IRC log of ws-addr on 2007-01-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:54:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
20:54:26 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:56:52 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has left #ws-addr
20:58:11 [plh]
plh has joined #ws-addr
20:58:23 [plh]
zakim, this will be addr
20:58:23 [Zakim]
ok, plh; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
20:58:42 [plh]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing
20:58:46 [plh]
Chair: Bob Freund
20:59:01 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
20:59:05 [plh]
20:59:12 [plh]
plh has changed the topic to: Agenda:
20:59:30 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
20:59:38 [Zakim]
20:59:52 [Zakim]
21:00:25 [bob]
bob has joined #ws-addr
21:00:55 [Zakim]
21:01:05 [bob]
meeting: WS-Addressing Teleconference
21:01:22 [bob]
chair: Bob Freund
21:01:25 [Zakim]
21:01:50 [bob]
rrsagent, pointer?
21:01:50 [RRSAgent]
21:01:53 [marc]
marc has joined #ws-addr
21:01:55 [Zakim]
21:02:23 [Zakim]
21:02:29 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
21:02:52 [CGI300]
CGI300 has joined #ws-addr
21:02:59 [bob]
zakim, ??P6 is mrgoodner
21:02:59 [Zakim]
+mrgoodner; got it
21:03:10 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr
21:03:11 [Zakim]
21:03:45 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
21:03:46 [Zakim]
21:03:50 [TRutt_]
TRutt_ has joined #ws-addr
21:03:53 [Zakim]
21:04:10 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
21:04:14 [bob]
zakim, [IBM] is paco
21:04:14 [Zakim]
+paco; got it
21:04:45 [Zakim]
21:05:02 [Zakim]
21:05:07 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p11 is me
21:05:07 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
21:05:43 [Zakim]
21:05:58 [yinleng]
yinleng has joined #ws-addr
21:06:32 [bob]
zakim, ??P12 is katy
21:06:32 [Zakim]
+katy; got it
21:07:56 [anish]
Scribe: anish
21:07:59 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
21:08:32 [anish]
21:08:45 [anish]
21:08:49 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
21:09:10 [Zakim]
21:09:11 [Zakim]
21:09:14 [anish]
Topic: approval of 2006-12-11 minutes
21:09:20 [anish]
21:09:31 [yinleng]
zakim, ??P13 is me
21:09:31 [Zakim]
+yinleng; got it
21:09:37 [anish]
Minutes approved.
21:09:44 [anish]
Chair: bob
21:09:50 [anish]
Topic: AI review
21:10:05 [anish]
Paul Knight to respond to commenter: Paul not on the call
21:10:10 [anish]
Tony Rogers to post a new editors’ draft – Done
21:10:29 [anish]
Topic: Comments for the WS-Policy working group
21:10:45 [anish]
21:11:18 [anish]
Anish: what is the status of embedded policies in EPRs
21:11:24 [anish]
Bob: they decided not the engage on that
21:12:17 [anish]
Tom: epr has a metadata section and no one has addressed how to embed policy assertion
21:12:34 [anish]
Philippe: do we have more information to give them?
21:12:51 [anish]
Bob: don't know how they decided on not dealing with this issue
21:12:57 [plh]
21:13:10 [anish]
Philippe: looks like that issue in ws-policy wg is reopened
21:14:00 [TRutt_]
21:14:11 [anish]
... we might want to express interest in this issue to ensure that we are inthe loop
21:14:26 [anish]
... any recommendation that we would like to give them?
21:14:57 [bob]
ack ani
21:14:57 [anish]
paco: my view is that we can't take over every metadata
21:15:29 [anish]
plh: now that we are doing a metadata document but we could certainly do this
21:15:41 [anish]
paco: not in favor of doing this
21:15:48 [anish]
tom: why don't we ask them to do this
21:16:00 [anish]
bob: somebody has to do this or it is going to show up in ws-i
21:16:40 [Zakim]
21:16:49 [anish]
plh: some people argue that it is the job of the metadata exchange
21:17:03 [anish]
anish: little different from metadata exchange
21:17:18 [anish]
paco: but it is part of metadata
21:18:03 [anish]
anish: seems like the syntax is within our purview
21:19:06 [anish]
paco: policy in a EPR opens a lot of questions
21:19:25 [anish]
... some assertions are message specific
21:19:43 [TRutt_]
21:19:56 [anish]
paco: more of a policy thing rather than ws-addr thing
21:20:00 [anish]
bob: agree with bob
21:20:18 [anish]
tom: not our job to do that
21:20:19 [bob]
21:20:23 [Zakim]
21:20:58 [anish]
anish: do we need to point out that we thing it is their job
21:21:19 [anish]
bob: we can just say that we are interested in the outcome of issue 4129
21:21:39 [Zakim]
21:21:42 [anish]
... is that a reasonable approach?
