20:59:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
20:59:40 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/02/26-ws-addr-irc
20:59:57 <bob> zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
20:59:57 <Zakim> ok, bob, I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM already started
21:00:08 <bob> zakim, who is here?
21:00:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see Tom_Rutt, Bob_Freund, Mark_Little, ??P5
21:00:08 <MrGoodner> MrGoodner has joined #ws-addr
21:00:09 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, bob, yinleng, gpilz
21:00:33 <bob> meeting: WS-Addressing WG Teleconference
21:00:41 <bob> Chair: Bob Freund
21:02:16 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
21:02:53 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
21:03:30 <Zakim> +Dave_Hull
21:03:44 <Zakim> +Anish_Karmarkar
21:04:02 <dhull> dhull has joined #ws-addr
21:04:14 <cferris> cferris has joined #ws-addr
21:04:20 <bob> zakim, [IPcaller] is katy
21:04:20 <Zakim> +katy; got it
21:04:31 <PaulKnight> PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
21:04:56 <Zakim> -Dave_Hull
21:05:09 <Katy> Katy has joined #ws-addr
21:05:11 <Zakim> +??P12
21:05:13 <Zakim> +Dave_Hull
21:05:20 <yinleng> zakim, ??P12 is me
21:05:20 <Zakim> +yinleng; got it
21:05:24 <bob> scribe: MrGoodner
21:05:58 <anish> anish has joined #ws-addr
21:06:09 <MrGoodner> 2337
21:06:18 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
21:06:50 <bob> zakim, who is here?
21:06:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see Bob_Freund, Mark_Little, ??P5, Gilbert_Pilz, katy, Anish_Karmarkar, yinleng, Dave_Hull
21:06:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see anish, Katy, PaulKnight, cferris, dhull, MrGoodner, RRSAgent, Zakim, bob, yinleng, gpilz
21:07:13 <MrGoodner> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Feb/0009.html
21:07:37 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
21:07:41 <Zakim> +Paul_Knight
21:07:49 <Zakim> +Chris_Ferris
21:09:46 <MrGoodner> Topic: Agenda Review
21:10:14 <MrGoodner> agenda approved
21:10:27 <MrGoodner> Topic: Approval of minutes 2007-01-29
21:10:35 <MrGoodner> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Feb/att-0001/29-ws-addressing-minutes.html
21:10:41 <MrGoodner> Minutes approved
21:11:01 <MrGoodner> Topic: Does WS-Addressing agree that the means described in the WS-Policy WG feedback is adequate to express our resolution to CR33?
21:11:08 <MrGoodner> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Feb/0006.html
21:11:41 <MrGoodner> Comments from Paco: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Feb/0013.html
21:11:54 <MrGoodner> Paco sent regrets for today's cal
21:12:48 <MrGoodner> cferris: WS-Policy WG not saying WSA WG got it wrong, is expressing some concerns
21:13:13 <MrGoodner> cferris: Nested expressions not stating requirements, capabilities
21:13:23 <bob> regrets+ David Illsley, Paul Downey
21:13:27 <MrGoodner> ... absence not saying anything about capabilities
21:14:13 <MrGoodner> ... when neither presence or absence of expressions expresses requirement not clear what intersection means
21:14:48 <MrGoodner> ... example (from mail) descibed
21:16:49 <anish> q+
21:17:46 <MrGoodner> ... adovcating use of wsp:Optional in 3.1.6 allows broader intersection even when policies may not compatible
21:18:06 <MrGoodner> ... WS-Policy WG proposed two alternateives
21:19:32 <MrGoodner> ... 1 Use policy expressions, but make firmer requirements
21:19:57 <MrGoodner> ... (descibes option from message)
21:20:15 <MrGoodner> ... should still compose with MC, wouldn't need to do CR33 all over again
21:20:44 <MrGoodner> ... 2 If these are informational use parameters
21:20:54 <MrGoodner> ... wouldn't participate in intersection
21:21:06 <Zakim> -Mark_Little
21:21:16 <MrGoodner> ... (on to other points)
21:21:28 <MrGoodner> ... Use of wsp:Ignorable is not appropriate
21:22:02 <bob> ack anish
21:22:12 <MrGoodner> ... (describes points D and E from message)
21:22:35 <MrGoodner> anish: Tried to make our assertions positive, doesn't say anything about what is or isn't supported
21:22:48 <MrGoodner> ... we want to advertise a capability, not a requirement
21:23:01 <MrGoodner> ... is #2 the right way to do that?
