See also: IRC log
<whenry> I'm calling from Skype in Ireland and it's been echoing all day. I've been on vacation.
<scribe> scribeNick: GlenD
<monica> can get now
<monica> couldn't earlier
Minutes are approved.
Paul chairs next telcon
F2F in SF - please register if you haven't
Umit: Docs not ready until next
week - two actions outstanding. Others committed and
... Need to check in with Asir - better idea after today's meeting.
Prasad: Should have docs ready...
Chris: Next week ok?
Umit: Yes, next Wed should be no problem.
166 - publication primer + guidelines... DONE
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to update the public web pages to point to the refreshed documents. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/03-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-177 - Update the public web pages to point to the refreshed documents. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2007-01-10].
ACTION-170 - DONE
ACTION-171 - http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/171 - PENDING
ACTION-172 - http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/172 - PENDING
Chris: Done by next week?
Asir: Possible, yes
ACTION-173 - http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/173 - PENDING
<abbie> good for u
Chris: By EOW
ACTION-174 - http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/174 - PENDING
ACTION-175 - http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/175 - DONE
ACTION-176 - http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/176 - DONE
a) C14N 1.1 Last Call review announcement, XML Core WG
Chris: status unknown, carry this over to next wk
ISSUE 4069: Updating References for Use of xml:id
Monica: This only affects the
primer. We added changes that affect 2.8 in the primer - 1) add
a reference to xml:id as a third reference mechanism, and 2)
add an example of doing so.
... In sec 3.2 (now 3.6) add a chance which acknowledges the use of xml:id.
MS indicates they're fine with this.
Chris: Any objection to closing 4069 with this proposal?
RESOLUTION: Close issue 4069 with the proposal from Monica ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Dec/0081.html)
<scribe> NEW ISSUE 4128: Add References to WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 Component Syntax, Ashok
<asir> 4069 related editorial action is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/110
Ashok explains the issue referenced in the email.
Chris: Can we just turn this over to the editors?
Ashok: Fine by me.
... Dan mentioned we also need to explain how effective policy is calculated when using these domain expressions.
Chris: Can we split this, just add the refs now and then have another issue for wording on effective policy?
<umit> +1 to splitting this issue
Ashok: Dan and I have already agreed on some words...
Asir: But those were in a
different context, should make sure they make sense now.
... Refs appear to be in 3.4.1 - para right b4 second example...
Ashok: Still need at least WSDL
... Stylistically, would be nice to have the refs at the first use
Chris: Adding reference to the note we're working on seems a done deal. Not closed yet on effective policy wording.
Ashok / Dan meld minds to recall agreement or not
Chris: OK, let's take this offline, and do the editorial changes for the references now.
(Asir adds editorial action for the team to add references earlier)
<asir> related editorial action is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/111
c) NEW ISSUE 4129: Attaching Policies to EPRs, Ashok
<scribe> ACTION: Ashok and Dan to work to come to consensus wording describing effective policy calculation with respect to issue 4128. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/03-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-178 - And Dan to work to come to consensus wording describing effective policy calculation with respect to issue 4128. [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2007-01-10].
<umit> that is my recollection as well, Glen.
<cferris> glen: this proposal needs more discussion... at best is not a complete solution
<cferris> ashok: how should we proceed
<cferris> glen: fine with raising the issue though
<asir> F2F discussion pointer - http://www.w3.org/2006/11/09-ws-policy-minutes.html#item09
Glen: The issue was that EPR equivalence becomes an issue when trying to implement the proposed solution. This needs to be at least addressed, if not completely solved.
Asir: (recapitulates F2F minutes)
Glen: Also there's no
... Propose that Ashok / Glen go off and rewrite this in some way before the group accepts the issue.
<scribe> ACTION: Glen and Ashok to come up with complete wording/proposal for EPR-related LC issue regarding policy attachment. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/03-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-179 - And Ashok to come up with complete wording/proposal for EPR-related LC issue regarding policy attachment. [on Glen Daniels - due 2007-01-10].
d) NEW ISSUE 4130: Ignorable assertion must be ignored, Ashok
Ashok: Would like ignorable to be
stronger - MustIgnore.
... Sergey seemed to want the stronger version.
<cferris> glen: the 'able' part is intentional... it means you MAY ignore... lax enables this
<cferris> glen: agree not as strong as stating that you MUST ignore, but think that is stupid
<cferris> glen: prefer to leave as is
Umit: +1 to Glen. Had lots of discussion about partitioning clients, and how some want to use the assertion, and others don't even know about it... so we should leave it as is to support this.