21:22:15 [anish]
.. any other point that we would like to provide feedback on?
21:22:27 [anish]
bob: we'll provide that feedback
21:22:32 [bob]
zakim, ??P2 is katy
21:22:32 [Zakim]
+katy; got it
21:22:53 [anish]
Topic: New Editors’ draft of the "Metadata Document"
21:23:07 [anish]
21:23:18 [anish]
Tony: changes raised more questions than expected
21:23:40 [anish]
... new version is up as an editors draft
21:24:05 [anish]
... big changes: delection of section 3.2 and added new section 3.2. New section is David's text.
21:24:37 [anish]
... with the modification of s/AddresingRequired/Addressing/
21:24:42 [bob]
ai: bob to sent a LC review response to WS-Policy wrt bugzilla 4129
21:25:06 [anish]
... 1st note is about policy attachment option
21:25:21 [bob]
21:25:22 [anish]
... using prefix wsaw, should this be called something else like wsam
21:26:00 [anish]
plh: i though we decided on wsam with a new NS, including for UsingAddressing
21:26:21 [gpilz]
21:26:38 [anish]
Tony: the old UsingAddressing is a policy assertion as well. The new one is a policy assertion only
21:26:53 [anish]
Tony: new NS prefix will be 'wsam'
21:27:07 [plh]
s|we decided on wsam with a new NS|we decided to use /metadata instead of /wsdl for the namespace|
21:27:45 [anish]
Tony: most of 3.2 is a list of example
21:27:57 [anish]
... will need minor revision to change the prefix
21:28:11 [anish]
... David, would you tell if there are any errors?
21:28:19 [anish]
David: will read it and let you know
21:28:34 [bob]
action: david will review sec 3.2 examples in a day or two
21:29:02 [bob]
action: bob to sent a LC review response to WS-Policy wrt bugzilla 4129
21:30:02 [anish]
<discussion of editorial issues between plh and tony. details not captured>
21:31:13 [plh]
q+ to follow up on empty nested policy
21:31:35 [bob]
ack tr
21:31:41 [plh]
21:31:43 [bob]
ack plh
21:31:43 [Zakim]
plh, you wanted to follow up on empty nested policy
21:31:51 [MrGoodner]
21:31:59 [anish]
plh: on the issue of empty nested policy, i don't think it is required to have the empty nested policy for the intersection to work
21:32:38 [anish]
David: the policy framework section 4.3.2 has a Note. That note makes me think that it needs an empty wsp:Policy element
21:33:02 [anish]
bob: would you like to provide that as an input to the ws-poilcy WG as an LC comment
21:33:06 [bob]
ack mrg
21:33:24 [anish]
Marc: i agree with David. I got some quick confirmation from some folks. I believe that it is right.
21:33:42 [anish]
Bob: I would suggest going to the policy wg if the describe is not clear
21:33:48 [anish]
plh: i believe david is right
21:33:59 [anish]
Bob: the note to ws-policy wg is not required then
21:34:04 [plh]
[[ Note: if the schema outline for an assertion type requires a nested policy expression but the assertion does not further qualify one or more aspects of the behavior indicated by the assertion type (i.e., no assertions are needed in the nested policy expression), the assertion MUST include an empty <wsp:Policy/> ]]
21:34:21 [plh]
21:34:25 [anish]
Tony: the next Q is related to the bibliography. I have put in ws-policy framework and primer as normative.
21:34:31 [anish]
21:34:39 [anish]
... the docs are working draft
21:34:45 [bob]
ack anish
21:35:10 [anish]
anish: does primer need to be normative rather than informative?
21:36:04 [anish]
tony: don't have a problem with that
21:36:35 [anish]
... if the other 2 docs (framework and attachments) are normative, is that a problem?
21:36:54 [anish]
plh: we can't be a rec until policy is PR
21:37:06 [anish]
marc: but we are going back to LC so they are ahead
21:37:20 [anish]
bob: but now we need their implementation to advance
21:37:55 [anish]
Katy: we need to specify the wsp prefix in the table
21:38:07 [anish]
tony: good point. will add that.
21:39:08 [anish]
Marc: we still need to note the subject-level of the assertion
21:39:13 [anish]
plh: my email covers that
21:39:35 [anish]
bob: are folks in agreement with that?
