See also: IRC log
Tony scribes thursday morning
Dan Roth scribes thursday afternoon
Paul will chair Jan 31 meeting
at last meeting prasad volunteered for hosting in the bay area
paul: we are looking for a bay
area meeting because we hope to perform interop testing
... asks prasad is possible to have a separate room for a WG meeting
paul: can we formally adopt this
... sees no objections
RESOLUTION: webmethods' offer to host March F2F in Bay Area approved
Future meeting schedule including F2F meetings after Mar 2007 meeting
paul: abbie had offered to host
... suggested that abbie considers hosting the F2F in may
... abbie is offering to host at Nortel in May
<Fabian> yes, thanks, complete and accurate as far as I'm concerned
chris: let's see a show of hands
about the week of May 21
... what about trying for May 23,24,25
paul: pending abbie's confirmation, this seems to work for most people
<FrederickHirsch> I will not be able to attend the May F2F.
paul: social even at the Cotton
household on Thursday
... our charter also calls for a F2F in July
... suggestion to meet the week of July 24
... show of hands about first choice for July F2F location
Ireland: 11, East Coast: 3, West Coast: 2
paul: proposal is to go to ireland for July 24-26, hosted by Iona in Dublin
<Ashok> I'll vote for Ireland too!
<scribe> ACTION: william to put a proposal page for the July F2F in Ireland [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-189 - Put a proposal page for the July F2F in Ireland [on William Henry - due 2007-01-23].
<scribe> ACTION: chris and paul to complete the future meetings schedule [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-190 - And paul to complete the future meetings schedule [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-01-23].
paul: suggests to skip July 4
... suggests to give WG a rest for August, but revisit that in May
... seems foolish to rest in august if we can finish in august. let's look at this later.
daveO: reservation is at
... tomorrow night suggestion by Umit for sushi
... entertaining suggestions offline
Update WS-Policy Editor's drafts
paul: hasn't seen any objections
to the current changes made by editors
... seen as consensus
<PaulC> Detailed proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/att-0075/ignorable-proposal-v3-FH.pdf
asir: are we processing issus 4041 now?
paul: up to WG, depending on how quickly we get to consensus
<Ashok> I can dial in if needed
<Ashok> I'm at another meeting
asir: would like to defer that, because we are working on proposal
Action 172 closed
paul: thanks the editors for working on this
chris: will try to get this out tomorrow
paul: i believe this is on critical path for last call
asir: don't think we have to close 4045 to publish
paul: still pending
Action 174 closed>
Action 181 closed
paul: Action 182 can be closed
paul: appears to be moot
asir: yes, was email from plh
paul: it's on the agenda, so action item is moot. we'll get to the proposal
Action 185 is moot
paul: daveO was to open a bug
paul: review of action items is completed
chris: MTOMPolicyAssertion member submission was acknowledged
<fsasaki> document at http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/09/
chris: XML Protocol group has agreed to take on that work
<fsasaki> (and http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-WS-MTOMPolicy-20061101/ )
paul: propose to move new issues (4210, 4211) to agenda item 8
cancel coffee break
<PaulC> [NEW ISSUE] 4210 WSDL WG Editorial comments on Framework
paul: has anyone reviewed these?
asir: proposed actions to each of the items
WSDL Framework Item 1: No relationship to XML Base  is defined as of yet in Framework
paul: why don't we quote the issue number
asir: thinks there is an issue
... item 2 refers to an issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Dec/0022.html
... issue 4039
WSDL Framework Item 2
asir: we note that text in
section 4.5 and 4.6 depends on this definition
... proposes no action
paul: these are editorial
... anyone objects?
... no objections
WSDL Framework Item 3
Policy alternative (3.2)
asir: sees no editorial change needed since doesn't see an improvement
<Yakov> audio is breaking
paul: sees no objections
item 3 second part
paul: either correct sentence in section 4, or take it out
asir: will need three more bullets (corresponds to the table of content)
daveO: likes this section where
... section provides a bridge to the next section
daveO can live without it
no objections to removing the sentence
<charltonb> Proposal to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0012 addresses this issue
<fsasaki> related editors AI is http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/115
paul: action on 4069 resolves Item 4
<charltonb> resolution to ISSUE 4069 addresses Item 4
WSDL Framework Item 5
asir: proposes to adopt editorial changes
paul: no objections
WSDL Framework Item 6
asir: proposes no changes, since it's resolved by 4038
paul: sees no objections
WSDL Framework Item 7
<charltonb> Language in current draft addresses this concern
paul: the words "signed" and
"secured" are used, and not clear they mean the same
... in Section 5. of framework (Security Considerations )
... suggests adding reference to WS-Security spec before the period of the first sentence
<charltonb> Proposal: Updating "It is RECOMMENDED that policies and assertions be signed to prevent tampering" to ", using WS-Security [WS-Security 2004]"
fred: not sure it says the same thing
<Fabian> +1 to Charlton
fred: you're specifying a signing method
<FrederickHirsch> Signing can be used for integrity protection even when not conveying in a SOAP message
paul: does XML DSig allow you to sign a WSDL for example?
