IRC log of ws-desc on 2006-12-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:55:11 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-desc
14:55:11 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:55:21 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-desc
14:55:31 [TonyR]
zakim, this will be wsdl
14:55:31 [Zakim]
ok, TonyR; I see WS_DescWG(WSDL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
14:58:19 [Jonathan]
Jonathan has joined #ws-desc
14:58:36 [Jonathan]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:58:37 [Zakim]
WS_DescWG(WSDL)10:00AM has not yet started, Jonathan
14:58:41 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Jonathan, Zakim, RRSAgent, TonyR, chinthaka, sanjiva, charlton
14:58:47 [Jonathan]
zakim, code?
14:58:49 [Zakim]
the conference code is 9735 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), Jonathan
14:58:57 [Jonathan]
15:01:10 [Zakim]
WS_DescWG(WSDL)10:00AM has now started
15:01:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.314.aaaa
15:02:05 [chinthaka]
Zakim, +1.617.314.aaaa is me
15:02:05 [Zakim]
+chinthaka; got it
15:02:23 [Zakim]
15:02:29 [TonyR]
zakim, ?? is me
15:02:29 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
15:02:54 [TonyR]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see chinthaka, TonyR
15:03:24 [Zakim]
15:03:33 [Jonathan]
Zakim, IPcaller is Jonathan
15:03:33 [Zakim]
+Jonathan; got it
15:06:45 [Zakim]
15:08:03 [Zakim]
15:09:08 [Arthur]
Arthur has joined #ws-desc
15:10:58 [Zakim]
15:11:32 [Zakim]
15:16:03 [jjm]
jjm has joined #ws-desc
15:22:35 [Jonathan]
ACTION: Jonathan to fix transferCodings - add control group.
15:23:26 [youenn]
youenn has joined #ws-desc
15:36:35 [Jonathan]
15:37:38 [jjm]
jjm has joined #ws-desc
15:48:34 [Zakim]
15:48:35 [Zakim]
15:48:37 [Zakim]
15:48:38 [Zakim]
15:50:03 [Zakim]
This conference is scheduled to end in 10 minutes; all ports must be freed
15:54:12 [TonyR]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:54:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Arthur_Ryman
15:55:03 [Zakim]
This conference is scheduled to end in 5 minutes; all ports must be freed
15:55:15 [TonyR]
zakim, this will be WSDWG
15:55:15 [Zakim]
ok, TonyR; I see WS_DescWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
15:55:33 [Zakim]
WS_DescWG()11:00AM has now started
15:55:35 [charltonb]
charltonb has joined #ws-desc
15:55:40 [Zakim]
15:59:51 [JacekK]
JacekK has joined #ws-desc
16:00:46 [Zakim]
16:00:58 [Zakim]
16:01:06 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p7 is me
16:01:06 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
16:01:16 [TonyR]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:16 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Charlton_Barreto, JacekK, TonyR
16:01:17 [Allen]
Allen has joined #ws-desc
16:01:38 [Zakim]
16:02:05 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-desc
16:02:10 [Zakim]
16:02:26 [Roberto]
Roberto has joined #ws-desc
16:02:48 [Zakim]
16:02:49 [notrahc]
notrahc has joined #ws-desc
16:02:53 [Zakim]
16:03:04 [Zakim]
16:03:39 [pauld]
pauld has joined #ws-desc
16:03:43 [Jonathan]
Jonathan has joined #ws-desc
16:03:54 [Zakim]
16:04:51 [pauld]
zakim, who is here?
