20:54:22 RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr 20:54:22 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/12/04-ws-addr-irc 20:54:32 Meeting: Web Services Addressing 20:54:37 Chair: Bob 20:54:41 David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr 20:55:13 Previous minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Nov/att-0083/27-ws-addr-minutes.html 20:55:58 scribeOptions: -final 20:56:19 bob has joined #ws-addr 20:56:53 meeting: WS-Addressing Working Group Teleconference 20:57:03 chair: Old Stuffy 20:57:48 rrsagent, pointer? 20:57:48 See http://www.w3.org/2006/12/04-ws-addr-irc#T20-57-48 20:57:53 WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started 20:58:00 +Mark_Little 20:58:00 +Gilbert_Pilz 20:58:08 gpilz has joined #ws-addr 20:58:14 mlittle has joined #ws-addr 20:58:29 +Bob_Freund 20:59:56 +Plh 21:00:02 + +44.196.286.aaaa 21:00:38 zakim, aaaa is David_Illsley 21:00:38 +David_Illsley; got it 21:00:44 thanks bob 21:01:37 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Dec/0008.html 21:01:47 +Tom_Rutt 21:02:15 +[Microsoft] 21:02:36 MrGoodner has joined #ws-addr 21:02:43 zakim, [Microsoft} is MrGoodner 21:02:43 sorry, bob, I do not recognize a party named '[Microsoft}' 21:02:50 anish has joined #ws-addr 21:02:50 TonyR has joined #ws-addr 21:03:14 zakim, [Microsoft] is MrGoodner 21:03:14 +MrGoodner; got it 21:03:15 +Marc_Hadley 21:03:28 +Anish_Karmarkar 21:03:44 +??P14 21:03:45 Paul_Knight has joined #ws-addr 21:03:53 zakim, ??p14 is me 21:03:53 +TonyR; got it 21:04:01 marc has joined #ws-addr 21:04:30 +[Microsoft] 21:04:35 +Paul_Knight 21:05:11 dhull has joined #ws-addr 21:05:48 zakim, [Microsoft] is yin-leng 21:05:48 +yin-leng; got it 21:05:56 +??P17 21:06:17 zakim, P19 is katy 21:06:17 sorry, bob, I do not recognize a party named 'P19' 21:06:20 Katy has joined #ws-addr 21:06:29 zakim, P17 is katy 21:06:29 sorry, bob, I do not recognize a party named 'P17' 21:06:53 zakim, ??P17 is katy 21:06:53 +katy; got it 21:07:25 +GlenD 21:08:04 mlittle has joined #ws-addr 21:08:38 +David_Hull 21:10:47 scribe: gill 21:10:53 scribe: gil 21:11:05 TOPIC: review of minutes 21:11:22 RESOLVED: minutes accepted 21:11:28 TOPIC: review of agenda 21:11:49 bob: a couple of new issues 21:12:01 ... Jonathan noted capitalization probs 21:12:39 ... David Illsley's comment on namespaces 21:12:52 +Dave_Orchard 21:12:56 DavidI: not sure if my namespace comment needs a new issue 21:13:18 RESOLVED: close new issue on capitalization with Jonathan's proposal 21:13:22 dorchard has joined #ws-addr 21:13:38 TOPIC: review action items 21:14:11 bob: Paul Knight sent his review to the mailing list a couple of minutes ago 21:14:28 ... people should read and review and be prepared to discuss this on next weeks call 21:14:36 -Tom_Rutt 21:14:38 Paul: I'd be happy to discuss at this point . . . 21:15:05 Bob: given the late arrival, let's postpone for next meeting 21:15:16 RESOLVED: discuss Paul's comments next meeting 21:15:28 TOPIC: CR33 21:15:37 +Tom_Rutt 21:16:00 scribe: bob 21:16:27 Gil: I wrote what I understood to be out agreement based on the lsat call 21:16:37 q+ 21:16:59 ... 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 ... a number of points made on the list have called into question some of what I thought we had alredy decided 21:18:38 Anish: I thought that the agreement ws to make the assertions both policy and wsdl markers 21:18:58 Gil: We had decided against that in the prior concall. 21:19:31 ... wsdl would be a course grain marker, but policy would fine tune them 21:20:07 Anish: I was explicitly pushing that the new assertions be usable both in wsdl and policy 21:20:13 q+ 21:20:23 ack anish 21:20:25 c/course grain/coarse grain/ 21:20:34 s/course grain/coarse grain/ 21:21:43 q+ 21:21:49 Gil: Does not make sense to discuss anon / nonanon unless addressing is already inficated as supported 21:23:00 q- 21:23:25 q+ 21:23:30 ... WS-Policy is pretty mechanical. it would need domain specific smarts 21:23:34 GlenD has joined #ws-addr 21:23:36 MarcG: my recollection matches what Gil said 21:23:37 q? 21:23:41 scribe: gil 21:23:47 ack mrg 21:23:48 ... I don't dispute the notion of using matching assertions 21:24:11 ... The new proposal nests the Anon/NonAnon under UsingAddressing 21:24:19 q+ 21:24:43 ... 