IRC log of ws-addr on 2006-12-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:47:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
20:47:58 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:48:13 [bob]
zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
20:48:13 [Zakim]
ok, bob; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
20:48:34 [bob]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference
20:48:51 [bob]
chair: Bob Freund
20:50:05 [bob]
20:50:40 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
20:50:46 [Zakim]
20:54:51 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:55:26 [Zakim]
20:56:30 [plh]
plh has joined #ws-addr
20:56:38 [Zakim]
20:56:49 [plh]
rrsagent, where am I?
20:56:49 [RRSAgent]
20:58:02 [Zakim]
20:59:02 [Zakim]
21:00:08 [Dug]
Dug has joined #ws-addr
21:00:30 [pauld]
pauld has joined #ws-addr
21:00:44 [Zakim]
21:00:53 [CGI948]
CGI948 has joined #ws-addr
21:01:17 [Zakim]
21:01:25 [PaulKnight]
PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
21:01:33 [Zakim]
21:01:44 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
21:02:13 [bob]
zakim ??P13 is MrGoodner
21:02:19 [Zakim]
21:02:22 [pauld]
pauld has joined #ws-addr
21:02:32 [bob]
04 01zakim, ??P13 is MrGoodner
21:02:35 [Zakim]
21:04:31 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
21:05:00 [marc]
marc has joined #ws-addr
21:05:19 [marc]
zakim, who is on the phone ?
21:05:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Bob_Freund, Gilbert_Pilz, David_Illsley, Plh, Tom_Rutt, Doug_Davis, Paul_Downey, ??P13, Paul_Knight, Marc_Hadley
21:05:44 [bob]
zakim, ??P13 is MrGoodner
21:05:44 [Zakim]
+MrGoodner; got it
21:05:46 [Zakim]
21:05:49 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
21:05:55 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p17 is me
21:05:55 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
21:06:11 [Zakim]
21:06:44 [TRutt_]
TRutt_ has joined #ws-addr
21:07:28 [Zakim]
21:08:29 [pauld]
CR33, Telcon 13.
21:09:01 [pauld]
scribe: pauld
21:09:14 [pauld]
Topic: Administrivia
21:09:27 [pauld]
Chair: minutes from last meeting approved
21:09:50 [pauld]
Chair: Paul Knight completed his AI
21:10:10 [marc]
Shop now for on time Xmas delivery
21:10:10 [marc]
1000s of great deals on our site
21:10:10 [marc]
21:10:44 [TRutt_]
how would you like to buy an anonymous address?
21:11:07 [pauld]
.. looks like a new issue on the list from Cindy McNally, could be a duplicate:
21:11:32 [bob]
21:12:20 [pauld]
plh: properties in WSDL 2.0 are inherited by default
21:12:51 [pauld]
PaulKnight: there is a requirement they should be unique
21:12:57 [GlenD]
GlenD has joined #ws-addr
21:13:29 [pauld]
plh: doesn't seem to be an issue, at least for this WG
21:14:09 [Zakim]
+ +0196286aaaa
21:14:19 [pauld]
Bob: operations must be unique within the same interface
21:15:38 [pauld]
Anish: infault and outfault with the same name might be an issue, but not for WSDL 1.1
21:15:38 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
21:16:12 [pauld]
Tony: you can reuse a fault, but not sure if you can on the same operation
21:16:58 [pauld]
Anish: default pattern does take into account the direction, so not an issue
21:17:38 [pauld]
Anish: direction token may be used to differentiate between input and output
21:17:47 [Katy]
zakim unmute +0196286aaaa
21:17:54 [Katy]
zakim mute +0196286aaaa
21:18:09 [pauld]
zakim, who is here?
21:18:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Bob_Freund, Gilbert_Pilz, David_Illsley, Plh, Tom_Rutt, Doug_Davis, Paul_Downey, MrGoodner, Paul_Knight, Marc_Hadley, TonyR, Anish_Karmarkar, Dave_Hull,
21:18:12 [Zakim]
... +0196286aaaa (muted)
21:18:13 [plh]
Each WSDL 2.0 or type system component of the same kind MUST be uniquely identified by its qualified name. † That is, if two distinct components of the same kind ( Interface, Binding, etc.) are in the same target namespace, then their QNames MUST be unique.
