IRC log of ws-addr on 2006-12-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:54:22 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
20:54:22 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:54:32 [plh]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing
20:54:37 [plh]
Chair: Bob
20:54:41 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
20:55:13 [plh]
Previous minutes:
20:55:58 [plh]
scribeOptions: -final
20:56:19 [bob]
bob has joined #ws-addr
20:56:53 [bob]
meeting: WS-Addressing Working Group Teleconference
20:57:03 [bob]
chair: Old Stuffy
20:57:48 [bob]
rrsagent, pointer?
20:57:48 [RRSAgent]
20:57:53 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
20:58:00 [Zakim]
20:58:00 [Zakim]
20:58:08 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:58:14 [mlittle]
mlittle has joined #ws-addr
20:58:29 [Zakim]
20:59:56 [Zakim]
21:00:02 [Zakim]
+ +44.196.286.aaaa
21:00:38 [bob]
zakim, aaaa is David_Illsley
21:00:38 [Zakim]
+David_Illsley; got it
21:00:44 [David_Illsley]
thanks bob
21:01:37 [bob]
21:01:47 [Zakim]
21:02:15 [Zakim]
21:02:36 [MrGoodner]
MrGoodner has joined #ws-addr
21:02:43 [bob]
zakim, [Microsoft} is MrGoodner
21:02:43 [Zakim]
sorry, bob, I do not recognize a party named '[Microsoft}'
21:02:50 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
21:02:50 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
21:03:14 [bob]
zakim, [Microsoft] is MrGoodner
21:03:14 [Zakim]
+MrGoodner; got it
21:03:15 [Zakim]
21:03:28 [Zakim]
21:03:44 [Zakim]
21:03:45 [Paul_Knight]
Paul_Knight has joined #ws-addr
21:03:53 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p14 is me
21:03:53 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
21:04:01 [marc]
marc has joined #ws-addr
21:04:30 [Zakim]
21:04:35 [Zakim]
21:05:11 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
21:05:48 [bob]
zakim, [Microsoft] is yin-leng
21:05:48 [Zakim]
+yin-leng; got it
21:05:56 [Zakim]
21:06:17 [bob]
zakim, P19 is katy
21:06:17 [Zakim]
sorry, bob, I do not recognize a party named 'P19'
21:06:20 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
21:06:29 [bob]
zakim, P17 is katy
21:06:29 [Zakim]
sorry, bob, I do not recognize a party named 'P17'
21:06:53 [bob]
zakim, ??P17 is katy
21:06:53 [Zakim]
+katy; got it
21:07:25 [Zakim]
21:08:04 [mlittle]
mlittle has joined #ws-addr
21:08:38 [Zakim]
21:10:47 [bob]
scribe: gill
21:10:53 [gpilz]
scribe: gil
21:11:05 [gpilz]
TOPIC: review of minutes
21:11:22 [gpilz]
RESOLVED: minutes accepted
21:11:28 [gpilz]
TOPIC: review of agenda
21:11:49 [gpilz]
bob: a couple of new issues
21:12:01 [gpilz]
... Jonathan noted capitalization probs
21:12:39 [gpilz]
... David Illsley's comment on namespaces
21:12:52 [Zakim]
21:12:56 [gpilz]
DavidI: not sure if my namespace comment needs a new issue
21:13:18 [gpilz]
RESOLVED: close new issue on capitalization with Jonathan's proposal
21:13:22 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-addr
21:13:38 [gpilz]
TOPIC: review action items
21:14:11 [gpilz]
bob: Paul Knight sent his review to the mailing list a couple of minutes ago
21:14:28 [gpilz]
... people should read and review and be prepared to discuss this on next weeks call
21:14:36 [Zakim]
21:14:38 [gpilz]
Paul: I'd be happy to discuss at this point . . .