16:04:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Charlton_Barreto, JacekK, TonyR, m2, Allen_Brookes, Jonathan_Marsh, asir, Roberto, Paul_Downey
16:04:54 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Jonathan, pauld, charlton1, Roberto, asir, Allen, JacekK, charltonb, jjm, youenn, Arthur, Zakim, RRSAgent, TonyR, chinthaka, sanjiva, charlton
16:04:56 [alewis]
alewis has joined #ws-desc
16:04:57 [Zakim]
16:07:10 [Jonathan]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:07:10 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Charlton_Barreto, JacekK, TonyR, m2, Allen_Brookes, Jonathan_Marsh, asir, Roberto, Paul_Downey, Amelia_Lewis
16:08:25 [Zakim]
+ +aaaa
16:08:40 [Jonathan]
Zakim, aaaa is Canon
16:08:40 [Zakim]
+Canon; got it
16:08:46 [jjm]
jjm has joined #ws-desc
16:09:11 [JacekK]
scribe: JacekK
16:09:20 [JacekK]
topic: approval of minutes
16:09:31 [JacekK]
16:09:31 [JacekK]
16:09:39 [JacekK]
RESOLUTION: minutes approved
16:09:43 [JacekK]
topic: action items
16:10:14 [JacekK]
zakim, who's making noise?
16:10:24 [Zakim]
JacekK, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 11 (95%), Jonathan_Marsh (44%)
16:11:05 [JacekK]
Jonathan: we shouldn't spend time on component model interchange document before January
16:11:51 [JacekK]
topic: Administrivia
16:12:25 [JacekK]
Jonathan: membership of Vivek was corrected in WBS
16:12:50 [notrahc]
notrahc has joined #ws-desc
16:13:08 [Zakim]
16:13:15 [JacekK]
Jonathan: how many people won't make it next week?
16:13:40 [JacekK]
regrets from Asir, JacekK, Roberto?
16:14:28 [JacekK]
asir: please move WS-Policy comments to the telcon after next so I don't miss it
16:14:47 [JacekK]
Jonathan: we can discuss it some, but let's postpone actualy resolutions
16:15:35 [JacekK]
Jonathan: thanks to charlton for submitting policy review, to be discussed next week and later
16:16:20 [JacekK]
Jonathan: databinding not yet reviewed, time until Jan 12
16:16:30 [JacekK]
topic: MTOM description
16:17:19 [JacekK]
Jonathan: is there something we can do now to move this topic ahead?
16:17:52 [JacekK]
jjm: probably disregard my latest message
16:18:37 [JacekK]
jjm: are we waiting for XMLP WG now?
16:19:23 [plh]
plh has joined #ws-desc
16:19:24 [JacekK]
Jonathan: haven't heard from Philippe in some time
16:19:27 [Zakim]
16:20:25 [JacekK]
Jonathan: two possible approaches - 1) dual-purpose wsdl extension and policy assertion
16:21:21 [JacekK]
Jonathan: 2) how would it work with WSDL - direct extension, policy... does it introduce critical dependency on policy?
16:21:59 [JacekK]
Jonathan: it would be useful what Canon's high-level requirements are on this
16:22:19 [JacekK]
Jonathan: to get a feeling about whether it can be just a policy or something else
16:23:46 [JacekK]
jjm: 1) we need MTOM in WSDL soon, would like to have interop
16:23:53 [JacekK]
jjm: or a way to upgrade later
16:24:03 [JacekK]
jjm: 2) we don't plan to support WS-Policy
16:24:57 [JacekK]
asir: do you expect interop with a WSDL extension?
16:25:37 [JacekK]
jjm: I don't know what's happening regarding MTOM in Policy
16:26:38 [JacekK]
plh: XMLP will work on this as soon as they are allowed to do so, that's should be very soon
16:26:48 [charltonb]
charltonb has joined #ws-desc
16:26:57 [JacekK]
plh: "this" meaning MTOM assertion
16:27:09 [pauld]
WS-Policy is in the W3C, has widespread support and as we have demonstrated has a simple syntax for applying assertions. What's not to like?
16:28:28 [JacekK]
jjm: can we describe MTOM in WSDL using policy without having to support full policy?