21:18:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see dhull, GlenD, TRutt_, anish, marc, TonyR, pauld, Katy, PaulKnight, MrGoodner, Dug, plh, gpilz, RRSAgent, Zakim, bob, David_Illsley
21:18:35 [pauld]
zakim, +0196286aaaa is Katy
21:18:35 [Zakim]
+Katy; got it
21:20:53 [plh]
21:21:28 [pauld]
plh: WSDL 2.0 describes faults at the interface level and then the faults are referenced with an indication of direction
21:22:07 [pauld]
Chair: response is that they are inherited and interface should work therfore no change is required
21:22:49 [Katy]
thanks Bob- phone problems today
21:23:05 [pauld]
ACTION: PaulKnight to respond to commenter
21:23:25 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: closed new issue with no action
21:24:09 [pauld]
Topic: Groundhog Day
21:24:22 [pauld]
s/Groundhog Day/CR33/
21:24:40 [pauld]
DavidIllsley: outlines his proposal
21:25:02 [bob]
s/CR33/CR33 (Groundhog Day)
21:25:48 [Dug]
is there a url?
21:25:56 [pauld]
21:26:01 [bob]
DavidI's proposal
21:26:09 [Dug]
21:27:01 [Dug]
I got you babe
21:27:23 [anish]
21:27:32 [bob]
ack ani
21:27:59 [pauld]
Anish: use nested elements for UsingAddressing? How do the two top level elements interact
21:28:49 [GlenD]
<AddressingRequired optional="true"> is just... weird.
21:29:06 [pauld]
DavidIllsley: 2006-05 UsingAddressing can't be reused as you need to nest the asserton inside Policy
21:29:42 [pauld]
Anish: two different qnames for UsingAddressing, or is there a single assertion with tow elements nested within it?
21:29:45 [plh]
21:29:57 [GlenD]
I do like the two sub-assertions just fine for anonymous, and think optional makes total sense there.
21:30:02 [pauld]
DavidIllsley: single sounds better
21:30:25 [pauld]
plh: did you consider policy assertions with parameters?
21:30:42 [pauld]
DavidIllsley: parameters aren't a part of the intersection alogrithm
21:30:50 [bob]
ack plh
21:30:56 [GlenD]
Policy assertions with params would look much cleaner, but require domain-specific intersection. Sigh.
21:31:40 [pauld]
plh: why would you like the intersection to fail (cites anonymous responses use-case)
21:32:14 [pauld]
DavidIllsley: there are situations where you might want it to fail and others where you don't care
21:32:23 [dhull]
is it WSP's job to protect you from yourself, or should it just tell you what you're up against (or am I missing something)?
21:32:54 [pauld]
Anish: appropriate policy matching was the reason to go towards nested assertions
21:33:34 [pauld]
DavidIllsley: marking with wsp:optional on the nested assertion gives you felxibility, you can't do this with parameters
21:33:46 [pauld]
plh: you need domain specific handling in such cases
21:34:29 [pauld]
DavidIllsley: example 3 demonstrate intersection (will intersect with example 1 where no nesting on top)
21:35:09 [pauld]
Chair: can we accept David's Proposal?
21:36:09 [pauld]
No objections Heard
21:36:20 [GlenD]
+1 to Anish!
21:36:31 [pauld]
ACTION: Editors to incoporate David's Nested Policy Proposal
21:36:32 [GlenD]
dual marker/policy assertino would be vastly preferable
21:36:34 [GlenD]
21:37:42 [pauld]
plh: what remains in the WSDL binding?
21:37:54 [pauld]
Chair: wsaw:UsingAddressing
21:38:39 [gpilz]
q+ against dual-purpose
21:38:50 [pauld]
Anish: do we make David's assertions dual purpose, and do we need wsaw:UsingAddressing any more (it's a WSDL marker and a Policy assertion)
21:38:50 [gpilz]
21:38:55 [gpilz]
21:39:06 [gpilz]
q- against dual-purpose
21:39:07 [pauld]
Chair: we've had some discussion on this
21:39:20 [pauld]
ack, Gil
21:39:28 [bob]
21:39:35 [bob]
ack gpil
21:39:45 [anish]
21:40:03 [TonyR]
21:40:12 [GlenD]
wsaw:UsingAddressing could, IMHO, simply be defined for use either as a policy expression or as a WSDL extension....
21:40:36 [pauld]
Gil: against reusing David's policy assertions as WSDL extensions, but nesting and making them semantically equivalent will be a lot of work.