... don't know where you're including the signature? below policy element? included?
<monica> Note: This comment and the proposal are more than editorial. Monica and Fabian
paul: would XML DSign answer that question for me?
tony: you're suggesting to do something, and it would work, but chances of interop are slim
fred: generic issue, not just to this topic
tony: no use having a signature if you don't know where to find it
several questions arose about the need to restate the obvious on how to sign XML
<Yakov> Could you provide a link ot the discussed text?
yakov, we're discussing Section 5 of the framework document (security considerations)
yakov, specifically the first sentence and the next paragraph
<fsasaki> attachment sec related to this is at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-attachment.html#SecurityConsiderations
<PaulC> Proposal: It is RECOMMENDED that policies and assertions be integrity protected to permit the detection of tampering. This can be done by using a technology such as [XML D-Sig], [SSL/TLS], or [WS-Security 2004].
<dorchard> Change first sentence to end be integrity protected to permit the detection of tampering. This can be done using a technology such as [XML D-Sig], [SSL/TLS], or [WS-Security 2004]
paul: asks if these actions resolve 4210?
paul: hears no objections
<scribe> ACTION: charlton to respond to the WSDL group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-191 - Respond to the WSDL group [on Charlton Barreto - due 2007-01-23].
RESOLUTION: changes proposed resolve Issue 4210
coffee break - 15 minutes
<PaulC> [NEW ISSUE] 4211 WSDL WG Editorial comments on Attachment
<PaulC> See Asir's reply: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0113.html
WSDL Framework item 8
asir: agrees with change
paul: hears no objections
WSDL Framework Item 9
paul: since agreed in previous document, same here
WSDL Framework Item 10
asir: same as Item 7. suggests to make same change made in framework document
paul: those three changes will close 4211
RESOLUTION: Issue 4211 resolved by proposed changes
<PaulC> NEW ISSUE 4138: Normalization Algorithm is broken
umit: does not agree with asir's statement
dan: requests umit to show which steps
<Fabian> very difficult to hear umit and asir on the phone
umit: has followed the steps of
normalization and concluded that the last part of creating a
single assertion - that step does not occur
... add a step to create that single assertion
... asir claims that is not required
<dorchard> Is the right RFC for SSL/TLS 2246?
umit proposal: 7. If the resulting expression contains no alternatives, the expression
<dorchard> ws-security does not refer to SSL/TLS btw
<PaulC> Asir's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0117.html
umit: we both agree what normalized form is, just disagreement on the steps to get there
asir: found several test cases of
that form, and there were no interop issues
... looked into step 4
... key phrase is "construct normal form"
... need to connect "construct normal form" and section 4.1
umit: this proposal doesn't
satisfy because policy operators do not introduce
... you need exactlyOne's to be introduced to produce normal form, and current axioms do not introduce them
asir: ExactlyOne comes from 4.1
umit: whole point of algorithm is to construct normal form
fred: seems to go back to whole
issue of declarative, and agrees with umit's proposal
... maybe we need the extra sentence
daveO: seems that issue is that we're in the "normal form" algorithm section, and then section says "build normal form" as if by magic
paul: do asir and umit think their proposals are equivalent?