16:28:38 [plh]
16:29:05 [JacekK]
Jonathan: there may be a profile of policy that would satisfy everyone
16:29:23 [JacekK]
jjm: many embedded applications don't have resources for support for compositors
16:30:13 [JacekK]
plh: simplest policy is <policy><mtom/></policy> - your impl can reject anything more complex
16:31:48 [JacekK]
asir: it might be easy to look into the policy to see if mtom is there, then do it
16:31:58 [Zakim]
16:32:01 [JacekK]
plh: there'd be more complexity, but it could be usefully doable
16:32:21 [JacekK]
ack plh
16:33:05 [JacekK]
Jonathan: let's move to issues
16:33:34 [JacekK]
asir: if we're talking about a profile, would we need to do it formally, with a recharter?
16:33:35 [Zakim]
16:33:46 [Allen]
zakim, ??P2 is Allen
16:33:46 [Zakim]
+Allen; got it
16:33:57 [JacekK]
plh: we don't need to document it formally here, maybe Canon could just put it in their docs as a limitation
16:34:24 [JacekK]
jjm: I'd prefer a W3 spec to describe this
16:35:05 [Arthur]
16:35:12 [JacekK]
Jonathan: the primer showed it using f&p, but it can do the same using policy
16:35:39 [JacekK]
Jonathan: with options of showing full policy support, or just a subset for only MTOM
16:36:02 [JacekK]
jjm: I was assuming we had a stronger (than primer) support for MTOM
16:36:11 [JacekK]
jjm: I discovered later that we didn't, only in the primer
16:36:30 [asir]
Use of MTOM assertion + WSDL 20 is well described at
16:36:58 [Jonathan]
ack arthur
16:37:10 [JacekK]
Jonathan: so you would like WSDL to add description of MTOM sufficient to guarantee interop?
16:38:13 [JacekK]
Arthur: does anything need to be done in policy spec to support this usage with MTOM?
16:38:18 [JacekK]
asir: no, I don't think so
16:38:28 [JacekK]
Arthur: the primer would be a good place for this then
16:38:37 [JacekK]
Jonathan: jjm may not agree, but let's move on for now
16:39:53 [JacekK]
plh: we should add an example, but that's all because other groups are specifying it normatively
16:40:03 [JacekK]
plh: and we can mention a subset of policy, but not specify it
16:40:44 [JacekK]
plh: would a policy with only the MTOM assertion in it solve your problem?
16:40:46 [JacekK]
jjm: maybe not
16:41:12 [JacekK]
plh: this would not only work for you, it would also work for others who do support policy
16:41:19 [JacekK]
Jonathan: jjm should clarify the maybe not
16:42:02 [JacekK]
topic: Issue CR098
16:42:04 [alewis]
alewis has changed the topic to: Trust us. We're from the W3C. *puts on sunglasses*
16:43:03 [JacekK]
Jonathan: Types-1300002 doesn't seem to be an assertion
16:43:20 [JacekK]
Arthur: I agree, we should clean up the sentence and remove assertion mark up
16:43:51 [JacekK]
Jonathan reads the poetry suggested by Arthur
16:44:11 [JacekK]
RESOLUTION: accept Arthur's proposal
16:44:25 [JacekK]
topic: issue CR099
16:44:45 [JacekK]
Jonathan: Types-1300003 doesn't seem to be an assertion
16:44:55 [JacekK]
Jonathan: similar problem here
16:45:35 [JacekK]
Arthur: if a statement is not an assertion, I make it a note and remove uppercase keywords
16:45:46 [JacekK]
RESOLUTION: accept Arthur's proposal as well
16:45:59 [JacekK]
topic: Issue CR108
16:46:31 [JacekK]
Jonathan: two assertions seem (to lawrence) to be duplicate
16:46:42 [notrahc]
notrahc has joined #ws-desc
16:46:44 [JacekK]
Jonathan reads the spec poetry
16:47:37 [JacekK]
Arthur: the two statements are logically equivalent - negating the first gives the second
16:48:07 [JacekK]
Arthur: they have the same truth tables
16:48:58 [JacekK]
Jonathan: one expresses a dependency, other co-constraint, same intent, first one seems easier to read
16:49:07 [JacekK]
Arthur: I'd suggest a symmetrical wording
16:50:01 [JacekK]
Jonathan: amy suggests to remove the last assertion
16:50:59 [JacekK]
Jonathan: it's not prohibited for a binding op to have an output if the interface op doesn't have it
16:51:16 [JacekK]
Jonathan: should MessageLabel-0014 be stricken?