21:39:39 [anish]
no disagreement
21:39:45 [plh]
21:40:14 [anish]
plh: one thing to note is that in my note i recommend staying silent.
21:40:20 [anish]
tony: makes sense
21:40:50 [plh]
s/one thing to note is that in my note i recommend staying silent./one thing to note is that i recommend staying silent for other attachment points./.
21:42:13 [anish]
Tony: on action, i changed the reference. reference to explicit association and reference to rules for the default.
21:42:36 [bob]
tony's first mail:
21:42:45 [plh]
"The inclusion of wsaw:Action without inclusion of wsaw:UsingAddressing has no normative intent and is only informational."
21:43:40 [anish]
tony: we probably need UsingAddressing or the presence of addressing policy assertion
21:43:52 [anish]
plh: worried about saying 'presence'
21:43:55 [anish]
... can be optional
21:45:44 [anish]
tony: will have to think about this.
21:46:00 [anish]
anish: we could talk in terms of policy alternative
21:46:37 [anish]
ACTION: tony to propose words to resolve this
21:46:40 [bob]
Action: Tony to tinker up some words which will confuse everyone
21:46:54 [anish]
21:47:01 [anish]
21:47:11 [anish]
21:47:24 [anish]
21:47:53 [plh]
ACTION 3=Tony to tinker up section 4.4.1 to include the policy assertions as well
21:48:13 [bob]
21:48:16 [anish]
Tony: the next email that i sent concerns CR33
21:48:52 [anish]
... i went ahead and did (a) but not (b). Did include (c), and (d)
21:49:11 [anish]
... one Q is 'we are still using UsingAddressing?'
21:49:15 [anish]
bob: that is another issue
21:49:30 [anish]
Tony: next email is about CR38. which we have already dealt with.
21:49:51 [anish]
... then there are DavidHull's point
21:50:00 [anish]
plh: they are editorial, we can do this on the ML
21:50:16 [Zakim]
21:50:29 [anish]
bob: there was some sympathy about shortening, breaking up of sentences.
21:50:42 [Zakim]
21:51:16 [anish]
bob: we'll continue the editorial discussion on the ML
21:51:32 [anish]
... noticed that there is no change to the issues list
21:51:44 [anish]
tony: there have been changes.
21:51:52 [anish]
bob: did not see any changes
21:54:06 [anish]
tony: the remaining CR issue on ed issues: 34 (moot now), 33 (we just resolved), 32 (is about 'none' uri -- still not done), 38 (we settled today)
21:54:18 [anish]
... so the only remaining is 36.
21:54:30 [anish]
... is that an erratum
21:54:36 [anish]
bob: no, as an addition
21:54:48 [anish]
... as a PER then then a 2nd edition
21:55:22 [bob]
21:55:49 [anish]
tony: will finish the metadata doc by friday
21:56:17 [anish]
katy: minor thing -- in the conformance section do we need something about conformance to the assertion
21:56:51 [anish]
... section 6
21:58:07 [anish]
tony: will do that using my editorial powers
21:58:31 [anish]
Topic: Shall UsingAddressing be deleted?
21:58:43 [anish]
21:58:52 [bob]
ack anish
21:59:19 [anish]
anish: if we have changed the NS, then we don't need this
21:59:52 [anish]
tony: if people want to indicate addressing in wsdl then they won't have anything any more
22:00:21 [anish]
katy: the disadvantage of having this would be that we would have to specify how it interacts with the assertion
22:00:28 [anish]
tony: agree that it should be cut
22:00:36 [anish]
bob: anyone in favor of retaining it?
22:00:42 [anish]
noone favors it
22:00:52 [anish]
no objections to removing it.
