IRC log of ws-policy on 2007-02-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:51:47 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-policy
16:51:47 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:51:55 [cferris]
zakim, this will be policy
16:51:55 [Zakim]
ok, cferris; I see WS_Policy()12:00PM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
16:53:15 [cferris]
topic: agenda
16:55:22 [dmoberg]
dmoberg has joined #ws-policy
16:56:41 [fhirsch3]
fhirsch3 has joined #ws-policy
16:56:50 [SergeyB]
SergeyB has joined #ws-policy
16:57:07 [Zakim]
WS_Policy()12:00PM has now started
16:57:13 [Zakim]
16:57:20 [Yakov]
Yakov has joined #ws-policy
16:57:53 [Zakim]
16:58:12 [Zakim]
16:58:16 [Zakim]
16:58:40 [paulc]
paulc has joined #ws-policy
16:58:54 [sanka]
sanka has joined #ws-policy
16:58:58 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-policy
16:58:58 [Zakim]
16:59:06 [plh]
plh has joined #ws-policy
16:59:17 [Zakim]
16:59:44 [Zakim]
16:59:50 [Fabian]
zakim, ??P29 is Fabian
16:59:51 [Zakim]
+Fabian; got it
17:00:14 [Zakim]
17:00:36 [cferris]
zakim, ??P30 is Paul
17:00:36 [Zakim]
+Paul; got it
17:00:41 [Zakim]
17:00:43 [cferris]
zakim, Paul has Asir
17:00:43 [Zakim]
+Asir; got it
17:00:43 [prasad]
prasad has joined #ws-policy
17:01:03 [Zakim]
17:01:48 [Zakim]
17:01:58 [mlittle]
mlittle has joined #ws-policy
17:02:05 [Zakim]
17:02:22 [Symon]
Symon has joined #ws-policy
17:02:23 [cferris]
zakim, ??P3 is Toufic
17:02:23 [Zakim]
+Toufic; got it
17:02:28 [Zakim]
17:02:31 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-policy
17:02:43 [toufic]
toufic has joined #ws-policy
17:02:51 [cferris]
zakim, [IPCaller] is Sanka
17:02:51 [Zakim]
+Sanka; got it
17:02:53 [Zakim]
17:03:01 [maryann]
maryann has joined #ws-policy
17:03:13 [monica]
monica has joined #ws-policy
17:03:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.402.aaaa
17:03:29 [Zakim]
17:03:48 [maryann]
zakim, IBMCambridge is maryann
17:03:48 [Zakim]
+maryann; got it
17:03:55 [cferris]
zakim, aaaa is Symon
17:03:55 [Zakim]
+Symon; got it
17:04:01 [Zakim]
17:04:08 [abbie]
abbie has joined #ws-policy
17:04:10 [toufic]
zakim, please mute me
17:04:10 [Zakim]
Toufic should now be muted
17:04:13 [abbie]
+ abbie
17:04:16 [cferris]
zakim, ??P9 is Charlton
17:04:16 [Zakim]
+Charlton; got it
17:04:36 [sanka]
zakim, mute me
17:04:36 [Zakim]
Sanka should now be muted
17:05:04 [Zakim]
17:05:09 [cferris]
zakim, who is here?