<Zakim> cferris, you wanted to take my hat off and make my case
Chris: Speaking as Chris, not as
... Compelling use cases for why you want to expose assertions which don't change wire messages but may want to advertise QoS. These don't impose requirements, but they MAY want to be aware of them.
... Confidentiality example, for instance. Delivery assurance another.
... Consumer may want specifically to do intersection that uses those particular assertions. Yet there may be clients which don't care... so it's nice to have strict/lax to support these cases.
<umit> +1 to the hatless Chris
<FrederickHirsch> +1 to Chris, Glen
Asir: We spent lots of time on this - if we want to reopen, we should have serious grounds to do so....
Ashok: If I as a server publish an ignorable assertion, I don't know whether the client will "really" ignore it or not... would like to be able to say MustIgnore
<Zakim> GlenD, you wanted to mention it's the clients who don't understand these assertions which matter
<cferris> glen: there is a class of assertions that are used for (e.g) configuration... that you don't want the consumer to care or know about... these should be excluded from the publically published policy
<cferris> glen: not use Ignorable
<SergeyB> Chris, minor clarifications : I actually told Ashok that 'lax' mode can be used now to achive the ignorability and I also said wsp: optional would be the only way to achibe ignorability if wsp:ignorable didnt exist
<cferris> glen: if you mark an assertion Ignorable that actually requires some behavior on the part of the policy consumer, then yes, you will have problems
<cferris> glen: if you don't mark an assertion that has no wire manifestation as Ignorable and the consumer doesn't understand the assertion, you don't have intersection and cannot interact
<whenry> +1 to Glen. Use mynamespace:local or mynamespace:MustIgnore
<TRutt_> +1 to Glen
Glen: Ashok, can you give a use-case for MustIgnore? Why would you do that?
Ashok: Legal policy or ad policy... don't want it used as policy selection process.
<monica> let's remember our manners, please
<whenry> And ... ignore it
Glen: But what are they going to do with it?
Ashok: Ignory stuff! Maybe choose not to talk to the service
Glen: Isn't that selection?
Ashok: I can put a pointer to my legal policy in there... Client isn't going to do intersection.
Umit: But it might be a precursor to intersection.
Ashok: I think these things are purely abstract, and you can use them to decide if you want to work with the guy...
Glen: Isn't that the same thing as intersection, at least abstractly?
Ashok: I don't think so.
(discussion of whether legal policies will be matched by policy engines or not)
Chris: I should be free to be stupid
<MarkTR> +1 to Chris
<sanka> +1 to Chris from me too ..
Chris: In other words, why should you overly constrain me as to whether I ignore or don't a particular assertion
<monica> again: let's remember our manners, please
Chris: You can "force" people to look at something by NOT marking it as ignorable
Ashok: This is stuff that's "for human eyes only"
Umit: If you have a legal policy which you use to decide whether or not you use a given endpoint, then you are always forced to process the legal policy, yes?
Ashok: Most people don't read EULAS....
Umit: Either you choose to do
something with your metadata or not. If you do, then you
understand what the QName is for the legal assertion and
understand how to use that assertion in determining whether or
not you engage with the endpoint.
... This is like being in strict mode
Sergey: Ashok seems to want the
user to make the decision on a certain assertion, and not the
algorithm to fail before that. We can still acheive this with
... Tools can be configured to ask user about unrecognized assertions.
Chris: EULA analogy. Forces you
to click before using whatever. As the consumer, I can read it
or not before I click.
... That's my choice. This is like strict/lax.
<TRutt_> "for human eyes only" does not match the semantics of ignorable. Perhaps he is asking for a new attribute type "for information only", However I do not see the requirement for such a concept
Glen: EULA isn't right example
because you MUST click the button. EULA without a button is a
better example of ignorable.
... Can Ashok and I talk about this and come back next week?
Leaving this for next week.
e) NEW ISSUE 4138: Normalization Algorithm is broken, Umit
<Ashok> sounds good, Glen ... i'll send you mail
Umit: Normalization algorithm
doesn't handle some cases... example in mail.
... Recommendation is to add one line to the algorithm - when result yields conjunction containing a single assertion or a set, then it's equivalent to a single alternative which contains that result assertion/set.
Fabian: +1 to Umit's issue. Prefer to have algorithm defined in terms of operators.
Asir: Algorithm says to construct "normal form" which is defined elsewhere. Would like more time to consider.
Umit: Normal form isn't theoretically complete.
Asir: There is a sentence there... maybe this is a clarification?
Umit: Shouldn't be part of the recursion... this problem only happens when recursion completes with conjunctive form with no alternatives.
Chris: Everyone understand the
... Please review and consider.
Umit: Not tied, btw, to this particular proposal. Just want to fix the problem.
f) NEW ISSUE 4141: Policy parameter definition is not accurate, Umit
Umit: Framework doc is not
accurate about what parameterized assertions are...