21:15:05 [gpilz]
Bob: given the late arrival, let's postpone for next meeting
21:15:16 [gpilz]
RESOLVED: discuss Paul's comments next meeting
21:15:28 [gpilz]
21:15:37 [Zakim]
21:16:00 [bob]
scribe: bob
21:16:27 [bob]
Gil: I wrote what I understood to be out agreement based on the lsat call
21:16:37 [anish]
21:16:59 [bob]
... specifically we didn't want the absence of the assertion to be its negation since that would lead to the cr33 trap
21:17:37 [bob]
... a number of points made on the list have called into question some of what I thought we had alredy decided
21:18:38 [bob]
Anish: I thought that the agreement ws to make the assertions both policy and wsdl markers
21:18:58 [bob]
Gil: We had decided against that in the prior concall.
21:19:31 [bob]
... wsdl would be a course grain marker, but policy would fine tune them
21:20:07 [bob]
Anish: I was explicitly pushing that the new assertions be usable both in wsdl and policy
21:20:13 [David_Illsley]
21:20:23 [bob]
ack anish
21:20:25 [TonyR]
c/course grain/coarse grain/
21:20:34 [TonyR]
s/course grain/coarse grain/
21:21:43 [MrGoodner]
21:21:49 [bob]
Gil: Does not make sense to discuss anon / nonanon unless addressing is already inficated as supported
21:23:00 [David_Illsley]
21:23:25 [anish]
21:23:30 [bob]
... WS-Policy is pretty mechanical. it would need domain specific smarts
21:23:34 [GlenD]
GlenD has joined #ws-addr
21:23:36 [gpilz]
MarcG: my recollection matches what Gil said
21:23:37 [GlenD]
21:23:41 [bob]
scribe: gil
21:23:47 [bob]
ack mrg
21:23:48 [gpilz]
... I don't dispute the notion of using matching assertions
21:24:11 [gpilz]
... The new proposal nests the Anon/NonAnon under UsingAddressing
21:24:19 [David_Illsley]
21:24:43 [gpilz]
... I'm having a hard time with how we would use UsingAddressing both as a WSDL marker and a policy assertion if you can nest Anon/NonAnon underneath
21:24:49 [dorchard]
zakim, who's speaking?
21:25:01 [Zakim]
dorchard, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Bob_Freund (15%)
21:25:48 [gpilz]
Bob: so your point is that you don't think the WSDL marker and the policy assertion can have the same QName?
21:26:06 [gpilz]
MarcG: It's okay as long as UsingAddressing is a simple policy assertion
21:26:25 [gpilz]
... but when you start nesting other policy assertions beneath it, I can't see it
21:26:31 [bob]
21:26:41 [gpilz]
DavidI: I haven't thought that through
21:26:43 [David_Illsley]
21:26:57 [gpilz]
Glen: It shouldn't be a problem
21:27:01 [bob]
ack ani
21:27:29 [gpilz]
Anish: There are two issues: do we want to provide the same capabilities in both WSDL extensions and Policy
21:27:38 [gpilz]
... and do we want to nest assertions
21:28:07 [gpilz]
... my understanding is that we were going to provide all the capabilities as both WSDL extensions and in WS-Policy
21:28:35 [gpilz]
... Gil, I don't see the use case
21:28:50 [MrGoodner]
21:29:26 [bob]
ack mrg
21:29:30 [Katy]
21:29:50 [gpilz]
Gil: server advertises "NonAnonymousResponses" client looks for "UsingAddressing" . . they don't intersect
21:29:52 [bob]
ack katy
21:30:19 [David_Illsley]
21:30:21 [gpilz]
Katy: Anish, two sub-issues of your first issue
21:30:32 [gpilz]
... providing UsingAddressing functionality in WSDL
21:30:41 [Zakim]
21:30:46 [Zakim]
21:30:48 [gpilz]
... and providing "AnonymousResponses" functionality in WSDL
21:31:05 [gpilz]
... the group determined that nobody needed "Anon" functionality in WSDL
21:31:41 [gpilz]
Anish: the idea was that existing impls that don't understand the new WS-Policy assertions need "anon" in WSDL
21:32:34 [bob]
21:33:04 [gpilz]
Katy: concerned because we asked if anyone needed anon in WSDL and everyone said they didn't
21:33:14 [gpilz]
Anish: we certainly need an "anon" marker in WSDL
21:33:18 [bob]
zakim, mute katy
21:33:18 [Zakim]
katy should now be muted
21:33:26 [bob]
zakim, unmute katy
21:33:26 [Zakim]
katy should no longer be muted
21:33:34 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
21:33:34 [plh]
21:33:45 [gpilz]
Katy: as long as someone needs it and someone will implement it, we should include it
21:33:51 [gpilz]
... but it makes the spec a lot more complicated
21:33:59 [gpilz]
Anish: You think UsingAddressing is complicated?