21:40:43 [David_Illsley]
GlenD, if only it could
21:40:45 [GlenD]
(and then we wouldn't be saying "addressingRequired is optional" either :) )
21:40:46 [bob]
ack ani
21:40:48 [pauld]
s/but, /
21:40:51 [TonyR]
the problem is that there has to be a different default for Policy and for WSDL
21:41:27 [GlenD]
different default?
21:41:55 [pauld]
Anish: it is inconsistant to say Policy is to be used, but then provide an incomplete WSDL extension
21:42:15 [pauld]
.. CR draft with a namespace is there, and some folks are using it
21:42:28 [bob]
ack tony
21:43:57 [pauld]
Tony: Glen asked what the problem with the different default. UsingAddressing is made required by wsdl:required, make it optional using policy features - using the same qname for the optional and required versions is going to cause confusion
21:44:40 [anish]
21:44:48 [GlenD]
I'm sorry I don't quite get that. By "default" (with no modifiers) it follows the rules of whichever context it's in, right?
21:44:53 [bob]
ack ani
21:44:56 [GlenD]
Why is that a problem?
21:45:05 [TonyR]
Because it is horribly confusing
21:45:09 [GlenD]
Anything in a <wsp:Policy> container is required by default
21:45:19 [GlenD]
Any WSDL extensino is non-required by default.
21:45:21 [TonyR]
it's a different meaning, so it should have a different name
21:45:32 [Katy]
I agree with Tony - policy marker with different semantics should have different name to reflect
21:45:34 [GlenD]
the extension just defines the SEMANTIC that is then interpreted... that's all
21:45:48 [GlenD]
it's the same semantic, isn't it? i.e. when it's on/selected/in-use
21:45:54 [TRutt_]
21:45:59 [TRutt_]
21:46:27 [bob]
ack tru
21:46:32 [pauld]
discussion of the separate qnames
21:46:37 [TonyR]
no - different meaning - the marker alone is "obligatory" in Policy; the marker alone is "optional" in WSDL - that is too confusing
21:46:44 [GlenD]
it's not a huge deal and we shouldn't waste too much time on it IMO, but it seems cleaner to me to simply call it "UsingAddressing" and have it done.
21:46:52 [GlenD]
I disagree that it means different things.
21:47:14 [pauld]
TRutt: current spec says you can use this in other contexts including WS-Policy
21:47:31 [TonyR]
I'm much happier to have "UsingAddressing" in WSDL, and "AddressingRequired" in Policy
21:48:11 [pauld]
DavidIllsley: in most cases a client may not understand the assertion, unless you mark it as mu
21:49:07 [David_Illsley]
if it's not mu and you include AddressingRequired you'll get an alternative without it which will interoperate
21:49:12 [pauld]
TRutt: people may resue this in ways we don't define, I don't want to use two assertions
21:49:14 [GlenD]
the assertion/extension simply has the meaning "use addressing". The optionality or not comes from the context (WSDL or Policy). I don't think that's hard.
21:49:21 [David_Illsley]
21:49:28 [David_Illsley]
21:49:29 [MrGoodner]
21:49:50 [GlenD]
(maybe it is tho)
21:50:21 [Katy]
21:50:24 [pauld]
TRutt: if we change the semantics without the namespace we will break existing implementations
21:50:29 [bob]
ack mrg
21:50:46 [gpilz]
I thought Chris Ferris pointed out that wsdl:required has nothing to do with wether the use of the feature indicated is required or not
21:51:10 [gpilz]
wsdl:required simply means that you must understand the extension in order to understand the associated WSDL
21:51:20 [GlenD]
wsdl:required means you must understand and abide by whatever the extension means.
21:51:30 [anish]
21:51:36 [pauld]
MrGoodner: confused about what we're talking about, previous discussions were about leaving existing implementations alone, I don't believe the proposal we just accepted changes existing use of UsingAddressing.
21:51:42 [Katy]
zakim, unmute Katy
21:51:42 [Zakim]
Katy should no longer be muted
21:51:48 [bob]
ack katy
21:51:54 [pauld]
.. we need to concentrate on what Bob asked - which document does this go in
21:52:22 [GlenD]
you can't "understand" and ignore extensions, unless the semantic of that extension is written to be optional, which would wsdl:required a little weird.