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 zakim, who's speaking? 21:25:01 ... I thought we had agreed to leave UsingAddressing alone 21:25:01 dorchard, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Bob_Freund (15%) 21:25:48 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 MarcG: It's okay as long as UsingAddressing is a simple policy assertion 21:26:25 ... but when you start nesting other policy assertions beneath it, I can't see it 21:26:31 q? 21:26:41 DavidI: I haven't thought that through 21:26:43 q- 21:26:57 Glen: It shouldn't be a problem 21:27:01 ack ani 21:27:29 Anish: There are two issues: do we want to provide the same capabilities in both WSDL extensions and Policy 21:27:38 ... and do we want to nest assertions 21:28:07 ... my understanding is that we were going to provide all the capabilities as both WSDL extensions and in WS-Policy 21:28:35 ... Gil, I don't see the use case 21:28:50 q+ 21:29:26 ack mrg 21:29:30 q+ 21:29:50 Gil: server advertises "NonAnonymousResponses" client looks for "UsingAddressing" . . they don't intersect 21:29:52 ack katy 21:30:19 q+ 21:30:21 Katy: Anish, two sub-issues of your first issue 21:30:32 ... providing UsingAddressing functionality in WSDL 21:30:41 +Dave_Hull 21:30:46 -David_Hull 21:30:48 ... and providing "AnonymousResponses" functionality in WSDL 21:31:05 ... the group determined that nobody needed "Anon" functionality in WSDL 21:31:41 Anish: the idea was that existing impls that don't understand the new WS-Policy assertions need "anon" in WSDL 21:32:34 q? 21:33:04 Katy: concerned because we asked if anyone needed anon in WSDL and everyone said they didn't 21:33:14 Anish: we certainly need an "anon" marker in WSDL 21:33:18 zakim, mute katy 21:33:18 katy should now be muted 21:33:26 zakim, unmute katy 21:33:26 katy should no longer be muted 21:33:34 dhull has joined #ws-addr 21:33:34 q+ 21:33:45 Katy: as long as someone needs it and someone will implement it, we should include it 21:33:51 ... but it makes the spec a lot more complicated 21:33:59 Anish: You think UsingAddressing is complicated? 21:34:21 Katy: No, its not but the "anon" and "nonAnon" markers make things a lot more complicated 21:34:37 Anish: I think it doesn't. 21:35:17 DavidI: There are two different ways of looking at these separate assertions. 21:35:35 Paco has joined #ws-addr 21:35:44 ... if we have "AnonSupported" as implying "UsingAddressing", but this breaks the intersection rules 21:35:50 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 s/of not/or not/ 21:36:04 +[IBM] 21:36:12 ... if we have separate assertions so "AnonSupported" doesn't imply "UsingAddressin" you end up with combinations that are invalid 21:36:12 q? 21:36:30 ... these invalid alternatives require domain-specific knowledge to detect and exclude 21:36:47 zakim, who is making noise? 21:36:58 TonyR, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Bob_Freund (4%), yin-leng (14%), GlenD (4%) 21:36:59 Phillpe: Katy commented that if one person needs something we have to do it. I don't agree. 21:37:23 Bob: Who needs "AnonResponses" in WSDL? Just Anish or anyone else ? 21:37:28 21:38:00 Bob: Anish can you make the case that "AnonResponse" is generally useful as a WSDL extension? 