21:34:21 [gpilz]
Katy: No, its not but the "anon" and "nonAnon" markers make things a lot more complicated
21:34:37 [gpilz]
Anish: I think it doesn't.
21:35:17 [gpilz]
DavidI: There are two different ways of looking at these separate assertions.
21:35:35 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
21:35:44 [gpilz]
... if we have "AnonSupported" as implying "UsingAddressing", but this breaks the intersection rules
21:35:50 [anish]
btw, i don't care as much about whether it is a nested assertion of not, i care more about allowing it to be used in WSDL
21:35:57 [anish]
s/of not/or not/
21:36:04 [Zakim]
21:36:12 [gpilz]
... if we have separate assertions so "AnonSupported" doesn't imply "UsingAddressin" you end up with combinations that are invalid
21:36:12 [GlenD]
21:36:30 [gpilz]
... these invalid alternatives require domain-specific knowledge to detect and exclude
21:36:47 [TonyR]
zakim, who is making noise?
21:36:58 [Zakim]
TonyR, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Bob_Freund (4%), yin-leng (14%), GlenD (4%)
21:36:59 [gpilz]
Phillpe: Katy commented that if one person needs something we have to do it. I don't agree.
21:37:23 [gpilz]
Bob: Who needs "AnonResponses" in WSDL? Just Anish or anyone else ?
21:37:28 [gpilz]
21:38:00 [gpilz]
Bob: Anish can you make the case that "AnonResponse" is generally useful as a WSDL extension?
21:38:07 [gpilz]
Anish: I thought I did.
21:38:22 [gpilz]
... It will take a while for people to get on the WS-Policy band-wagon
21:38:34 [gpilz]
... Its simpler to add support for a WSDL extension
21:38:36 [bob]
ack david
21:38:50 [bob]
ack plh
21:38:58 [gpilz]
... That it is to make everyone to go to WS-Policy to learn abou Anon/NonAnon
21:39:07 [gpilz]
Phillpe: Can we do a quick straw-poll?
21:39:42 [gpilz]
Bob: <asks for anynone else who thinks AnonResponses need to be a WSDL extension>
21:39:49 [gpilz]
21:39:57 [gpilz]
Bob: <asks counter-question>
21:40:03 [GlenD]
ah, blessed apathy :)
21:41:09 [Zakim]
21:41:46 [Zakim]
21:41:50 [anish]
21:43:48 [plh]
q+ to try to answer the charter question
21:44:29 [gpilz]
RESULTS: 1 need, 5 don't need (no), 1 maybe
21:44:38 [bob]
ack plh
21:44:38 [Zakim]
plh, you wanted to try to answer the charter question
21:45:09 [plh]
"use of Web Services Addressing components in WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 message exchange patterns and providing the mechanisms for defining Web Services Addressing property values in WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 service descriptions"
21:45:24 [bob]
ack anish
21:45:30 [gpilz]
Phillpe: DavidH's question is a good one. Depending upon how you read the charter it could be construed that we need to do it in both places.
21:45:40 [plh]
21:45:59 [gpilz]
Anish: The charter talks about WSDL and not WS-Policy. It seems odd to discuss things that have nothing to do with WSDL in the "WSDL Binding Document"
21:46:12 [gpilz]
Bob: We have an open issue to discuss the title of the document.
21:46:13 [Zakim]
21:46:34 [gpilz]
Anish: Our charter doesn't talk about WS-Policy at all.
21:46:48 [bob]
21:46:52 [Katy]
21:47:10 [gpilz]
... Some people talked about the complexity. Whichever way we go (nested or not) making the assertions dual-purpose won't complicate anything.