16:51:38 [charltonb]
charltonb has joined #ws-desc
16:51:49 [JacekK]
alewis: it's not only duplicate, it's unreachable, you violate stuff much earlier trying to get there
16:52:19 [JacekK]
alewis: but only one should be removed, it's not an exact duplicate
16:52:24 [JacekK]
alewis: that's 0014
16:53:44 [JacekK]
alewis: the assertion in 2.10.1 says each binding message reference must uniquely refer to an interface msg ref
16:54:58 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-desc
16:55:14 [JacekK]
Arthur: if 0006 and 0014 are equivalent, both should be striken
16:55:34 [Zakim]
16:55:42 [JacekK]
alewis: they're not equivalent
16:55:50 [JacekK]
alewis: 0014 is subsumed by the one in 2.10.1
16:56:33 [JacekK]
alewis: we don't even have a test case because we don't have a suitable MEP
16:56:53 [Roberto]
16:57:30 [JacekK]
Arthur: they're the same
16:57:34 [JacekK]
alewis: they're not
16:57:38 [JacekK]
Arthur: are too!
16:57:58 [Jonathan]
ack roberto
16:57:58 [JacekK]
Arthur: let's get this offline and compare our reasoning
16:58:07 [JacekK]
Arthur: if they're equivalent, both should be removed
16:58:33 [notrahc]
notrahc has joined #ws-desc
16:58:40 [JacekK]
Roberto: we can first settle the equivalence, then we can see if we should remove both
16:58:52 [JacekK]
alewis: there is the same pattern elsewhere as well
16:59:39 [JacekK]
Jonathan: let's give an action to somebody to analyze this
17:00:31 [JacekK]
ACTION: Arthur to examine the equivalence of 0006 and 0014
17:00:42 [JacekK]
topic: CR109
17:01:46 [JacekK]
Jonathan: is the suggestion a good idea?
17:02:24 [JacekK]
RESOLUTION: editors will add an assertion that when using SOAP 1.2 the fault code QName is constrained to the five values from the spec
17:02:50 [JacekK]
topic: CR110
17:03:12 [JacekK]
Jonathan: arthur asks, what does it mean when cookies="true"?
17:04:19 [JacekK]
Arthur: it's not good if cookies="true" just means service will send them but client may ignore them
17:04:35 [JacekK]
Arthur: it would be better if we mandate something, e.g. that the client accept and support the cookies
17:05:57 [JacekK]
Arthur: the property is required but binding says cookies MAY be indicated
17:06:04 [JacekK]
Jonathan: let's say "every binding does indicate"
17:06:44 [JacekK]
RESOLUTION: first part - we clarify that "true" means the service relies on cookies and client must understand them; second part change MAY indicate to indicates
17:07:13 [JacekK]
topic: CR111
17:08:05 [JacekK]
Jonathan reads the issue
17:08:37 [JacekK]
Jonathan: should robust in-only bind to a specific HTTP code?
17:08:43 [charltonb]
charltonb has joined #ws-desc
17:08:48 [JacekK]
plh: I'd say 202, empty response
17:08:57 [JacekK]
plh: that's what SOAP does
17:09:10 [JacekK]
plh: we can do the same thing
17:09:31 [JacekK]
youenn: +1 for 202
17:10:35 [JacekK]
youenn: and it seems there's potential for other things we're missing
17:11:21 [JacekK]
Jonathan: yes, are we sure this MEP is the only one that needs to be specified?
17:13:12 [JacekK]
Arthur: should we consider 204 as well? 202 implies async, 204 implies action done, no return
17:13:53 [JacekK]
Arthur: does the MEP imply async?