... preference is to make *both* changes
fred: proposes we go with what
asir has, and add a sentence because it's not procedural, but
... say in next sentence that it's declarative
maryann: does asir have a problem with what umit proposes? is it incorrect?
asir: umit caught one instance, and are we going to provide all kinds of "if/then/else" for all instances?
paul: answer the question please
asir: yes it's wrong
paul: why is it wrong?
asir: it only covers one
instance, not all instances
... by adding reference it covers all instances
paul: do you not agree that it will helps some people?
asir: if it is a note
daveO: what i understand from umit's proposal, is that it points out the end of the termination
umit: if you don't have the sentence you don't get a normal form
<dorchard> You could even add something like : and thus, the expression is in a normal form
dan: does not agree that has to have ExactlyOne for it to be an alternative
<whenry> +1 to Umit's concern. Section 4.3.3's Equivalence says wsp:policy is equivalent to wsp:all no mention of ExactlyOne.
paul: does anyone object to
... also, no consensus on additional step
fred: do not understand what general case we're trying to solve
fred: you still reference 4.3.3, still declarative
<PaulC> Modified proposal:
<PaulC> 5. If the resulting expression contains a single assertion or a set of assertions grouped by wsp:All, the expression is equivalent to a policy with a single alternative where the content of the resulting expression comprises its content.
paul: if it overspecifies tha
algorithm, then you should be able to live with it
... the only way not to live with it is if it's wrong
dan: worries that the new language might break previous successful interop
paul: we need specifically to know if it actually does break it. otherwise, if it's not wrong, then not an issue
4138 is pending review by working group
<PaulC> NEW ISSUE 4141: Policy parameter definition is not accurate, Umit
<fsasaki> message about pending 4138 in archive will be http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0150.html
<PaulC> Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0025.html
umit: we are excluding attribute and element information from ws-policy language xml namespace
<cferris> resumption of email thread on 4138 is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0150.html
<PaulC> Update proposal:
<umity> Prasad's changes address 3985, is my opinion
paul: other issues are orthogonal
right now to resolving 4141
... not hearing anyone object to making these three changes in thread with message 0048 from different messages
... changes proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0048.html
... hears no objections
<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4141 is closed with the proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0048.html INCLUDING the proposal in Prasad's included previous note related to the proposed change to the Guidelines document
<PaulC> NEW ISSUE 4142: Contradictory recommendation for nesting and intersection
umit: issue was there were two
ways to interpret the semantics of nesting of an empty policy
... depending on which statement you use, you arrive to different conclusions
... in order to solve the problem, eliminate misleading sentence from framework document
Framework Section 4.3.2
last sentence of second paragraph
<PaulC> Proposal is to remove the following text:
<PaulC> The reason for requiring at least an empty <wsp:Policy/> Element above is to ensure that two assertions of the same type will always be compatible and an intersection would not fail (see Section 4.5 Policy Intersection).
<PaulC> and add an explanation to Primer and Guidelines to describe this case.
umit: ws-addressing wg has the same understanding
<PaulC> Part two of the proposal is to change:
<PaulC> Note: if the schema outline
<PaulC> to the following:
<PaulC> If the schema outline
paul: hears no objections to resolve 4142
Issue 4142 is resolved by adopting changes in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0137.html
<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4142 closed as specified in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0137.html a) remove the following text: "The reason for requiring at least an empty <wsp:Policy/> Element above is to ensure that two assertions of the same type will always be compatible and an intersection would not fail (see Section 4.5 Policy Intersection)." and change "Note: if the schema outline" to "Note: if the schema outline"
<scribe> ACTION: maryann to give proposal for changes resulting from 4142 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-192 - Give proposal for changes resulting from 4142 [on Maryann Hondo - due 2007-01-23].
breaking for lunch
<Ashok> when are we resuming?
resuming at 1:15PM PST
<Yakov> I will not probably be able to join at 1:15pm.
<cferris> FYI Polar bears ARE declining in population http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/
<tboubez> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0126.html
<scribe> scribe: Frederick Hirsch
<Ashok> I'm on the phone .. Please enable the call
<maryann> hey ashok
<Ashok> hi Maryann
<maryann> we're just getting started
Ashok: Not sure if bugzilla entry needed for this item
Paul: This is an issue related to a last call item
<Ashok> My mail is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0077.html
Ashok can have more than one assertion which when combined meet requirement
Especially true for WS-SecurityPolicy
Would like to change language - policy assertion represents requirement, combination yet possibly defined in combination with additional assertions
Have not received any responses
<umity> 1+ to Frederick, there are two issues
original text is "[Definition: A policy assertion represents an individual
requirement, capability, or other property of a behavior.
Proposal is to add at end "that is defined, possibly, in combination
with other assertions in with assertion-specific semantics."
Maryann: How about just removing "individual" instead and update guidelines
Ashok: need to be clear about combinations with other assertions
<danroth> How can an assertion be defined in terms of other assertions?