21:47:34 [gpilz]
... I'm willing to put together a proposal to show people how to use any assertions in both WSDL and WS-Policy
21:47:59 [gpilz]
Bob: I was beginning to hope that we were making progress. I don't want to derail that progress. I would like to proceed along the lines
21:48:27 [gpilz]
... of doing solely policy assertions then revisit the WSDL extension issue once we get those hammered out.
21:48:34 [gpilz]
... Would that be acceptable?
21:48:55 [bob]
ack katy
21:49:31 [gpilz]
Katy: I'm against the idea of trying to express "AnonResponses" and "NonAnonresponses" in WSDL
21:49:36 [anish]
21:49:56 [gpilz]
... If we do it in both places we have the problem of what to do when the WSDL and Policy disagree
21:50:15 [gpilz]
... sticking to just UsingAddressing minimizes the potential for disagreements
21:50:16 [bob]
ack anish
21:50:33 [gpilz]
Anish: Is anyone suggesting getting rid of dual-use for UsingAddressing?
21:50:42 [gpilz]
Bob & Katy: No
21:50:49 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #ws-addr
21:51:25 [gpilz]
Anish: The problems of WSDL and Policy disagreeing are already there for UsingAddressing (cites example)
21:52:10 [gpilz]
... Those conflicts need to be resolved in any case so its no big deal to apply those solutions to AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymousResponses
21:52:13 [marklittle]
marklittle has joined #ws-addr
21:52:19 [gpilz]
Katy: Yeah same pattern, but more work in each case.
21:52:34 [gpilz]
... Fine, if we need both. But I don't think we need both.
21:52:51 [gpilz]
... A lot of extra processing for something that nobody seems to need very much.
21:53:03 [anish]
21:53:26 [gpilz]
Bob: Our straw poll (if turned into a formal vote) shows abstain ruling, followed by 'no'
21:53:51 [gpilz]
... We could settle this and move forward by a formal vote.
21:54:22 [gpilz]
... On the other hand, we could just defer this discussion until we figure out how to express what we want using WS-Policy
21:54:47 [gpilz]
... I disagree that the shortest path is to try and address the WSDL extension issue now.
21:54:51 [gpilz]
Katy: OK
21:55:01 [anish]
21:55:40 [anish]
21:55:41 [gpilz]
Bob: I note that Chris Ferris has thrown a log on the fire with regards to wsdl:required="true"
21:55:59 [gpilz]
q+ to discuss Chris' point
21:56:13 [Zakim]
21:56:31 [bob]
ack gil
21:57:03 [bob]
ack gpil
21:57:03 [Zakim]
gpilz, you wanted to discuss Chris' point
21:59:14 [dorchard]
21:59:35 [bob]
ack dorch
22:00:05 [gpilz]
DavidO: some people are objecting to the description of UsingAddressing based on what is need by the WS-Policy intersection rules
22:00:32 [gpilz]
... Some people say we can't have WS-Addr specific policy handling. I'm not sure if I agree with that.
22:01:13 [MrGoodner]
22:01:19 [gpilz]
... WS-Policy is in last call and WS-Addr seems to have a fairly simple use of WS-Policy. If we need WS-Policy to do something different we should tell them now.
22:01:38 [gpilz]
... Its interesting that one of the first WG's to use WS-Policy is having such problems.
22:01:44 [bob]
ack mrg
22:02:03 [gpilz]
MarcG: If there are issues found with WS-Policy we should let them know.
22:02:30 [gpilz]
... I think the problems with the intersection algorithm are overblown. We should just focus on the assertions that we need.
22:02:43 [dorchard]
22:02:49 [gpilz]
... WS-SX has a large set of complex assertions and they don't seem to be having problems.
22:02:53 [bob]
ack dorch
22:03:40 [gpilz]
Tom: With nested assertions we don't have problems with the intersection algorithm. I agree with ChrisF . . .
22:04:19 [gpilz]
Bob: Want to get back to prior call. Someone made a statement that nesting policy assertions is just too complicated. Has that changed?
22:04:19 [MrGoodner]
22:04:29 [bob]
ack mrg
22:04:37 [gpilz]
Tom: We were also talking about nesting parameters which is pretty complicated.