17:05:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Frederick_Hirsch, Chris_Ferris, Yakov_Sverdlov, Sergey_Beryozkin, Dale_Moberg, Plh (muted), Fabian, Paul, m2, Mark_Little, Prasad_Yendluri, Toufic (muted), Sanka
17:05:12 [Zakim]
... (muted), Abbie_Barbir, Symon, maryann, Charlton, Ashok_Malhotra
17:05:13 [Zakim]
Paul has Asir
17:05:15 [Zakim]
On IRC I see abbie, monica, maryann, toufic, Ashok, Symon, mlittle, prasad, plh, asir, sanka, paulc, Yakov, SergeyB, fhirsch3, dmoberg, RRSAgent, Zakim, cferris, Fabian, charlton,
17:05:18 [Zakim]
... trackbot
17:05:30 [plh]
Regrets: Felix
17:06:02 [sanka]
zakim, unmute me
17:06:02 [Zakim]
Sanka should no longer be muted
17:06:20 [cferris]
Present: Frederick_Hirsch, Chris_Ferris, Yakov_Sverdlov, Sergey_Beryozkin, Dale_Moberg, Plh, Fabian, Paul, m2, Mark_Little, Prasad_Yendluri, Toufic, Sanka, Abbie_Barbir, Symon, maryann, Charlton, Ashok_Malhotra, Asir
17:06:28 [cferris]
scribe: cferris
17:06:38 [cferris]
scribeNick: cferris
17:06:56 [cferris]
plh: gives us update on Felix
17:07:22 [cferris]
pbc: felix will be unavailable for next 2 weeks
17:07:28 [Zakim]
17:07:33 [Zakim]
17:07:43 [cferris]
Present+ Dave_Orchard
17:07:50 [cferris]
scribe: dorchard
17:07:51 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-policy
17:08:02 [dorchard]
scribenick: dorchard
17:08:08 [dorchard]
nick: dorchard
17:08:29 [sanka]
zakim, mute me
17:08:29 [Zakim]
Sanka should now be muted
17:08:40 [dorchard]
topic: previous minutes
17:08:53 [dorchard]
resolution: minutes of Feb 14th approved
17:09:00 [Zakim]
17:09:01 [dorchard]
RESOLUTION: minutes of Feb 14th approved
17:09:31 [plh]
17:09:34 [dorchard]
topic: July f2f meeting
17:09:51 [paulc]
Logistics page:
17:09:53 [cferris]
Present+ Glen
17:10:50 [Zakim]
17:10:58 [danroth]
danroth has joined #ws-policy
17:11:04 [cferris]
zakim, ??P20 is Umit
17:11:04 [Zakim]
+Umit; got it
17:11:11 [cferris]
Present+ Umit
17:11:26 [GlenD]
GlenD has joined #ws-policy
17:11:39 [paulc]
17:11:47 [paulc]
Change F2F date proposal:
17:13:20 [dorchard]
paulc: any objections to moving to july 17-19th
17:13:34 [dorchard]
wg: no objections
17:13:45 [dorchard]
RESOLUTION: july f2f on July 17th-19th
17:13:59 [dorchard]
Paulc: need to update admin page, w3c calendar, and logistics page
17:14:27 [cferris]
ACTION: PLH to put up logistics page for Dublin F2F
17:14:27 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - PLH
17:14:56 [cferris]
ACTION: Philippe to put up logistics page for Dublin F2F
17:14:56 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-225 - Put up logistics page for Dublin F2F [on Philippe Le Hegaret - due 2007-02-28].
17:15:49 [toufic]
zakim, unmute me
17:15:49 [Zakim]
Toufic should no longer be muted
17:16:01 [fhirsch3]
fhirsch3 has joined #ws-policy
17:16:17 [dorchard]
topic: editors report
17:16:18 [cferris]
ACTION: Philippe to update member page to reflect the change in F2F dates and to change the cancelled meeting from Aug 1 to Jul 25
17:16:18 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-226 - Update member page to reflect the change in F2F dates and to change the cancelled meeting from Aug 1 to Jul 25 [on Philippe Le Hegaret - due 2007-02-28].
17:16:21 [dorchard]
toufic: nothing to report
17:16:25 [abbie]
toufic that was quick
17:16:47 [toufic]
zakim, mute me
17:16:47 [Zakim]
Toufic should now be muted
17:17:11 [paulc]
Action 189: Logistics page:
17:17:24 [prasad]
AI-211 done
17:17:38 [paulc]
Action 211: 20007Feb/0106.html
17:19:35 [sanka]
17:20:03 [paulc]
WSDL WG confirmation:
17:20:54 [paulc]
Proposed feddback to WS-A:
17:21:12 [toufic]
i can feel the amount of love flowing
17:21:31 [asir]
17:22:09 [Fabian]
17:22:15 [dorchard]
topic: feedback to ws-addressing
17:22:22 [plh]
17:22:27 [dorchard]
chrisf: goes throuh his email.
17:23:01 [umit]
umit has joined #ws-policy
17:25:37 [dorchard]
17:25:49 [sanka]
zakim, mute me
17:25:49 [Zakim]
Sanka was already muted, sanka
17:26:20 [Zakim]
17:27:10 [paulc]
17:27:15 [TRutt_]
TRutt_ has joined #ws-policy
17:31:31 [cferris]
ACTION: Chris to add issues for attachments, guidelines and primer related to the changed qname of the ws-addressing metadata assertion
17:31:31 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-227 - Add issues for attachments, guidelines and primer related to the changed qname of the ws-addressing metadata assertion [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-02-28].
17:31:37 [dorchard]
fabian: fine with recommended approach
17:31:54 [dorchard]
fabian: reasoning in points a&b I don't agree with
17:32:43 [dorchard]
fabian: fine with points c,d,e
17:33:24 [Fabian]
don't agree with: Similarly,
17:33:24 [Fabian]
the second alternative makes no statement what-so-ever.