PaulC: does this belong in definition of assertion
Ashok: ok to add words later in section, rather then in definition is also ok
PaulC: see start of 3.2
Asir: How can you define assertion in terms of another assertion, hence leave document as is
An open issue in RX TC, trying to address. Why in this group?
PaulC: Need to clarify document
Frederick: Issue includes need to state that an alternative may need to include a group of assertions, if not together can be incorrect
Ashok: Together group of assertions define one requirement
<Ashok> no frederick ...
PaulC: e.g cannot have A alone, only A+B or A+B'
<Ashok> clarified on the phone
Maryann: Looking for minimal
change to specficiation
... Is this a guideline for assertion authors or a framework issue?
Ashok: Agree we need to add material to guidelines
Also wants change to framework, not one assertion = one requirement
Maryann: Need to distinguish peer assertions and nested assertions
Ashok: Security Policy assertions are not nested, but peer. Issue for peer assertions
<maryann> Depending on the semantics of domain specific policy assertions a combinaiton of thiese policy assertions may be required to completely speicify a particular behavior
Proposal is this additional note for 3.2
Ashok: need to remove "individual" from definition
Umity: can deal with both grouping and nesting with this
s/$/ note PaulC provided
<umity> it is either grouping or nesting, but relationships can exist in either way
FrederickH: cannot always solve issue with nesting, sometimes peer relationships are needed.
<umity> we should drop the word individual
<Ashok> i agree, frederick
<maryann> i agree nesting is not always the right choice
cferris: agrees to Ashok's concern , should drop the word individual
<maryann> i was trying to say that there were currently two mechanisms that could be utilized
Wording concern: depends on assertion author intent. Ok with removing "individual", ok with Note PaulC suggested
<maryann> the grouping of peer assertions in a collection ( if this is apprpriate)
<maryann> or nesting ( if this is appropriate)
Not supportive of Ashok's proposed text replacement
Asir: Ok with dropping word
... Ok with dropping word individual
In Note, would prefer to change "required" to "used"
also change "may" to "can"
FrederickH: Text updated to - "Depending on the semantics of domain specific policy assertions a combination
of these policy assertions can be required to completely specify a particular behavior."
<monica> c/can be required to completely/are needed to
PaulC: Changes proposed are
<maryann> Note: Depending on the semantics of the domain specific policy assertions a combination of these policy assertions can be required to specify a particular behavior.
first: change definition in 3.1 to "efinition: A policy assertion represents a equirement, capability, or other property of a behavior."
second: "Note: Depending on the semantics of the domain specific policy assertions a combination of these policy assertions can be required to specify a particular behavior."
cferris: will open issue
<scribe> ACTION: Ashok to propse guidelines text. Maryann and Monica to help. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-193 - Propose guidelines text. Maryann and Monica to help. [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2007-01-23].
Related issue is 4236
Related issue is 4236
<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4236 is closed with removal of Individual from definition of policy assertion in 3.1 and addition of Note to section 3.2 "Note: Depending on the semantics of the domain specific policy assertions a combination of these policy assertions can be required to specify a particular behavior."
ACTION 193 = Propose guidelines text. See issue 4236. Maryann and Monica to help. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4236
<PaulC> [NEW ISSUE] 4150 Duplicate text exists in Section 3 and 3.2, PolicyAttachment, Monica
Asir responded indicating this is editorial
RESOLUTION: 4150 closed with email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0027.html
<PaulC> WS-Addressing comments relating to WS-Policy LC
PaulC: Quoting - No specific comment, however 4129 issue of interest to addressing to group
ceferris; will follow up
<PaulC> [NEW ISSUE] 4177 Disambiguate notational convention for choice syntax
Disambiguate notational convention for choice syntax,
Monica: Disambiguate use of xml:id and wsu:Id by specifying exclusive or
<prasad> or vs Exclusive OR?
Old in 2.1 and attachment is "The character "|" is used to indicate a choice between alternatives."
Proposed - "The character "|" is used to indicate an exclusive choice between alternatives."