22:04:57 [gpilz]
MarcG: I was on the previous calls. I agree that nesting policy assertions is not that hard.
22:05:15 [gpilz]
... Though I question using "UsingAddressing" as the top-level container.
22:05:22 [TonyR]
22:05:34 [bob]
ack tony
22:05:36 [Zakim]
22:05:42 [gpilz]
Bob: Are people ok with using UsingAddressing as a container and putting AnonResponses and NonAnonResponses as child policies?
22:06:08 [anish]
22:06:23 [gpilz]
Tony: The reason that we split UsingAddressing (the WSDL marker) and AddressingRequired (the policy assertion) was because of this split in semantics
22:06:52 [gpilz]
(scribe lost audio(
22:06:55 [bob]
ack ani
22:07:14 [bob]
scribe: bob
22:08:09 [bob]
Anish: use framework attribute to define required or optional
22:08:42 [bob]
TonyR: That won't work because there would be different meanings in different environments
22:09:09 [David_Illsley]
22:09:10 [bob]
Anish: It is a question of what is the default, the defaults may be different, but the semantics are the same
22:09:27 [dorchard]
+1 to TonyR's points.
22:09:31 [bob]
TonyR: If the defaults are different then they have different meanings
22:09:35 [Zakim]
22:09:56 [bob]
scribe: gil
22:10:28 [gpilz]
DavidI: When I think about this stuff, I try to think about it in WS-Policy-normal form (no "optional")
22:10:52 [gpilz]
... If we don't have text saying that the normal form means something different, it doesn't.
22:11:13 [bob]
ack david
22:11:24 [gpilz]
Anish: Are you saying that "wsp:optional=true" means that the non-missing case means that addressing is required?
22:11:31 [gpilz]
DavidI: Yes.
22:11:55 [MrGoodner]
22:11:55 [MrGoodner]
22:12:06 [bob]
ack mrg
22:12:09 [gpilz]
Bob: Do we have specific changes to Gil's proposal that we would like to make?
22:12:19 [gpilz]
Marc: What about David's proposal on Friday?
22:12:28 [gpilz]
Bob: Those are commments against Gil's
22:12:53 [gpilz]
MarcG: But it changed nesting?
22:13:05 [gpilz]
Bob: True
22:13:39 [gpilz]
Gil: But I think Bob wants to see a proposal with David's changes to Gil's proposal.
22:13:51 [gpilz]
Bob: Right
22:14:11 [gpilz]
... Do folks agree that this is the direction we want to go in?
22:14:33 [gpilz]
Tony: I remain concerned with one thing about the nesting.
22:15:04 [gpilz]
... If the outer container can't have "wsp:optional=true" how do you get the inner assertions to support the required ???
22:16:13 [gpilz]
Paco: The point is that "optional" applies to the whole thing
22:16:32 [gpilz]
Tony: How can you express that you want an inner assertion but not an outer assertion.
22:16:34 [gpilz]
22:17:42 [gpilz]
Gil: How/why would I say "I support non-anonymous responses" without saying "I support WS-Addr"?
22:18:53 [gpilz]
Bob: Do we agree on the direction?
22:18:56 [bob]
ack gpil
22:18:59 [David_Illsley]
22:19:09 [bob]
ack david
22:19:15 [gpilz]
MarcG: I want to know if we are going to make UsingAddressing act as a container.
22:19:22 [anish]
22:19:37 [gpilz]
DavidI: Let's rename the UsingAddressing policy assertiong to AddressingRequired
22:19:39 [bob]
ack anish
22:19:42 [gpilz]
MarcG: I would like that.
22:19:56 [gpilz]
Anish: Would that be a replacement for UsingAdressing or in addition to?
22:20:07 [gpilz]
DavidI: That would be a point for further disucssion.
22:20:24 [gpilz]
Bob: I think the point is to distinguish the policy assertion from the WSDL marker.
22:20:49 [gpilz]
Anish: So "UsingAddressing" is a WSDL marker and "AddressingRequired" is a policy assertion?