21:38:07 Anish: I thought I did. 21:38:22 ... It will take a while for people to get on the WS-Policy band-wagon 21:38:34 ... Its simpler to add support for a WSDL extension 21:38:36 ack david 21:38:50 ack plh 21:38:58 ... That it is to make everyone to go to WS-Policy to learn abou Anon/NonAnon 21:39:07 Phillpe: Can we do a quick straw-poll? 21:39:42 Bob: 21:39:49 21:39:57 Bob: 21:40:03 ah, blessed apathy :) 21:41:09 -Plh 21:41:46 +Plh 21:41:50 q+ 21:43:48 q+ to try to answer the charter question 21:44:29 RESULTS: 1 need, 5 don't need (no), 1 maybe 21:44:38 ack plh 21:44:38 plh, you wanted to try to answer the charter question 21:45:09 "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 ack anish 21:45:30 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 s/Phillpe/Philippe/ 21:45:59 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 Bob: We have an open issue to discuss the title of the document. 21:46:13 -GlenD 21:46:34 Anish: Our charter doesn't talk about WS-Policy at all. 21:46:48 q? 21:46:52 q+ 21:47:10 ... 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 ... 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 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 ... of doing solely policy assertions then revisit the WSDL extension issue once we get those hammered out. 21:48:34 ... Would that be acceptable? 21:48:55 ack katy 21:49:31 Katy: I'm against the idea of trying to express "AnonResponses" and "NonAnonresponses" in WSDL 21:49:36 q+ 21:49:56 ... If we do it in both places we have the problem of what to do when the WSDL and Policy disagree 21:50:15 ... sticking to just UsingAddressing minimizes the potential for disagreements 21:50:16 ack anish 21:50:33 Anish: Is anyone suggesting getting rid of dual-use for UsingAddressing? 21:50:42 Bob & Katy: No 21:50:49 cgi-irc has joined #ws-addr 21:51:25 Anish: The problems of WSDL and Policy disagreeing are already there for UsingAddressing (cites example) 21:52:10 ... 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 has joined #ws-addr 21:52:19 Katy: Yeah same pattern, but more work in each case. 21:52:34 ... Fine, if we need both. But I don't think we need both. 21:52:51 ... A lot of extra processing for something that nobody seems to need very much. 21:53:03 q+ 21:53:26 Bob: Our straw poll (if turned into a formal vote) shows abstain ruling, followed by 'no' 21:53:51 ... We could settle this and move forward by a formal vote. 21:54:22 ... 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 ... I disagree that the shortest path is to try and address the WSDL extension issue now. 21:54:51 Katy: OK 21:55:01 q? 21:55:40 q- 21:55:41 Bob: I note that Chris Ferris has thrown a log on the fire with regards to wsdl:required="true" 21:55:59 q+ to discuss Chris' point 21:56:13 -yin-leng 21:56:31 ack gil 21:57:03 ack gpil 21:57:03 gpilz, you wanted to discuss Chris' point 21:59:14 q+ 21:59:35 ack dorch 22:00:05 DavidO: some people are objecting to the description of UsingAddressing based on what is need by the WS-Policy intersection rules 22:00:32 ... Some people say we can't have WS-Addr specific policy handling. I'm not sure if I agree with that. 22:01:13 q+ 22:01:19 ... 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 ... Its interesting that one of the first WG's to use WS-Policy is having such problems. 22:01:44 ack mrg 22:02:03 MarcG: If there are issues found with WS-Policy we should let them know. 22:02:30 ... I think the problems with the intersection algorithm are overblown. We should just focus on the assertions that we need. 22:02:43 q+ 22:02:49 ... WS-SX has a large set of complex assertions and they don't seem to be having problems. 22:02:53 ack dorch 22:03:40 Tom: With nested assertions we don't have problems with the intersection algorithm. I agree with ChrisF . . . 22:04:19 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 q+ 22:04:29 ack mrg 22:04:37 Tom: We were also talking about nesting parameters which is pretty complicated. 22:04:57 MarcG: I was on the previous calls. I agree that nesting policy assertions is not that hard. 22:05:15 ... Though I question using "UsingAddressing" as the top-level container. 