17:15:56 [JacekK]
Arthur: 204 should be used for robust MEP, because it guarantees there's no fault coming up
17:16:36 [plh]
17:16:52 [JacekK]
Jonathan: we have two proposals, 202, and 204
17:16:56 [Jonathan]
ack plh
17:17:19 [JacekK]
plh: 202 for in-only is appropriate, you don't care what happens, 204 gives you more info than you request
17:17:42 [JacekK]
Arthur: agree
17:18:13 [JacekK]
plh: for robust, it seems it should be 204
17:18:31 [JacekK]
youenn: maybe the code is app-dependent?
17:18:45 [JacekK]
plh: if you get 202 from robust-in-only, you can't get the fault later if it occurs
17:19:03 [notrahc]
notrahc has joined #ws-desc
17:19:57 [JacekK]
JacekK: agrees with Arthur, for robust it should be 204
17:20:22 [JacekK]
youenn: should we let XMLP know?
17:21:03 [JacekK]
Jonathan: it seems we should do 202 for in-only, 204 for robust-in-only
17:21:57 [JacekK]
ACTION: plh to check with XMLP whether they should be interested in 204 as well
17:22:19 [JacekK]
topic: CR112
17:23:26 [JacekK]
Jonathan: we're combining location with address prematurely in the spec
17:24:14 [JacekK]
Jonathan: if I don't have an endpoint and only binding (or multiple endpoints), we cannot compute the value of the property
17:24:28 [JacekK]
Jonathan: looks editorial
17:25:24 [JacekK]
Jonathan: no, looks substantial
17:25:33 [JacekK]
TonyR: let's get a proposal from the editors
17:27:48 [JacekK]
ACTION: plh to come up with a more detailed proposal for CR112 if possible
17:28:38 [JacekK]
topic: CR113
17:30:04 [JacekK]
youenn: we're missing properties in SOAP binding for reuse of HTTP binding
17:30:26 [JacekK]
Arthur: why did we even allow different query separators?
17:30:34 [charltonb]
charltonb has joined #ws-desc
17:30:39 [JacekK]
Jonathan: best practice differs from real practice
17:31:14 [JacekK]
Jonathan: proposal: import the query separator properties to the SOAP binding as well
17:31:20 [charltonb]
17:31:48 [JacekK]
RESOLUTION: import the query separator and query separator default properties to the SOAP binding
17:32:11 [Zakim]
17:32:13 [Zakim]
17:32:13 [Zakim]
17:32:14 [alewis]
alewis has left #ws-desc
17:32:15 [Zakim]
17:32:16 [Zakim]
17:32:18 [Zakim]
17:32:19 [Zakim]
17:32:20 [Jonathan]
rrsagent, set log world
17:32:20 [Zakim]
17:32:22 [Zakim]
17:32:24 [Zakim]
17:32:25 [Jonathan]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:32:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Jonathan
17:32:26 [Zakim]
17:32:27 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-desc
17:32:28 [Zakim]
17:32:30 [Zakim]
17:32:32 [Zakim]
17:32:34 [Zakim]
WS_DescWG()11:00AM has ended
17:32:36 [Zakim]
Attendees were Charlton_Barreto, JacekK, TonyR, m2, Allen_Brookes, Jonathan_Marsh, asir, Roberto, Paul_Downey, Amelia_Lewis, +aaaa, Canon, Plh, Paul_Bagshaw, Allen, Gilbert_Pilz
17:44:46 [notrahc]
notrahc has joined #ws-desc
18:28:01 [sanjiva_]
sanjiva_ has joined #ws-desc
19:07:59 [Jonathan]
Jonathan has joined #ws-desc
19:08:25 [Jonathan]
Meeting: WS Description WG telcon
19:08:28 [Jonathan]
Chair: Jonathan
19:08:38 [Jonathan]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
19:08:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Jonathan
19:34:42 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-desc