22:20:52 [gpilz]
Bob: Yes
22:21:05 [gpilz]
MarcG: I think we whould leave "UsingAddressing" alone.
22:21:22 [gpilz]
Bob: Leave "UsingAddressing" alone as a WSDL marker.
22:21:25 [anish]
22:21:36 [bob]
ack ani
22:21:37 [gpilz]
MarcG: I thought we had agreed to leave UsingAddressing completely alone.
22:21:41 [gpilz]
Bob: I thought we were.
22:21:56 [gpilz]
MarcG: No, right now you can use UsingAddressing as a policy assertion.
22:22:20 [gpilz]
Anish: How can we have both a UsingAddressing policy assertion and a AddressingRequired policy assertion?
22:22:28 [MrGoodner]
22:22:38 [bob]
ack mrg
22:22:39 [gpilz]
... They compete and one is a superset of the other (provides examples)
22:23:18 [gpilz]
MarcG: I'd like to see how this develops. But when you start doing nested assertions you have to express that assertion (it can't be defaulted).
22:23:47 [gpilz]
... That is, if UsingAddressing has child assertions, you have to express the values of those assertions, you can't leave it empty.
22:24:05 [gpilz]
... Whereas, today, you could have a policy with UsingAddressing and no child elements.
22:24:20 [gpilz]
... There are implemenations that currently rely on the use of UsingAddressing as a policy assertion.
22:24:51 [gpilz]
Tony: I'm reluctant to be bound to someone's early implementation of a draft spec. They knew the risks when they did this.
22:24:56 [MrGoodner]
22:25:01 [gpilz]
... We don't have to be bound by their decisions.
22:25:06 [bob]
ack mrg
22:25:22 [gpilz]
Bob: Let's figure out what we need to do then figure out how to minimize impact on existing implementations.
22:25:43 [plh]
22:25:54 [gpilz]
MarcG: I agree with Bob. We can't radically change the marker and keep the same namespace. There are implemations out there the use the current namespace.
22:25:58 [bob]
ack plh
22:26:07 [plh]
"This namespace URI will be updated only if changes are made to
22:26:07 [plh]
the document are significant and impact the implementation of the
22:26:07 [plh]
specifications.This namespace URI will be updated only if changes are made to
22:26:07 [plh]
the document are significant and impact the implementation of the
22:26:07 [plh]
22:26:12 [plh]
22:26:14 [gpilz]
Tony: I'm sorry, but we were still in draft stage.
22:26:39 [gpilz]
(someone): We promised that we would change the namespace if we changed the semantics?
22:26:51 [Zakim]
22:27:05 [gpilz]
Bob: DavidI agree to take an AI to update the current proposal to include nested assertions.
22:27:08 [gpilz]
DavidI: Yes.
22:27:42 [gpilz]
ACTION ITEM: David Illsley to update Gil's proposal to nest AnonResponse/NonAnonResponses
22:27:58 [gpilz]
TOPIC: Name of the "WSDL Binding Document"
22:28:17 [gpilz]
Tony: What about "WSDL Binding and Related Matters"?
22:28:38 [gpilz]
Bob: "WSDL Binding, Anti-Poverty, and Peace Document"
22:28:53 [gpilz]
Anish: Have we ruled out a separate document?
22:29:03 [gpilz]
Bob: Phillpe do you have a position on that?
22:29:27 [gpilz]
Bob: If there are conflicts between WSDL and POlicy it would be handy to have them together.
22:29:36 [gpilz]
Anish: If they are not dual-use there is no conflict.
22:29:54 [gpilz]
Tony: One could say one thing and one could say another.
22:30:19 [gpilz]
Tony & Anish: (back and forth on possible conflicts between WSDL markers and Policy assertions)
22:30:57 [gpilz]
Bob: We are well overdue on our mandatory heartbeat requirement. We need to publish a new version soon. Any addition of WS-Policy stuff needs
22:31:05 [gpilz]
... a corresponding change to the title.
22:31:20 [gpilz]
22:31:34 [anish]
Q that i was going to ask: for those supporting no support in WSDL for anon, why would we have a dual use UsingAddressing for WSDL. I.e. won't the same reasoning apply to make UsingAddressing single use (ws-p only)?