17:34:00 [dorchard]
fabian: it does make a statement, that ws-addressing is required.
17:34:31 [dorchard]
chrisf: maybe change to say the nested policy assertion makes no statement
17:34:46 [dorchard]
umit: if that cleared up in a), would you be ok?
17:35:24 [dorchard]
fabian: b) two policies, one for client, one for server, both use optional nested assertions.
17:35:56 [dorchard]
fabian: it says "the following two policies are compatible .." and I can't follow what it's saying
17:36:06 [dorchard]
fabian: of course they are compatible because it says optional.
17:36:35 [dorchard]
chrisf: they are almost recommending client side use optional but not server.
17:36:48 [toufic]
17:36:49 [dorchard]
chrisf: this is an abominable use of optional.
17:37:10 [dorchard]
fabian: but of course this is what optional is intended for.
17:37:41 [dorchard]
chrisf: If I'm offering policy, I only support anonymous or non-anonymous, there's no way to say this.
17:38:14 [dorchard]
scribe lost.
17:38:51 [umit]
17:39:52 [dorchard]
umit: problem with optional isn't with optional, it's since the assertion semantic is support, then when you use support with optional.
17:40:23 [dorchard]
umit: the semantic of the nested assertion does not end up helping because of a)
17:40:38 [cferris]
if either side decides (for whatever reason) to use the guidance that is in the metadata spec (that wsp:optional be used to circumvent the problem that the corresponding endpoint might not specify its support for the capabilities) is misguided because it COULD lead to the example that we site
17:40:38 [dorchard]
umit: this is a misuse of optional because of the support semantics
17:40:44 [cferris]
17:41:02 [monica]
17:41:45 [dorchard]
chrisf: they are advocating optional .... scribe lost again.
17:42:36 [dorchard]
chrisf: could have intersection come back and say intersection is found when it actually isn't.
17:42:36 [asir]
Here is the conclusion in WS-A Metadata doc - "These two examples show the use of wsp:Optional and wsp:Ignorable, and how they can be used to produce non-empty intersections between client and endpoint policies. "
17:43:11 [dorchard]
umit: b) is a consequence of a)
17:43:15 [cferris]
right... this is the guidance with which we have an issue
17:43:25 [dorchard]
umit: all problems from support semantics.
17:45:00 [dorchard]
paulc: need to concentrate on b)'s point isn't explained well enough.
17:45:13 [dorchard]
fabian: 3.1.6 paragraph.
17:46:02 [dorchard]
fabian: perhaps expand the intents?
17:46:30 [TRutt_]
problematic sementics of B ) relates to example 3-11 in metatdata doc
17:46:43 [TRutt_]
17:46:50 [dorchard]
chrisf: can't express the kinds of things they want to express
17:47:42 [dorchard]
scribe lost again.
17:48:10 [umit]
that is it
17:48:17 [dorchard]
paulc: they can't say non anonymous response not supported.
17:48:26 [umit]
Non anon response is not supported is not expressable.
17:48:47 [cferris]
exactly, you cannot say that you do not support a feature
17:48:55 [umit]
it implies resorting to a runtime fault
17:49:00 [dorchard]
to say anonymous response but not non-anonymous response not supported.
17:49:21 [TRutt_]
+1 to Paul but also relate B ) point to their example 3-11
17:49:38 [monica]
no behavior
17:50:01 [dorchard]
glen: if they define 2 assertions, and don't use 1 of them, doesn't it say that 1 isn't supported
17:50:06 [asir]
Glen, that particular contradicting absence statement is under point A)
17:50:10 [umit]
The sections in 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 are exactly the problematic sections
17:50:15 [umit]
theyare in A)
17:50:18 [GlenD]
17:50:48 [paulc]
17:50:52 [paulc]
ack fab
17:50:52 [umit]
17:51:49 [umit]
17:52:17 [umit]
I must observe that we clarified the presence/absence of assertions only recently
17:52:39 [umit]
also we made a lot of clarification on optionality discussion and intersection recently
17:52:43 [maryann]
+1 to anti-practice example
17:53:02 [maryann]
in guidelines
17:53:23 [umit]
thus, it is possible for WS-A to come up with this approach. I bet they will go for option 2 to preserve their semantics.
17:53:49 [paulc]
ack do
17:53:53 [paulc]
ack tr
17:53:56 [dorchard]
dorchard: it seems to me that ws-a really "blew it".
