrg
21:42:04 <David_Illsley> Gil: The proposal doesn't include nesting but the discussion suggests we're moving down that route
21:42:26 <David_Illsley> MarcG: I'm sceptical you can represent the nesting in wsdl
21:42:53 <David_Illsley> MarcG: See problems with matching between the UsingAddressing assertion and new assertions
21:43:11 <bob> ack katy
21:43:13 <David_Illsley> MarcG: Proposal put forward today could be represented in wsdl
21:43:31 <David_Illsley> MarcG: getting aways from what I thought we were discussing
21:44:00 <David_Illsley> Katy: Usingaddressing and Addressingrequired not semantically equivalent - quite different markers, not interchangable qnames
21:44:28 <David_Illsley> Katy: 2 questions: 1. whether we have to represent in both policy and wsdl. 2. is they have to be represented in the same way
21:44:58 <David_Illsley> Bob: Couldn't we re-write UsingAddressing to represent thr same as AddressingRequired
21:44:59 <TomRutt> q+
21:45:14 <David_Illsley> Katy: Don't think so because it would break existing implementation
21:45:27 <bob> ack tomrutt
21:45:37 <David_Illsley> TomR: Who is going to be responsible for coming up with ws-addresing assertions for policy
21:45:46 <David_Illsley> Bob: We're trying to come up with them now
21:46:13 <David_Illsley> Bob: In a prior call we discussed an people believe that it was right that we generate the assertions
21:46:29 <David_Illsley> Bob: The issue of working with policy was a different questions
21:46:46 <David_Illsley> Bob: Looking at the policy assertions in the proposals do folks think that's workable?
21:47:45 <David_Illsley> Katy: I don't think it's workable unless the assertions are nested. I see MarcG said you could nest other assertions of a different namespace and I'm not sure about that?
21:48:32 <David_Illsley> MarcG: That would be up to the matching engine whether or not it matched and when processing an whether the assertions are recognised. 
21:48:49 <David_Illsley> Bob: seems to me there is more expressability in terms of policy
21:49:12 <David_Illsley> Bob: Is it possible to define the wsdl markers in a similar but less expressable way?
21:50:15 <David_Illsley> MarcG: Don't know, going back to what Paco said about UsingAddressing being a simple QName. I think expressing nested policy would require a schema exemplar
21:50:51 <David_Illsley> Gil: Questioning whether we really need to express this in WSDL - don't see anyone jumping up and down wanting it
21:51:18 <David_Illsley> Bob: looking at the charter we need
21:51:20 <Zakim> -David_Illsley
21:52:49 <bob> Do folks feel that we can get by with only the wsdl usingaddressing marker?
21:53:55 <dhull> q+
21:54:48 <bob> ack dhull
21:55:49 <dhull> is that "wsdl marker as syntactic sugar" model valid?
21:55:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
21:56:18 <David_Illsley> zakim, IPcaller.a is me
21:56:18 <Zakim> +David_Illsley; got it
21:56:47 <David_Illsley> MarcG: Going forward you need the anonymous function in policy not wsdl?
21:56:52 <David_Illsley> Katy: yes
21:57:13 <David_Illsley> MarcG: so we need to canvas opinion of other implementors
21:57:52 <David_Illsley> Gil: I think there is a mapping between the current UsingAddressing element and the Addressingrequired is not 1-1
21:58:02 <Katy> q+
21:58:23 <David_Illsley> Gil: The UsingAddressing flag maps into 2 separate alternatives
21:58:39 <bob> ack katy
21:59:03 <David_Illsley> Gil: think we were too full of zeal thinking we could define a single set of markers that would work in wsdl and policy
21:59:53 <David_Illsley> Tony: Gils point that you can express Usingaddressing supported, not required gets rid of my concerns
22:00:16 <David_Illsley> Bob: Looks like we are going down the track of having different QNames between policy and wsdl
22:00:50 <David_Illsley> Bob: looks like a resolution that we aren't constrained by the bonds of keeping the qnames in wsdl
22:01:11 <David_Illsley> Bob: Can we keep UsingAddressing and drop the anonymous stuff and leave the rest to policy
22:01:28 <David_Illsley> Tony: If the client gets it wrong we can always send an error
22:01:50 <David_Illsley> Bob: Take a look at the UsingAddressing marker we have - are the semantic what we want to keep
22:02:12 <David_Illsley> Bob: if so do we want to drop the remaining bits about anonymous/non-anoymous
22:02:50 <David_Illsley> MarcG: Suggesting dropping wsaw:Anonymous
22:03:16 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
22:03:18 <David_Illsley> MarcG: Happy with that or dropping the surrounding test suggesting anonymous can be used as an assertion
22:03:35 <David_Illsley> MarcG: Think we need to chek with anish abot how they are using it
22:03:55 <gpilz> q+
22:04:15 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
22:04:18 <David_Illsley> Bob: Why don't we propose this to the list and threaten to take a vote on nov 27th
22:04:27 <dhull> 27 November == CR day 118
22:04:36 <dhull> s/CR/CR 33/
22:04:48 <David_Illsley> Gil: To be clear: the actualy policy assertions we're toying with here would be in the wsdl binding doc or another?