21:52:36 [GlenD]
it's like soap:MustUnderstand
21:52:39 [Katy]
zakim, mute Katy
21:52:39 [Zakim]
Katy should now be muted
21:52:50 [pauld]
Katy: we've already implemented this, but it wasn't a final draft of the spec, so future implementations will only conform to the Rec, we're not tied into the spec yet
21:53:13 [pauld]
Chair: options for packaging
21:53:43 [Katy]
zakim, unmute Katy
21:53:43 [Zakim]
Katy should no longer be muted
21:54:01 [Katy]
zakim, mute Katy
21:54:01 [Zakim]
Katy should now be muted
21:54:13 [pauld]
.. into a single "Addressing Metadata" document or a separate document for the WS-Policy assertions
21:54:27 [pauld]
nobody wants another document
21:54:41 [pauld]
Tony: does changing the name send us back to LC?
21:54:46 [GlenD]
+1 for Addressing Metadata
21:54:56 [pauld]
Chair: we're going back to LC anyway
21:55:53 [pauld]
hearing no objections, WS-Addressing Metadata is the name of our document
21:56:14 [MrGoodner]
21:56:55 [pauld]
Anish: CR document is stable, namespace won't change, but it makes no sense whatsoever to have two assertions to say the same thing
21:57:20 [bob]
ack mrg
21:57:32 [pauld]
.. we got rid of the anonymous marker, can't we lose the UsingAddressing marker too?
21:57:58 [plh]
21:57:58 [anish]
21:58:41 [bob]
ack ani
21:58:44 [pauld]
MrGoodner: unhappy about invalidating implementations by removing this feature (not at risk) for no good reason, in all the previous calls we've focussed on leaving this marker alone, this seems like a last minute descision
21:59:17 [Katy]
21:59:48 [pauld]
Anish: it's not abitrary, you can continue to use the published CR namespace and it'll work, but saying we won't change the CR document is silly
21:59:50 [plh]
ack plh
22:00:52 [bob]
ack katy
22:00:54 [pauld]
plh: agrees with Marc, we shouldn't change the meaning of UsingAddressing under our namespace policy, but we can remove it
22:00:54 [Katy]
zakim, unmute Katy
22:00:54 [Zakim]
Katy was not muted, Katy
22:01:41 [MrGoodner]
22:02:05 [bob]
ack mrg
22:02:17 [pauld]
Katy; we need a policy marker and a WSDL marker, let's keep the one we've already got. Having two different markers is fine, using a different marker (possibly in the same namespace) is a good way forward
22:02:35 [pauld]
MrGoodner: we use the marker as a policy assertion
22:02:47 [gpilz]
+1 to Katy
22:02:51 [Katy]
zakim, mute Katy
22:02:51 [Zakim]
Katy should now be muted
22:02:59 [pauld]
discussion on implementations which depend upon wsaw:UsingAddressing as a policy marker
22:03:49 [plh]
22:03:55 [Katy]
22:03:55 [pauld]
MrGoodner: (to Anish) why do we need to define the intersection between these mechanisms?
22:04:02 [David_Illsley]
22:04:05 [bob]
ack plh
22:04:22 [pauld]
Anish: the two mechanisms can say the same thing
22:04:33 [pauld]
Tony: in conflict
22:04:43 [David_Illsley]
22:04:44 [pauld]
MrGoodner: not going to happen with current implementations
22:05:07 [Katy]
zakim, unmute Katy
22:05:07 [Zakim]
Katy should no longer be muted
22:05:07 [bob]
ack katy
22:05:24 [pauld]
plh: are we telling people to use UsingAddressing or Addressing required? If it's the latter, why do we need to provide UsingAddressing as well?
22:05:33 [gpilz]
22:05:54 [MrGoodner]
22:06:00 [bob]
ack gpil
22:06:05 [Katy]
zakim, mute Katy
22:06:05 [Zakim]
Katy should now be muted
22:06:12 [pauld]
Katy: two markers means everyone has to implement both, using the Policy marker seems to be a good way forward
22:07:33 [bob]
ack mrg
22:07:47 [pauld]
Gil: two policy assertions that do the same thing isn't good, it's unfortunate that some people have built their implementations on the CR, keep it as an extension, remove it as an assertio
22:08:37 [pauld]
MrGoodner: we've taken a sudden turn. Cutting UsingAddressing means the namespace needs to change
22:08:54 [pauld]
s/an assertio/an assertion/
22:09:14 [pauld]
Tony: mark it as deprecated
22:09:25 [pauld]
plh: in the first version of a Recommendation?!