Nadalin: concern if on single element or more extensive
Umity: single element
PaulC: need definition o
| in both attachment and framework
PaulC: need definition of | in both attachment and framework
No objections, editorial change
RESOLUTION: 4177 resolved by adding to the framework and attachment exclusive as proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0056.html
<PaulC> LC Comments from SAWSDL WG
PaulC: phrase as Note - syntax and semantics of SAWSDL might be used...
cferris: Add to introduction of attachment specification possible
Asir: guidelines issue, general point already in guidelines document. Section 4.3.3
<fsasaki> asir's reply is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0111.html
quote "Policy assertions should not be used to express the semantics of a message"
mark as guidelines document only?
umity: they may want more than this. Solve issue by giving pointer to their specification
phrase "action performed by the operation" in the mail is not clear
PaulC: do not hear agreement in working group to change attachment document
Can consider update to guidelines document
Fsasaki: SAWSDL WG wants to avoid conflict between policy and SAWSDL, so they do not care where in specs as long as explicit
PaulC: Respond to them that we agree with sentiment, point to guidelines, no need to update attachment and add reference in guidelines to their specification
<scribe> ACTION: Editors to update guidelines document to add reference to SAWSDL and address issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0064.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-194 - Update guidelines document to add reference to SAWSDL and address issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0064.html [on Editors - due 2007-01-23].
rssagent, where am I?
<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4188 closed with no changes to LC. Respond to SAWSDL that we agree with sentiment, point to guidelines, no need to update attachment and add reference in guidelines to their specification
<PaulC> NEW Issue: How to ignore some "ignorable" assertions only?, Prasad
Prasad: ignorable assertions in strict mode of intersection are not ignorable
Can consumer choose to ignore a subset of ignorable assertions
Would like to understand Asir's comment
Asir: to ignore a subset of assertions marked ignorable, this is known to consumer of policy
can represent through the use of optional and strict mode
umity: this means we have no issue
prasad: in this case mark what you wish to ignore as optional and use strict mode
cferris: From consumer point of view, virtual intersection
dorchard: if A, B known by requestor, not C or D then it will fail in strict mode
If provider adds ignorable assertions C, D will break client if using strict mode
How to add ignorable assertions without breaking consumer
GlenD: Can expect strict mode to be default, they need to understand things to use them. Hence they need to understand to ignore
dorchard: if want to add something as provider that requestor need not to understand, would need to change policy language to say cannot use strict mode
GlenD: this was Ashok's issue
PaulC: now on a different issue
PaulC: ok to close this issue
RESOLUTION: 4195 closed with no action based on explanation in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0141.html
PaulC: would it be good to have this explanation in the primer?
<fsasaki> ACTION: Frederick to add example outlined in e http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-ws-policy-irc#T22-21-59 to be added to primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-195 - Add example outlined in e http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-ws-policy-irc#T22-21-59 to be added to primer [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2007-01-23].
<PaulC> Clarify namespace restrictions
monica: statements in primer that are not in framework
<asir> umit: what is IRC equivalent of \me command for the HTTP version?
PROPOSED CHANGE: For Framework, Section 2.2, Extensibility:
<monica> Extensions that are Child Element Information Items added to Policy operators
<monica> Extensions that are Child Element Information Items added to Policy operators wsp:Policy, wsp:All and wsp:ExactlyOne MUST NOT use the policy language XML namespace name.
Monica: updated proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0096.html
Cferris: language does not match intent
Monica: No change to the schema, change is for 2.2 in framework
Proposal is to add the text to the end of framework section 2.2
dorchard: 2.2 about processing model for extensions, this is better in 2.1 where extensibility points are discussed
Not clear agreeing on proposal but suggest should be in 2.1
dorchard: this re-opens a closed issue on namespace names
PaulC: what is number of issue being reopened?
Summary of David point - if change is made should be 2.1, but no need to do since already considered
umity: clarify how and why issue was closed
Asir: not aware of any related
issue. Talked about another extensibility point, not the
operator extensibiility point
... 2.1 is not right place, it is about notation only
... this is statement from schema
cferris: many aspects to this issue
pseudoschema is inadequate to replicate schema, that is what schema is for
1. should not make this normative over schema
2. 2.1 is wrong place
3 agreed on namespace versioning policy
not to change namespace if we add new elements
Agree - constrain operators
clarify distinction between namespace any and other. This pseudoschema syntax does not support\
annotate constraint in section on policy operators
<fsasaki> (sec 4.3.3)
PaulC: Need to clarify where in 4.3.3 we have pseudoschema
<monica> Please see 4.1
dorchard: what monica wants is already in 4.1
PaulC: summary, chris says it belongs in 4.1
Asir: where in 4.1
in 4.1 - /wsp:Policy/wsp:ExactlyOne/wsp:All/*
Cferris: Element children of wsp:All MUST NOT be from the policy language XML namespace name
Monica: desire to be consistent with schema, seems appropriate for 4.1. Need to address more than All, also Poilcy and ExactlyOne
separate namespace issue from extensibility issue
cferrris: notice no * under Policy or ExactlyOne listed for element extensibility
PaulC: is this a new issue, no element extensibility for Policy or ExactlyOne
Asir: This is normal form.