22:04:56 <David_Illsley> Bob: I think the wsdl doc
22:05:36 <dhull> q+
22:05:44 <TomRutt> q+
22:05:45 <David_Illsley> Gil: I think the suggestion is a good one. The more overlap between what you can do in both policy and wsdl, the more confusion
22:05:54 <Katy> q+
22:06:14 <David_Illsley> Gil: Have UsingAddressing as the large grain flag and if you want the more granular approach, be directed to ws-policy
22:06:27 <bob> ack gpil
22:06:34 <bob> ack dhull
22:06:51 <David_Illsley> dhull: If there is a need to keep wsaw:anonymous can we define it in terms of the policy assertions
22:07:22 <MrGoodner> q+
22:07:26 <David_Illsley> some disussion about if we actually want it in wsdl
22:08:44 <Zakim> +Marc_Hadley
22:09:21 <David_Illsley> Bob: semantics of current UsingAddressing is different than the ws-policy proposal
22:09:48 <marc> marc has joined #ws-addr
22:10:41 <David_Illsley> Bob: Whether wsaw:Anon survives?
22:10:41 <Zakim> -Dave_Hull
22:11:04 <Zakim> +Dave_Hull
22:11:04 <David_Illsley> TomR: Are we going to do the ws-policy in this wsdl binding doc before it goed to CR?
22:11:25 <David_Illsley> Bob: We'll talk about that
22:12:12 <bob> q?
22:12:20 <bob> ack tomr
22:12:33 <David_Illsley> TomR: if they're concurrent then we'll know what the differences will be before publish
22:13:12 <bob> ack katy
22:13:33 <David_Illsley> Katy: Looking at minutes 25th Sept - removal of wsaw:Anonymous was discussed and voted. People voted against then seemed to be more concerned about the semantics, not necessarilty th wsdl marker
22:13:48 <David_Illsley> Katy: Discussed many times
22:13:53 <bob> ack mrg
22:14:00 <David_Illsley> Bob: came to similar conclusion about the minutes
22:14:22 <Katy> minutes here discussing removal of wsaw:anonymous from wsdl: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/6/09/25-ws-addr-minutes.html
22:14:28 <David_Illsley> MarcG: If we're talking about only ws-policy does it really live in this doc not a note?
22:14:45 <David_Illsley> Bob: can we focus on the functionality first
22:15:27 <David_Illsley> MarcG: Sure, would like to have consideration of what happens if you use new assertions and UsingAddressing as an assertion. think it would be ok but need to check
22:16:14 <David_Illsley> bob catches march up
22:16:32 <David_Illsley> Bob: Only question I hear people digging into is nesting
22:17:08 <MrGoodner> q+
22:17:25 <dorchard> dorchard has joined #ws-addr
22:17:32 <bob> ack mrg
22:17:38 <David_Illsley> Marc: Our policy guru thought nesting made sense. Not sure about nesting assertions from other technologies into ours. e.g. if rx defined an assertions for the rm anon would it have to nest or could it be top-level? Don't like the idea of interspersing
22:18:18 <David_Illsley> MargC: SecurityPolicy already leaves some gaps through schema extensibility, then up to matching engine
22:18:49 <David_Illsley> Bob: Is prposal 7 acceptable to the group?