22:09:49 [pauld]
MrGoodner: point is it is being used, there are shipping products using this
22:09:56 [pauld]
22:09:57 [anish]
22:10:00 [TonyR]
22:10:06 [bob]
ack ani
22:10:37 [MrGoodner]
22:10:56 [bob]
ack tony
22:11:19 [pauld]
Tony: has no problem changing the namespace
22:12:01 [Katy]
22:12:12 [pauld]
.. probably not the first/last time there will be time for implementations to migrate from CR to Recs
22:12:17 [bob]
ack katy
22:12:19 [Katy]
zakim, unmute Katy
22:12:20 [Zakim]
Katy was not muted, Katy
22:12:37 [anish]
didn't we have a namechange policy somewhere?
22:13:29 [pauld]
Katy: changing the namespace is OK, but mean getting rid of UsingAddressing? seems like we've four options on the table, I'm confussed!
22:13:36 [Katy]
zakim, mute Katy
22:13:36 [Zakim]
Katy should now be muted
22:14:27 [pauld]
TRutt: changing the CR namespace, taking the marker Anonymous out of the existing namespace has already likely broken something
22:18:06 [pauld]
Chair: any objections to using a new namespace for the new elements
22:18:16 [pauld]
Pauld: object to having two namespaces
22:18:42 [pauld]
Tony: anyone object to new namespace for all the elements?
22:18:48 [pauld]
DaveH: seems cleaner
22:19:27 [pauld]
no objections
22:20:00 [pauld]
Chair: OK, we're going to use a new namespace for the next CR
22:20:35 [David_Illsley]
can we have a namespace without 'wsdl' in it?
22:20:48 [GlenD]
+1 at this point
22:21:27 [pauld]
ACTION: editors to create a new versions of the document as "Web Services Addressing Metadata"
22:21:44 [dhull]
+1 to David/Glen
22:21:55 [David_Illsley]
22:21:55 [MrGoodner]
22:22:10 [bob]
ack dav
22:23:02 [anish]
+1 to the change
22:23:05 [pauld]
DavidIllsley: discussion on wsa(m|w):Addressing seems to be a good way forward
22:23:25 [pauld]
s/ on /of the name /
22:23:45 [pauld]
.. we should drop wsdl from the namespace too
22:24:09 [pauld]
plh: why are we talking about namespace prefixes which are meaningless
22:24:36 [pauld]
Gil: AddressingRequired optional="true" is confusing
22:24:57 [bob]
22:25:01 [bob]
ack mrg
22:25:08 [pauld]
no objections to rename "AddressingRequired" to "Addressing"
22:25:39 [pauld]
MrGoodner: new namespace is for the next WD, not for CR, right
22:25:42 [pauld]
Chair: yes
22:27:17 [MrGoodner]
22:27:30 [bob]
ack mrg
22:28:06 [pauld]
MrGoodner: have to talk to our developers on the impact of moving to the new namespace
22:28:37 [pauld]
Chair: are we in a position to (expletive deleted) CR33?
22:31:28 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: close CR33 with David Illsley's (and other) proposals
22:35:19 [pauld]
Chair: editors to incorporate errata and remove flirtatious text as a second edition
22:35:49 [pauld]
MarcHaldley: might be prudent to wait until we're done with the WSDL binding
22:36:48 [pauld]
MrGoodner: others should research on the impact of removing UsingAddressing
22:37:04 [pauld]
22:37:07 [Zakim]
22:37:08 [Zakim]
22:37:09 [Zakim]
22:37:10 [Zakim]
22:37:11 [Zakim]
22:37:13 [Zakim]
22:37:14 [Zakim]
22:37:16 [Zakim]
22:37:16 [pauld]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:37:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pauld
22:37:17 [Zakim]
22:37:18 [bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
22:37:19 [Zakim]
22:37:20 [Zakim]
22:37:21 [Zakim]
22:37:22 [Zakim]
22:37:32 [pauld]
rrsagent, make logs public
22:37:35 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:37:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
22:37:42 [bob]
paul, thanks for scribing
22:37:54 [pauld]
pauld has left #ws-addr
22:38:10 [Katy]
Katy has left #ws-addr
22:40:34 [plh]
Bob, in case I forget, we should put the new LC for Addressing on the WS CG agenda
22:40:46 [bob]
22:41:26 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
22:44:02 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr
23:02:52 [Zakim]
23:02:53 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
23:02:54 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bob_Freund, Gilbert_Pilz, David_Illsley, Plh, Tom_Rutt, Doug_Davis, Paul_Downey, Paul_Knight, Marc_Hadley, MrGoodner, TonyR, Anish_Karmarkar, Dave_Hull, Katy