17:54:11 [dorchard]
dorchard: and they are really smart folks
17:54:17 [dorchard]
dorchard: so this is really concerning
17:54:30 [umit]
17:55:15 [cferris]
Present+ Tom_Rutt
17:55:15 [dorchard]
trutt: this came about as a result of ws-rx comments, so you could have 2 statements to support ws-a anon and ws-rm make connection,
17:55:27 [cferris]
17:55:31 [dorchard]
trutt: we should focus on 3.11
17:56:00 [dorchard]
dorchard: I'd almost want this to be an anti-practice in the main doc.
17:56:26 [dorchard]
trutt: 4 month back and forth, focusing on policy
17:56:51 [umit]
I must observe the use of optional and ignorable is rather new!
17:56:52 [dorchard]
trutt: could use non anon and anon responses as policy assertions instead of nesting, that might work.
17:57:02 [umit]
not 4 months
17:57:19 [dorchard]
trutt: have to understand ws-rm spec
17:57:30 [asir]
umit, did the WS-A group debate on the use of optional/ignorable?
17:57:32 [dorchard]
q+ to suggest 3-way meeting.
17:57:57 [dorchard]
trutt: may involve change to ws-rm as well.
17:58:01 [maryann]
can we get WS-A to give us feedback on the guidelines doc?
17:58:21 [paulc]
ack umit
17:58:23 [maryann]
it would be good to get their comments on its applicability
17:58:47 [dorchard]
umit: might be 4 months of discussion, but on alignment with rm(?)
17:59:22 [dorchard]
umit: some people have been sending feedback on intersection but haven't gotten to this level of review and response yet.
17:59:36 [dorchard]
umit: document is a bit immature for an LC document.
18:00:15 [paulc]
ack cf
18:00:29 [dorchard]
paulc: point about little of 4 month discussion is on using w3c ws-policy
18:01:06 [dorchard]
cf: ws-a chose to ignore pushback
18:01:20 [dorchard]
cf: wg is too tired to deal with this.
18:02:16 [TRutt_]
18:02:16 [paulc]
ack do
18:02:18 [Zakim]
dorchard, you wanted to suggest 3-way meeting.
18:03:22 [asir]
ws-a didn't spend sufficient time to discuss the use of ignorable/optional or the absence of assertions in a nested policy expression within addressing assertion
18:03:29 [umit]
18:03:33 [umit]
+1 to asir
18:03:44 [cferris]
18:04:43 [paulc]
18:05:00 [toufic]
18:05:02 [paulc]
ack tr
18:05:06 [dorchard]
dorchard: suggest a 3 way meeting
18:05:31 [Yakov]
+1 to David
18:05:55 [umit]
18:06:42 [dorchard]
trutt: this was very complex, and didn't end up right.
18:06:48 [umit]
there are two issues here, how to handle WS-A specifically and how to illustrate best practices so that others use WS-P in the right way.
18:07:30 [dorchard]
paulc(with no chair hat): many of the companies have reps on all 3 groups
18:07:43 [TRutt_]
18:07:44 [dorchard]
paulc: disingenuous to suggest we need a f2f
18:08:02 [dorchard]
paulc: rx doesn't even have review of ws-a metadata on the agenda
18:08:06 [umit]
Today, support semantics is also prelevant with WS-RX as well with MC!
18:08:19 [klanz2]
klanz2 has joined #ws-policy
18:08:27 [TRutt_]
ws RX group acked the wsa approach by copying it int their own make connecti policy assertion as a support
18:08:38 [dorchard]
paulc: 2 questions: 1) with the amendment that fabian suggests, is the WG ready to lob this.
18:09:00 [dorchard]
2) then are we willing to step to the plate to facilitate better communications.
18:09:03 [TRutt_]
we should provide PR comment on WS RX make connection spec
18:09:04 [umit]
I know Tom, that is why I am concerned. It is again another alignment issue.
18:09:14 [paulc]
18:09:18 [paulc]
ack paulc
18:09:21 [paulc]
ack umit
18:10:09 [dorchard]
umit: Is the guideline or anti-pattern and solution really clear? there are 2 solutions listed.
18:10:50 [dorchard]
paulc: when you say option 1), what do you mean?
18:11:08 [dorchard]
umit: the first solution in the task force email.
18:11:42 [dorchard]
umit: problem also happening with ws-rx.
18:12:15 [paulc]
ack tr
18:12:36 [dorchard]
trutt: ws-rm was aware of what ws-a did, and copied their mistake.