22:19:08 <David_Illsley> Katy: Difficult to say if we don't know if we have to match this up the the WSDL doc
22:19:26 <David_Illsley> Bob: I thought we decided matching QNames between WSDL and Policy is folly
22:19:50 <David_Illsley> Bob: We then don't have to have them matched up
22:20:15 <David_Illsley> Bob: We then discussed taking the UsingAddressing and new assertions together, leaving the fine grain control in policy
22:20:43 <David_Illsley> Bob: Tony made point that if you don't accept anon and you get one you can fault
22:21:20 <David_Illsley> Bob: Proposal could be: Keep usingAddressing marker and that's it within the wsdl marker and then we also define the policy solution in a way similar to Proposal 7
22:21:33 <David_Illsley> Bob: I think we would need 2 agreements
22:22:04 <David_Illsley> Bob: Hope we can get to a directional agreement: Do we think that this is the most promising direction we could take?
22:22:37 <dhull> q+
22:22:47 <bob> ack dhull
22:23:24 <David_Illsley> dhull: I think we can agree on the second part regardless of the first
22:23:38 <David_Illsley> Katy: would like to see proposal with nesting
22:24:49 <David_Illsley> Bob: seem to have conflicting requirements to move forward. 
22:25:12 <David_Illsley> dhull: If we know what we can safely define one in terms of the other then we can know we're safe
22:25:31 <David_Illsley> Bob: and another way to solve it is to only have the functionality on one, not the other
22:25:54 <David_Illsley> Bob: I think I heard a number of people who want to see the anonymous function in policy and don't care about wsdl
22:26:42 <David_Illsley> Bob: if that's the case then we could move forward by removing the anonymous marker in wsdl
22:26:55 <David_Illsley> MarcG: Generally happy but want to check with anish
22:28:37 <David_Illsley> Bob: Gil, Marc, appears to have traction. The thing that seems to bother Katy is that nesting is missing
22:28:43 <David_Illsley> Katy: Yes
22:28:53 <David_Illsley> Bob: How can we deal with the issue of nesting
22:29:01 <David_Illsley> Both MarcH and Gil: It's doable
22:29:06 <TomRutt> q+
22:29:29 <David_Illsley> Bob: Could we recast the proposal to take into account Katys concerns
22:29:40 <David_Illsley> Bob: Anyone have objections to dealing with the nesting issue
22:29:44 <bob> ack tomr
22:30:16 <David_Illsley> TomR: Might be some concerns about intersection algorithm - only works at top level - may find out there's reasons not to do it - worth a try
22:30:41 <David_Illsley> Bob: Could people on both groups keep an eye out for these issues
22:30:53 <Zakim> -MrGoodner
22:31:04 <David_Illsley> Action: TomRutt to check with Ws-Policy groups on potential problems with nesting
22:31:33 <David_Illsley> MarcH: Should I make a change to the proposal with changes from Reply to Response and adding nesting
22:31:51 <David_Illsley> Bob: The conbination we're talking about is just UsingAddressing
22:32:18 <David_Illsley> Bob: Moving on to making a Primer for addressing
22:32:29 <David_Illsley> Bob: Arun had posted some stuff he had
22:32:37 <David_Illsley> Gil: Haven't had a chance to look at it yet
22:33:02 <David_Illsley> Bob: Aob?
22:33:08 <David_Illsley> Bob: No further business
22:33:13 <Zakim> -yinleng
22:33:18 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
22:33:20 <TomRutt> TomRutt has left #ws-addr
22:33:20 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
22:33:20 <Zakim> -Bob_Freund
22:33:21 <Zakim> -Dave_Hull
22:33:21 <Zakim> -Marc_Hadley
22:33:23 <yinleng> yinleng has left #ws-addr
22:33:23 <Zakim> -Paul_Knight
22:33:24 <Zakim> -David_Illsley
22:33:26 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
22:33:27 <Zakim> -Dug
22:34:36 <bob> rrsagent, make logs public
22:34:52 <Zakim> -TonyR
22:34:53 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
22:34:54 <Zakim> Attendees were Bob_Freund, Gilbert_Pilz, David_Illsley, Mark_Little, +1.919.771.aaaa, MrGoodner, Paul_Knight, Tom_Rutt, Dug, Katy, yinleng, Dave_Hull, TonyR, [IPcaller],
22:34:56 <Zakim> ... Marc_Hadley
22:35:05 <TonyR> TonyR has left #ws-addr
22:35:29 <bob> rrsagent, generate minutes
22:35:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/11/13-ws-addr-minutes.html bob
22:41:30 <bob> bob has left #ws-addr
23:11:55 <David_Illsley> David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
23:31:27 <dhull> dhull has joined #ws-addr