22:32:00 [gpilz]
Bob: We can decide to split the doc once we have figured out the content
22:32:22 [bob]
ack gpil
22:32:23 [gpilz]
Gil: New name should best be figured out on the mailing list
22:32:28 [gpilz]
Bob: True
22:32:42 [gpilz]
Anish: If everything is dual-use then it should all be in the same doc
22:32:46 [dorchard]
Description Document
22:32:55 [gpilz]
... Separate use would seem to require separate documents.
22:32:59 [dorchard]
Metadata Document
22:33:09 [gpilz]
Bob: WS-Addressing Metadata Document
22:33:29 [gpilz]
Bob: I'd like to get to a heartbeat document very shortly.
22:33:31 [dorchard]
I take full credit for the brilliant suggestion.
22:33:46 [gpilz]
... I'm hopeful we'll have a section on WS-Policy assertions to add on next weeks call.
22:35:28 [gpilz]
TOPIC: WS-Policy review
22:35:50 [gpilz]
Bob: If people in this group has a set of comments it might be helpful to combine those comments as a group response.
22:36:05 [MrGoodner]
22:36:28 [gpilz]
... There are only three calls between now and the end of the review period for WS-Policy
22:37:00 [gpilz]
... Would like to make sure we can do what we need using WS-Policy and I would like to do that in parallel with the review period for WS-Polcy.
22:37:12 [bob]
ack mrg
22:37:25 [gpilz]
MarcG: The WS-Policy primer has examples that show the use of the UsingAddressing assertion. Good place to start . . .
22:37:45 [gpilz]
Tony: You are suggesting that if we change UsingAddressing, they might not be happy?
22:37:52 [gpilz]
MarcG: No.
22:38:00 [gpilz]
Anish: Is the Primer in last call?
22:38:08 [gpilz]
(all): No
22:38:27 [gpilz]
Bob: But we should look at the Primer as a good place to start.
22:38:35 [gpilz]
MarcG: I put the link in IRC
22:38:59 [plh]
plh has joined #ws-addr
22:39:12 [gpilz]
Bob: For next weeks call we have the review of Paul Kight's AI, a review of the propsal from David Illsley.
22:39:17 [gpilz]
22:39:44 [bob]
ack gp
22:40:01 [Zakim]
22:40:02 [Zakim]
22:40:04 [Zakim]
22:40:06 [Zakim]
22:40:08 [Zakim]
22:40:09 [Zakim]
22:40:10 [gpilz]
22:40:10 [Zakim]
22:40:11 [Zakim]
22:40:12 [Zakim]
22:40:13 [Katy]
Katy has left #ws-addr
22:40:14 [Zakim]
22:40:15 [Zakim]
22:40:15 [Zakim]
22:40:18 [bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
22:40:32 [Zakim]
22:40:37 [bob]
zakim, who was here?
22:40:37 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, bob.
22:40:56 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:40:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
22:41:27 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
22:42:43 [bob]
i/review of minutes/scribenick: gpilz
22:42:54 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:42:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
22:44:25 [bob]
i/MarcG: my recollection/scribenick: gpilz
22:44:35 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:44:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
22:45:02 [plh]
zakim, drop gil
22:45:02 [Zakim]
Gilbert_Pilz is being disconnected
22:45:03 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
22:45:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were Mark_Little, Gilbert_Pilz, Bob_Freund, Plh, +44.196.286.aaaa, David_Illsley, Tom_Rutt, MrGoodner, Marc_Hadley, Anish_Karmarkar, TonyR, Paul_Knight, yin-leng, katy,
22:45:06 [Zakim]
... GlenD, David_Hull, Dave_Orchard, Dave_Hull, [IBM]
22:45:07 [plh]
zakim, bye
22:45:07 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-addr
22:45:47 [bob]
s/scribe: gil/scribe: gpilz
22:46:02 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:46:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
22:49:06 [bob]
rrsagent, bye
22:49:06 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
22:49:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ITEM to David Illsley to update Gil's proposal to nest AnonResponse/NonAnonResponses [1]
22:49:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in