... Proposal is to change text to qualify parameters as "things which are not <wsp:Policy>"
Chris: Policy references too, right?
Umit: Cool - friendly amendment is to just watch the namespace.
Dan: Isn't this only for a pre-normalized policy?
Umit: I don't think so
Chris: No Post-Policy-Validation Infoset...
Asir: Data model is close to
normal form, and description of parameter is at the data model
... So policy references and inclusions have already been processed
<umit> This is very bad, Post schema validation infoset.
Asir: So you could say "normal form" == PPVI
Umit: WHOA! If *we* missed that
detail, what about our readers?
... Someone looking at an assertion (XML) should be able to tell what's a parameter and what's nested/referenced....
Asir: We like the proposal, but I think we digressed here.
<cferris> dan: question is whether or not this definition applies to normal form or to the definition of an assertion
<cferris> dan: we may need to talk about the infoset of the assertion in its normal form
<cferris> umit: that is a second level consideration
<cferris> umit: we need to exclude nested policy from the definition of parameters
<maryann_> so can someone propose ammendments?
Chris: Consensus as to the definition of parameter, but do we need to clarify both in term of normal form AND infoset form?
<scribe> ACTION: Umit and Dan to discuss resolution of 4141 and come back with an amended proposal for 2007-01-10. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/03-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-180 - And Dan to discuss resolution of 4141 and come back with an amended proposal for 2007-01-10. [on Umit Yalcinalp - due 2007-01-10].
g) NEW ISSUE 4142: Contradictory recommendation for nesting and intersection, Umit
Umit: Recommending an empty
<wsp:Policy> in order to help intersection not fail. What
does an empty policy really mean?
... seems to be contradictory with 4.3.2...
Umit: Either last sentence of
4.3.2 is incorrect, or our algorithm for compatibility needs to
accommodate an empty policy expression.
... We intended the former - last sentence is wrong.
Maryann: Must still be an alternative which matches, so the reason for this was to supply a valid alternative for matching.
Umit: So you agree with first interpretation?
Maryann: Yes. Should be clearer.
Umit: Might need an example somewhere in guidelines or primer.
Chris: Guidelines/primer issue is
... Intent was clearly not to make things fail based on inclusion/omission of empty policy, we should clean it up.
Asir: +1 there's consensus that last sentence is misleading. Can we just drop it?
Umit: Maryann and I can work on something and then see what the group thinks
<scribe> ACTION: Umit and Maryann to come up with a new version of the wording for the last sentence of sec 4.3.2, as an amended proposal for 4142 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/03-ws-policy-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-181 - And Maryann to come up with a new version of the wording for the last sentence of sec 4.3.2, as an amended proposal for 4142 [on Umit Yalcinalp - due 2007-01-10].
<scribe> ACTION: Umit to file a new issue against primer/guidelines suggesting the need for examples of intersection with/without empty wsp:Policy (see issue 4142) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/03-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-182 - File a new issue against primer/guidelines suggesting the need for examples of intersection with/without empty wsp:Policy (see issue 4142) [on Umit Yalcinalp - due 2007-01-10].
a) ACTION-152 Review 4.4.8 with respect to the addition of the ignorable attribute ("treasure island") due December 1, David Orchard
<scribe> DONE. See:
Status: David outlined his proposal at the Dec 20 meeting. The WG has until Jan 3 to decide if it should be adopted.
Chris: Can we review this by next week?
Defer discussion of ACTION-152 until next week.
b) (NEW) ISSUE 4041: Update primer to mention ignorable as needed, Frederick
c) [NEW ISSUE] 4103 Questionable use of Contoso Ltd in Primer, Chris Ferris
See thread ending at:
Chris: Contoso is registered TM of Microsoft?
Asir: Can check on this.
Chris: Had suggested example.com,
using what a lot of other people use.
... Example.com as a company name is not registered, though.
<scribe> ACTION: Asir to research ownership of "Contoso" name/trademark. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/03-ws-policy-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-183 - Research ownership of \"Contoso\" name/trademark. [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2007-01-10].
Chris: Should have explicit permission, at least, if we're going to use a non-W3C-registered name.
<umit> why can't we use Company A as we do in the Guidelines?
<cferris> ACTION: Chris to follow-up on arch of www doc's use of a company name [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/03-ws-policy-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-184 - Follow-up on arch of www doc\'s use of a company name [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-01-10].
<Nadalin> can't use that !
<Nadalin> I have it that registerd
<maryann_> aw come on
Chris: Next week we'll do guidelines issues and proposals for new issues.
<asir> http://www.nonamecompany.com/ is taken