18:13:00 [dorchard]
paulc: if we reviewed ws-rm, we'd have the same comment.
18:13:28 [dorchard]
paulc: we should review ws-rm policy as well?
18:14:34 [dorchard]
paulc: now understanding daveo's point about the collateral damage from 3-way, and understand the strength of the point even more.
18:15:07 [dorchard]
paulc: 1) want to get agreement today.
18:15:29 [plh]
18:15:36 [dorchard]
paulc: 2) we should also send a message to rx pointing to message to rm saying you should be interested in this.
18:16:00 [TRutt_]
It is the wsrx make connection spec not the wsrm policy spec
18:16:05 [dorchard]
paulc: 3) figure out how to get together with other 2 wgs.
18:17:04 [umit]
18:17:14 [monica]
can we do this real time?
18:17:38 [TRutt_]
18:17:47 [paulc]
ack plh
18:18:26 [dorchard]
plh: invite chairs to WS-CG meeting.
18:18:52 [dorchard]
paulc: need to talk with them really fast
18:19:06 [paulc]
ack umit
18:19:11 [asir]
18:19:17 [dorchard]
paulc: we might get critical mass for next f2f.
18:20:28 [asir]
david owns 'anti practice' within the policy wg
18:20:43 [dorchard]
umit: what do we need to do within wg?
18:22:35 [paulc]
ack tr
18:23:02 [dorchard]
trutt: clarify that it's mc policy spec, not rm policy spec
18:23:05 [TRutt_]
18:23:06 [paulc]
ack asir
18:23:31 [TRutt_]
The link I posted is the public review notice for three wsrx specs
18:23:49 [dorchard]
asir: we can review their metadata docs
18:23:58 [TRutt_]
It is wsmc spec which has the troublesome policy asserttion definition
18:25:57 [TRutt_]
pr for wsrx spec closes 27 feb
18:26:24 [dorchard]
paulc: let's not send a preliminary email to them.
18:27:30 [TRutt_]
18:28:32 [cferris]
ACTION: Chris and Umit to revise WG draft comments to WS-A WG
18:28:33 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-228 - And Umit to revise WG draft comments to WS-A WG [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-02-28].
18:28:53 [asir]
[on the public mailing list]
18:29:22 [cferris]
ACTION: Fabian and other WG members to reply in timely manner to the revised draft from TF
18:29:22 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-229 - And other WG members to reply in timely manner to the revised draft from TF [on Fabian Ritzmann - due 2007-02-28].
18:29:54 [cferris]
ACTION: Chris and Paul to send resulting material to the WS-A WG by Feb 23 after reaching consensus within the WG
18:29:54 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-230 - And Paul to send resulting material to the WS-A WG by Feb 23 after reaching consensus within the WG [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-02-28].
18:30:19 [cferris]
ACTION: Chris and Paul to inform the WS-RX TC of our comments on WS-A Metadata
18:30:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-231 - And Paul to inform the WS-RX TC of our comments on WS-A Metadata [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-02-28].
18:30:43 [TRutt_]
It might be good to send a PR comment to wsrx stating that the make connection policy assertion definition is problematic, with a link to our CR comment on WSA - PR closes feb 27
18:30:55 [cferris]
ACTION: Chris and Paul to open dialog with WS-A and WS-RX TC chairs to find a way forward to address the problems between the three groups
18:30:55 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-232 - And Paul to open dialog with WS-A and WS-RX TC chairs to find a way forward to address the problems between the three groups [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-02-28].
18:31:51 [paulc]
18:31:55 [paulc]
ack tr
18:33:07 [dorchard]
topic: 4232
18:33:52 [dorchard]
topic: CR interop scenarios and testing
18:34:31 [dorchard]
ACTION: asir to update features and scenarios table in document
18:34:31 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-233 - Update features and scenarios table in document [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2007-02-28].
18:36:00 [monica]
monica has joined #ws-policy
18:36:24 [dorchard]
paulc: what should we be doing at the march f2f?
18:36:25 [asir]
18:36:36 [dorchard]
chrisf: we have a long list of guidelines and primer issues..
18:36:40 [dorchard]
paulc: interop..
18:36:51 [paulc]
ack asir
18:37:04 [dorchard]
asir: high level overview of scenarios and explain.
18:37:12 [dorchard]
asir: then what we can realistically achieve..
18:37:32 [Fabian]
18:37:42 [asir]
link to interop directory on CVS is
18:38:43 [dorchard]
asir: table outlines features and how covered.