22:01:12 [anish]
decision: UsingAddressing will be removed
22:01:21 [bob]
resolution: usingaddressing shall be cut
22:01:34 [anish]
Topic: Schedule
22:01:40 [anish]
Announcement of new public working draft 2007-01-16
22:01:40 [anish]
LC start 2007-01-30
22:01:40 [anish]
LC end 2007-02-20
22:01:40 [anish]
LC issue resolution estimate – 4 weeks ~ 2007-02-26
22:01:40 [anish]
CR start <Policy dependency?> ~2007-02-27
22:01:41 [anish]
CR end start plus four weeks ~2007-03-20
22:01:41 [bob]
Topic: Schedule
22:01:41 [bob]
22:01:41 [bob]
Announcement of new public working draft 2007-01-16
22:01:41 [bob]
LC start 2007-01-30
22:01:41 [bob]
LC end 2007-02-20
22:01:42 [bob]
LC issue resolution estimate – 4 weeks ~ 2007-02-26
22:01:43 [anish]
CR Issue resolution estimate – 2 weeks
22:01:45 [anish]
PR start 2006-03-27
22:01:45 [bob]
CR start <Policy dependency?> ~2007-02-27
22:01:46 [bob]
CR end start plus four weeks ~2007-03-20
22:01:48 [bob]
CR Issue resolution estimate – 2 weeks
22:01:50 [bob]
PR start 2006-03-27
22:02:32 [anish]
bob: do we need to announce what we have as a new WD
22:02:47 [anish]
... prior to the begining of the LC period
22:03:00 [Zakim]
22:03:12 [anish]
... I was suggesting that we make a public draft available as early as next week
22:03:46 [Zakim]
22:03:55 [anish]
... i would like to get the completed document and review it and hopefully can be within a small delta of the public draft
22:04:06 [anish]
plh: the LC announcement can be at the same time as the public WD
22:04:30 [plh]
[[ After republication as a Working Draft, the next forward step available to the Working Group is a Last Call announcement. The Last Call announcement MAY occur at the same time as the publication of the Working Draft. ]]
22:04:51 [anish]
bob: start of LC end of this month
22:05:05 [anish]
... and minimum LC is 3 weeks
22:05:13 [anish]
... it is a SHOULD
22:05:52 [anish]
plh: i would suggest asking all the WG if they would be able to review them in the time frame given
22:05:59 [anish]
bob: will start spreading the word
22:06:13 [anish]
plh: send email to wsdl and policy wg regd this
22:06:38 [anish]
bob: will do that
22:07:31 [anish]
plh: can skip the TAG
22:07:44 [anish]
tony: CG meeting would also be a good place to bring this up
22:08:15 [anish]
bob: assuming 3 week minimum and assuming that we'll get some comments: 4 weeks of comment resolution.
22:09:09 [anish]
... CR start time may be policy dependent
22:09:52 [anish]
... guessing around 27th feb
22:10:27 [Zakim]
22:10:38 [anish]
... may impact their spec as we have changed our assertion
22:10:45 [anish]
David: only their primer would be affected
22:11:02 [anish]
bob: testing resources needed during end of feb - end of march
22:11:13 [anish]
... what we have now is going to be easier to test
22:11:20 [anish]
tom: do we need a f2f
22:11:24 [Zakim]
22:11:27 [anish]
bob: may be good to schedule one
22:12:38 [anish]
bob: david, do u think a 4 week schedule is appropriate?
22:12:54 [anish]
david: we do have a lot of the design/test, but dependents on how long policy implementation takes
22:13:13 [anish]
bob: this puts PR at march 27 (with some assumptions)
22:13:20 [anish]
plh: that is optimistic
22:13:33 [anish]
... policy wg is starting their CR in march and ending in july
22:13:50 [anish]
bob: so this could be delayed because of policy implementations
22:14:28 [anish]
bob: any other business?
22:14:31 [anish]
22:14:54 [TRutt_]
TRutt_ has left #ws-addr
22:14:56 [anish]
Meeting adjourned. Next meeting, next meeting
22:14:58 [Zakim]
22:15:00 [Zakim]
22:15:01 [Zakim]
22:15:02 [Zakim]
22:15:03 [Zakim]
22:15:04 [Zakim]
22:15:05 [yinleng]
yinleng has left #ws-addr
22:15:06 [Zakim]
22:15:07 [Zakim]
22:15:08 [Zakim]
22:15:09 [Zakim]
22:15:12 [bob]
zakim, who was here?
22:15:12 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, bob.
22:15:13 [anish]
s/Next meeting, next meeting/Next meeting, next week/
22:15:16 [Katy]
Katy has left #ws-addr
22:15:19 [Zakim]
22:15:28 [bob]
zakim, who was on the phone?
22:15:28 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, bob.
22:15:30 [Zakim]
22:15:32 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
22:15:36 [plh]
zakim, drop bob
22:15:36 [Zakim]
Bob_Freund is being disconnected
22:15:38 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
22:15:39 [anish]
zakim, who is on there?
22:15:40 [Zakim]
Attendees were Mark_Little, Bob_Freund, Plh, David_Illsley, Tom_Rutt, mrgoodner, Gilbert_Pilz, Marc_Hadley, paco, Anish, TonyR, katy, Dave_Hull, yinleng, [IBM]
22:15:42 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, anish.
22:15:46 [bob]
22:15:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate plh
22:16:12 [bob]
thanks, see you next week