22:05:22 q+ 22:05:34 ack tony 22:05:36 -Mark_Little 22:05:42 Bob: Are people ok with using UsingAddressing as a container and putting AnonResponses and NonAnonResponses as child policies? 22:06:08 q+ 22:06:23 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 (scribe lost audio( 22:06:55 ack ani 22:07:14 scribe: bob 22:08:09 Anish: use framework attribute to define required or optional 22:08:42 TonyR: That won't work because there would be different meanings in different environments 22:09:09 q+ 22:09:10 Anish: It is a question of what is the default, the defaults may be different, but the semantics are the same 22:09:27 +1 to TonyR's points. 22:09:31 TonyR: If the defaults are different then they have different meanings 22:09:35 +Gilbert_Pilz.a 22:09:56 scribe: gil 22:10:28 DavidI: When I think about this stuff, I try to think about it in WS-Policy-normal form (no "optional") 22:10:52 ... If we don't have text saying that the normal form means something different, it doesn't. 22:11:13 ack david 22:11:24 Anish: Are you saying that "wsp:optional=true" means that the non-missing case means that addressing is required? 22:11:31 DavidI: Yes. 22:11:55 q+ 22:11:55 q+ 22:12:06 ack mrg 22:12:09 Bob: Do we have specific changes to Gil's proposal that we would like to make? 22:12:19 Marc: What about David's proposal on Friday? 22:12:28 Bob: Those are commments against Gil's 22:12:53 MarcG: But it changed nesting? 22:13:05 Bob: True 22:13:39 Gil: But I think Bob wants to see a proposal with David's changes to Gil's proposal. 22:13:51 Bob: Right 22:14:11 ... Do folks agree that this is the direction we want to go in? 22:14:33 Tony: I remain concerned with one thing about the nesting. 22:15:04 ... If the outer container can't have "wsp:optional=true" how do you get the inner assertions to support the required ??? 22:16:13 Paco: The point is that "optional" applies to the whole thing 22:16:32 Tony: How can you express that you want an inner assertion but not an outer assertion. 22:16:34 q+ 22:17:42 Gil: How/why would I say "I support non-anonymous responses" without saying "I support WS-Addr"? 22:18:53 Bob: Do we agree on the direction? 22:18:56 ack gpil 22:18:59 q+ 22:19:09 ack david 22:19:15 MarcG: I want to know if we are going to make UsingAddressing act as a container. 22:19:22 q+ 22:19:37 DavidI: Let's rename the UsingAddressing policy assertiong to AddressingRequired 22:19:39 ack anish 22:19:42 MarcG: I would like that. 22:19:56 Anish: Would that be a replacement for UsingAdressing or in addition to? 22:20:07 DavidI: That would be a point for further disucssion. 22:20:24 Bob: I think the point is to distinguish the policy assertion from the WSDL marker. 22:20:49 Anish: So "UsingAddressing" is a WSDL marker and "AddressingRequired" is a policy assertion? 22:20:52 Bob: Yes 22:21:05 MarcG: I think we whould leave "UsingAddressing" alone. 22:21:22 Bob: Leave "UsingAddressing" alone as a WSDL marker. 22:21:25 q+ 22:21:36 ack ani 22:21:37 MarcG: I thought we had agreed to leave UsingAddressing completely alone. 22:21:41 Bob: I thought we were. 22:21:56 MarcG: No, right now you can use UsingAddressing as a policy assertion. 22:22:20 Anish: How can we have both a UsingAddressing policy assertion and a AddressingRequired policy assertion? 22:22:28 q+ 22:22:38 ack mrg 22:22:39 ... They compete and one is a superset of the other (provides examples) 22:23:18 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 ... 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 ... Whereas, today, you could have a policy with UsingAddressing and no child elements. 22:24:20 ... There are implemenations that currently rely on the use of UsingAddressing as a policy assertion. 22:24:51 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 q+ 22:25:01 ... We don't have to be bound by their decisions. 