18:39:55 [dorchard]
asir: round 1 unit test cases, normalize, merge, includes expected outcomes.
18:40:06 [paulc]
Web Services Policy 1.5 Features and Interop Scenarios: maps features to the various interop rounds.
18:44:35 [dorchard]
asir: round 3 tests: interop using security policy assertions, wsdl 1.1 and 2.0 attachment
18:45:40 [dorchard]
asir: round 4 tests: external policy attachment, uddi, application/xml+ws-policy
18:47:39 [dorchard]
paulc: interop test should be rnd 1 and rnd 2 before f2f, then round 3 at f2f.
18:47:44 [prasad]
webMethods expects to be ready for doing all the UDDI scenarios
18:48:21 [prasad]
18:48:29 [paulc]
ack prasad
18:48:31 [dorchard]
chrisf: sounds reasonable
18:48:57 [Zakim]
18:50:01 [dorchard]
paulc: ashok, you asked question about what are we really going to do.
18:50:06 [asir]
18:50:21 [prasad]
Prasad: Any objections doing UDDI scenarios at March F2F?
18:50:30 [paulc]
ack asir
18:50:31 [prasad]
Paul: No. I am trying set a mim bar
18:50:50 [dorchard]
asir: msft will be ready to round 3 testing
18:51:00 [Zakim]
18:51:20 [dorchard]
symon: bea will be ready for rnds 1-3
18:51:24 [prasad]
Prasad: As long as there are no objections to beyond round 3 happening, that is good
18:51:37 [dorchard]
maryann: ibm will ready for 1-3
18:51:48 [dorchard]
ashok: oracle should be ready for 1-3, not quite sure
18:51:56 [toufic]
zakim, unmute me
18:51:56 [Zakim]
Toufic should no longer be muted
18:52:32 [dorchard]
toufic: layer-7 pretty ready for rnd 4, not sure about 3.
18:52:37 [asir]
Toufic, that is great!
18:52:52 [toufic]
zakim, mute me
18:52:52 [Zakim]
Toufic should now be muted
18:53:05 [prasad]
Paul: Prasad would be happy about round 4
18:53:24 [prasad]
Toufic: Prasad and I had been talking offiline about round 4 (UDDI)
18:53:51 [dorchard]
fabian: sun attending in person, rnd 3 100%, not sure about self-test 1-2 yet
18:53:55 [sanka]
WSO2 is expecting to do Round3 testing remotely ..
18:54:04 [prasad]
18:55:03 [cferris]
ACTION: Asir to provide format for recording interop results
18:55:03 [dorchard]
ACTION: asir to provide results matrix
18:55:03 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-234 - Provide format for recording interop results [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2007-02-28].
18:55:03 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-235 - Provide results matrix [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2007-02-28].
18:55:21 [Zakim]
18:56:35 [dorchard]
paulc: what about xml:id, xml:base, ?
18:57:09 [dorchard]
paulc: we have 5 concrete proposals we should put on the agenda.
18:58:23 [Zakim]
18:58:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate plh
18:58:47 [Zakim]
18:58:51 [Zakim]
18:58:52 [Ashok]
Ashok has left #ws-policy
18:59:06 [Zakim]
18:59:11 [Zakim]
18:59:15 [Zakim]
18:59:27 [Zakim]
18:59:29 [Zakim]
18:59:33 [Zakim]
18:59:37 [Zakim]
18:59:38 [Zakim]
18:59:40 [Zakim]
18:59:41 [Zakim]
18:59:43 [Zakim]
18:59:44 [Zakim]
18:59:45 [Zakim]
18:59:54 [Zakim]
19:00:02 [Zakim]
19:00:04 [Zakim]
WS_Policy()12:00PM has ended
19:00:05 [Zakim]
Attendees were Frederick_Hirsch, Chris_Ferris, Yakov_Sverdlov, Sergey_Beryozkin, Dale_Moberg, Plh, Fabian, m2, Asir, Mark_Little, Prasad_Yendluri, Toufic, Sanka, Abbie_Barbir,
19:00:07 [Zakim]
... +1.415.402.aaaa, maryann, Symon, Charlton, Ashok_Malhotra, DOrchard, GlenD, dan, Umit, Tom_Rutt
19:00:54 [maryann]
join ws-policy-eds
19:01:04 [maryann]
maryann has left #ws-policy
19:03:35 [prasad]
prasad has left #ws-policy
19:09:52 [TRutt_]
TRutt_ has left #ws-policy
19:54:21 [cferris]
cferris has left #ws-policy
21:06:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-policy