Cferris: where does extensibility go in normal form
dorchard: Children that aren't known are treated as assertions
regarding issue 4196
dorchard: who would do this
asir: assertion author
monica: clear need to address errors related to schema
dorchard: is issue use of any instead of other?
Asir: not reopening old
... 2.2 is good location to clarify what is in schema
cferris: no place in framework specifies what a valid policy document is
paulc: does framework state that schema takes precedence or doc
ferris: 2.1 says "Normative text
within this specification takes precedence over normative
outlines, which in turn take precedence over the XML
... 2.1 says "Normative text within this specification takes precedence over normative outlines, which in turn take precedence over the XML schema"
Hence not extensible
Monica: agrees with chris
cferris: Elemnt extensibilty of Policy operators wsp:Policy, wsp:All, and wsp:ExactlyOne MUST NOT use the policy language XML namespace name.
this belongs for compact form/
Asir: is "Child element information items" different from "Policy operators wsp:Policy, wsp:All, and wsp:ExactlyOne"
<Zakim> dorchard, you wanted to say that the extensibililty point IS documented.
dorchard: state how to get normal
form, then specify rules for valid normal form
... issue is confusion of whether policy schema applies to compact or normal form
do not need extensibility for Policy, ExactlyOne if unknown items are treated as assertions, hence in normal form as children of All
danroth: section limits to areas with ...
hence if no ... then that condition does not apply
<PaulC> ac mon
Asir: Current schema works for both compact and normal form
monica: relates to 4197
monica: attachment gives red-line
section 2.2, limit to spec
dorchard: agree with "unless specified otherwise" for 2.2 since PolicyReference element extensions are not treated as asertions
see 4.3.4 in framework, at end
dorchard: consider not having "in this context" at beginning of proposed change. Simply add ", unless specified otherwise"
monica: need to make sure this is only for this specification, not attachment, hence "in this specification"
discussion regarding details of proposal ensues.
umity: in addition, give pointer as to what breaks rule (e.g mention policy reference)
add "such as awsp:PolicyReference"
<fsasaki> (hyperlink to 4.3.4 Policy References)
<PaulC> For 4197:
<PaulC> If an Attribute Information Item is not recognized, it SHOULD be ignored. If an Element Information Item is not recognized, it MUST be treated as a policy assertion, unless specified otherwise such as in Section 4.3.4 Policy References <hyperlink>.
monica: section 3.8 of primer, revised sentence to indicate ExactlyOne and All do not have attribute extensibility
dorchard: likes change
asir: proposes bringing to editors
cferris: asks about XInclude
PaulC: no objection to changes
proposed by monica for primer?
... change The default value for wsp:Optional="false". -- replace = with is
dorchard: Instead of any child, any descendants
Lifecycle of assertions in guidelines, 6 is new
RESOLUTION 4197 closed with changes in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/att-0079/wspolicy-extensibility-011007.htm__charset_WINDOWS-1252 and change as " If an Attribute Information Item is not recognized, it SHOULD be ignored. If an Element Information Item is not recognized, it MUST be treated as a policy assertion, unless specified otherwise such as in Section 4.3.4 Policy References <hyperlink>"
<tboubez> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0126.html
PaulC: Need to clarify where spec
defines a valid policy document, schema can apply to both,
document assumes normal form.
... Chris do you think we still need material in varous places of document
cferris: need definition of valid syntax for compact form
10 support, 4 no, 1 abstain
Extensions to Child Element Information Items added to Policy operators
wsp: Policy, wsp:All and wsp:ExactlyOne MUST NOT use the policy language XML
section 2.2 addition.
change 1 abstain to ok with it.
<prasad> +1 from me
cferris: still not describing what a valid policy document is. perhaps new issue.
<umit> +1 to Chris that it is an issue
dorchard: ws-policy says how it will evolve its namespace policy in 2.3.
nobody can use ws-policy namespace, so this is redundant
FrederickH: Discussion of "Element extensions of Policy operations wsp:Policy, wsp:All, and wsp:ExactlyOne MUST NOT use the policy language XML namespace name.
