14:55:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-desc
14:55:11 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/12/14-ws-desc-irc
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> ok
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> +??P8
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> +[IPcaller]
15:03:33 <Jonathan> Zakim, IPcaller is Jonathan
15:03:33 <Zakim> +Jonathan; got it
15:06:45 <Zakim> +Canon
15:08:03 <Zakim> +Arthur_Ryman
15:09:08 <Arthur> Arthur has joined #ws-desc
15:10:58 <Zakim> -Jonathan
15:11:32 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Marsh
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> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/Dashboard.html
15:37:38 <jjm> jjm has joined #ws-desc
15:48:34 <Zakim> -Jonathan_Marsh
15:48:35 <Zakim> -TonyR
15:48:37 <Zakim> -Canon
15:48:38 <Zakim> -chinthaka
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> +Charlton_Barreto
15:59:51 <JacekK> JacekK has joined #ws-desc
16:00:46 <Zakim> +JacekK
16:00:58 <Zakim> +??P7
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> +m2
16:02:05 <asir> asir has joined #ws-desc
16:02:10 <Zakim> +Allen_Brookes
16:02:26 <Roberto> Roberto has joined #ws-desc
16:02:48 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Marsh
16:02:49 <notrahc> notrahc has joined #ws-desc
16:02:53 <Zakim> +??P39
16:03:04 <Zakim> +Roberto
16:03:39 <pauld> pauld has joined #ws-desc
16:03:43 <Jonathan> Jonathan has joined #ws-desc
16:03:54 <Zakim> +Paul_Downey
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> +Amelia_Lewis
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> minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Dec/att-0032/20061207-ws
16:09:31 <JacekK> -desc-minutes.html
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> -Allen_Brookes
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> +Plh
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> q+
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> +Paul_Bagshaw
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> +??P2
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> q+
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 http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-attach-20061117/#wsdl20-example
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> +Gilbert_Pilz
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> q+
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> q+
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> +1
17:31:48 <JacekK> RESOLUTION: import the query separator and query separator default properties to the SOAP binding
17:32:11 <Zakim> -Paul_Downey
17:32:13 <Zakim> -m2
17:32:13 <Zakim> -Roberto
17:32:14 <alewis> alewis has left #ws-desc
17:32:15 <Zakim> -Allen
17:32:16 <Zakim> -Paul_Bagshaw
17:32:18 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
17:32:19 <Zakim> -Jonathan_Marsh
17:32:20 <Jonathan> rrsagent, set log world
17:32:20 <Zakim> -asir
17:32:22 <Zakim> -Canon
17:32:24 <Zakim> -JacekK
17:32:25 <Jonathan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:32:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/12/14-ws-desc-minutes.html Jonathan
17:32:26 <Zakim> -Plh
17:32:27 <TonyR> TonyR has left #ws-desc
17:32:28 <Zakim> -TonyR
17:32:30 <Zakim> -Amelia_Lewis
17:32:32 <Zakim> -Charlton_Barreto
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 http://www.w3.org/2006/12/14-ws-desc-minutes.html Jonathan
19:34:42 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ws-desc