22:25:06 ack mrg 22:25:22 Bob: Let's figure out what we need to do then figure out how to minimize impact on existing implementations. 22:25:43 q+ 22:25:54 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 ack plh 22:26:07 "This namespace URI will be updated only if changes are made to 22:26:07 the document are significant and impact the implementation of the 22:26:07 specifications.This namespace URI will be updated only if changes are made to 22:26:07 the document are significant and impact the implementation of the 22:26:07 specifications." 22:26:12 http://www.w3.org/2006/05/addressing/wsdl/ 22:26:14 Tony: I'm sorry, but we were still in draft stage. 22:26:39 (someone): We promised that we would change the namespace if we changed the semantics? 22:26:51 -Dave_Orchard 22:27:05 Bob: DavidI agree to take an AI to update the current proposal to include nested assertions. 22:27:08 DavidI: Yes. 22:27:42 ACTION ITEM: David Illsley to update Gil's proposal to nest AnonResponse/NonAnonResponses 22:27:58 TOPIC: Name of the "WSDL Binding Document" 22:28:17 Tony: What about "WSDL Binding and Related Matters"? 22:28:38 Bob: "WSDL Binding, Anti-Poverty, and Peace Document" 22:28:53 Anish: Have we ruled out a separate document? 22:29:03 Bob: Phillpe do you have a position on that? 22:29:06 Phillipe: No 22:29:27 Bob: If there are conflicts between WSDL and POlicy it would be handy to have them together. 22:29:36 Anish: If they are not dual-use there is no conflict. 22:29:54 Tony: One could say one thing and one could say another. 22:30:19 Tony & Anish: (back and forth on possible conflicts between WSDL markers and Policy assertions) 22:30:57 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 ... a corresponding change to the title. 22:31:20 q+ 22:31:34 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 Bob: We can decide to split the doc once we have figured out the content 22:32:22 ack gpil 22:32:23 Gil: New name should best be figured out on the mailing list 22:32:28 Bob: True 22:32:42 Anish: If everything is dual-use then it should all be in the same doc 22:32:46 Description Document 22:32:55 ... Separate use would seem to require separate documents. 22:32:59 Metadata Document 22:33:09 Bob: WS-Addressing Metadata Document 22:33:29 Bob: I'd like to get to a heartbeat document very shortly. 22:33:31 I take full credit for the brilliant suggestion. 22:33:46 ... I'm hopeful we'll have a section on WS-Policy assertions to add on next weeks call. 22:35:28 TOPIC: WS-Policy review 22:35:50 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 q+ 22:36:28 ... There are only three calls between now and the end of the review period for WS-Policy 22:37:00 ... 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 ack mrg 22:37:25 MarcG: The WS-Policy primer has examples that show the use of the UsingAddressing assertion. Good place to start . . . 22:37:45 Tony: You are suggesting that if we change UsingAddressing, they might not be happy? 22:37:52 MarcG: No. 22:38:00 Anish: Is the Primer in last call? 22:38:08 (all): No 22:38:27 Bob: But we should look at the Primer as a good place to start. 22:38:35 MarcG: I put the link in IRC 22:38:59 plh has joined #ws-addr 22:39:12 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 q+ 22:39:44 ack gp 22:40:01 -MrGoodner 22:40:02 -[IBM] 22:40:04 -Anish_Karmarkar 22:40:06 -Dave_Hull 22:40:08 -Gilbert_Pilz.a 22:40:09 -Paul_Knight 22:40:10 ADJORNED 22:40:10 -David_Illsley 22:40:11 -TonyR 22:40:12 -Bob_Freund 22:40:13 Katy has left #ws-addr 22:40:14 -Marc_Hadley 22:40:15 -Plh 22:40:15 -Tom_Rutt 22:40:18 rrsagent, make logs public 22:40:32 -katy 22:40:37 zakim, who was here? 22:40:37 I don't understand your question, bob. 22:40:56 rrsagent, generate minutes 22:40:56 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/12/04-ws-addr-minutes.html bob 22:41:27 TonyR has left #ws-addr 22:42:43 i/review of minutes/scribenick: gpilz 22:42:54