DanRoth: To add without exension need to rev schema not namespace
GlenD: need text to indicate that something is not an extension but ws-policy addition
categories a) items ws-policy define now, b) may define later, c) user-extensions now or later, all of which not to be defined as assertions
SymonChang: can we use same namespace for ones ws-policy defines alter?
PaulC: can everyone live with proposal here
xtensions to Child Element Information Items added to Policy operators
sp: Policy, wsp:All and wsp:ExactlyOne MUST NOT use the policy language XML
Framework section 2.2 addition.
dorchard: asks for time to work on wording
TomRutt: schema already says this with other.
PaulC: david thinks adding this text might be misleading. No desire to change ##0ther
<PaulC> Issue 4203 Introduction misleading (Framework)
cferris: disallow re-invention of mechanisms for which policy attachment specification already has mechanisms
PaulC: consensus to adopt change
RESOLUTION: 4203 closed with proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0085.html
<PaulC> Issue 4204 misleading text in sect 2.3 (Framework)
see also Asir email - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0114.html
Asir: combine 4204 and 4207 issues
fsasaki: felix amendment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0144.html
PaulC: exposing the following URL might be an issue since URI might change, referring to "or by resolving http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/policy/ns/ws-policy."
Asir: stable uri
<PaulC> Proposed text:
<PaulC> A normative XML Schema [XML Schema Structures, XML Schema Datatypes] document can be obtained indirectly by dereferencing the namespace document at the WS-Policy 1.5 namespace URI.
<PaulC> for Framework 2.2.3.
<PaulC> And in Attachments Section 2.2 (Issue 4207)
<cferris> In section 2.3 change:
<cferris> RESOLUTION: Issues 4204 4207 closed with the proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0157.html
<PaulC> 4205 editorial nits WS-Policy 1.5 - Framework
<dorchard> Monica, the normal form for Policy does not have any ... as children of Policy, ExactlyOne or All
a) split second sentence, ok
c) remove traditionally, on the wire to in the messages exchanged
d) information items to item
RESOLUTION 4205 resolved with proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0088.html
<PaulC> skip 4206 for now.
<PaulC> Issue 4209: Example 3.1 does not follow the algorithm in merging policies
Umity: replace example with text summarized in Asir message
put wsp:All operator into resulting form
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0119.html summarizes the email thread and consensus agreement amongst the correspondants
RESOLUTION 4209 closed with proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0119.html
<PaulC> Issue 4224 Section 4, last paragraph content is too restrictive ...
Remove last section in paragraph 4, format example in 4.3.2
RESOLUTION 4224 resolved by http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0121.html
<PaulC> Issue 4225 (was RE: Editorial issues in the Framework spec
Asir: framework corrections
RESOLUTION 4225 closed with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0125.html
<PaulC> Issue 4226: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0124.html
RESOLUTION: 4226 closed with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0124.html
<PaulC> Issue 4230: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0133.html
cferris: change outlined in issue, includes change and move to 3.2 in attachment document
RESOLUTION: 4230 closed with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0133.html
cferris: act as if policy XML is pulled out of non-policy context and treat as XML document
GlenD: start with wsp:Policy element itself, rather than treating as document
cferris: Proposal - in 4.3 remove "document" in item #1
cferris: add "of policy expression to be normalized"
Continue this item for tomorrow morning
<PaulC> 1. Start with the Element Information Item E (as defined in the XML Information Set [XML Information Set]) of the policy expression. The [namespace name] of E is always "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/ws-policy". In the base case, the [local name] property of E is "Policy"; in the recursive case, the [local name] property of E is "Policy", "ExactlyOne", or "All".
<PaulC> 2. and change "D" to "E" in subsequent steps.
PaulC: started with 23 last call
issues today, 4138 left open pending review of revised
... started with 23 last call issues today, 4138 left open pending review of revised proposal
PaulC: Asir thinking about
David thinking about 4196
4206 to be done tomorrow
4235 pending proposal from Chris and more discussion
<scribe> Closed 19 of 23 last call issues
any more pending last call issues?
<fsasaki> (8 LC issues left open)
tomorrow am wsdl identifiers
then Fabian's item followed by other last call items
cferris: should we raise issue for normative form for compact form
paulc: chris to open issue about syntax for compact form
umity: another issue, empty syntax to distribute, not sure how to get to that step
paulc: Have clarified status with liaison groups, want to make sure all issues are on table to allow us to exit last call