21:23:10 <MrGoodner> cferris: that's one way to do it
21:23:16 <Zakim> + +61.3.841.6.aaaa
21:23:42 <MrGoodner> ... if you don't want it to participate in intersection
21:23:57 <Katy> q+
21:24:27 <bob> q+ tomr
21:24:32 <MrGoodner> ... it is not clear that is an acceptable use of wsp:Ignorable with nested expression
21:25:10 <bob> ack tomr
21:25:32 <MrGoodner> tomr: if you have a policy expression with policy alternatives that gives us what we needed
21:25:55 <MrGoodner> ... use anonymous, notanonymous, or MC with WSA
21:26:18 <MrGoodner> ... need to know at time of decorating WSDL, but this doesn't seem to be a problem
21:27:19 <MrGoodner> anish: allowing service to be created deployed without rm
21:27:36 <MrGoodner> ... later letting someone make service reliable without changing wsdl
21:28:19 <MrGoodner> cferis: saying policy doesn't change either?
21:29:04 <MrGoodner> anish: wsdl says addressing required and anon, as policy in the wsdl
21:29:12 <bob> s/scferis/cferris
21:29:44 <MrGoodner> cferris: if you change the qos, you have a new policy
21:30:04 <MrGoodner> anish: you can get policy through other mechanisms, wsdl just one
21:31:00 <MrGoodner> ... adding rm at a later stage, provide that information to endpoints later, but nested policy in WSDL conflicts
21:31:08 <MrGoodner> cferris: not sure I agree with that
21:33:20 <MrGoodner> tomr: agree we talked about this, not sure it is important any more
21:33:56 <bob> ack katy
21:33:57 <MrGoodner> anish: sounds like the policy in the wsdl would need to change
21:34:09 <anish> q?
21:34:29 <cferris> I recall discussions where we wanted to enable RM without having to REDESIGN the WSDL MEPs... I don't recall a discusion about not changing the metadata (WSDL/Policy)
21:34:49 <MrGoodner> katy: parameters were discussed before
21:35:24 <cferris> it depends on what you define as the policy's scope
21:35:36 <MrGoodner> ... 1st option was discussed before, thought we couldn't compose with MC anonymous
21:36:11 <MrGoodner> cferris: see note where we point out the scope of the assertion
21:36:32 <anish> q+
21:36:43 <MrGoodner> ... it does seem possible to have two policy alternatives scoped to a single message exchange
21:37:29 <MrGoodner> ... possible to say you require use of SSLor message level as seperate alternative, pick one
21:37:52 <bob> q+ tomr
21:38:41 <MrGoodner> ... Policy WG would agree that you can have different alternatives that even say conflicting things so long as proper scoping is used
21:39:07 <MrGoodner> katy: will look through minutes to see how we got to our conclusion on this
21:39:37 <bob> zakim, who is here?
21:39:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see Bob_Freund, ??P5, Gilbert_Pilz, katy, Anish_Karmarkar, yinleng, Dave_Hull, Tom_Rutt, Paul_Knight, Chris_Ferris, +61.3.841.6.aaaa
21:39:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see anish, Katy, PaulKnight, cferris, dhull, MrGoodner, RRSAgent, Zakim, bob, yinleng, gpilz
21:39:58 <bob> zakim, aaaa is TonyR
21:39:58 <Zakim> +TonyR; got it
21:40:41 <MrGoodner> cferrus: so long as message matches one of the alternatives provided you are good to go
21:40:53 <MrGoodner> s/cferrus/cferis
21:41:14 <MrGoodner> s/cferrus/cferris
21:41:30 <bob> q?
21:43:15 <MrGoodner> katy: so how can the sitution with expressing use of wsa:anon and accept message using mc anon be handled?
21:43:25 <bob> ack tomr
21:43:50 <MrGoodner> tomr: we were looking at option, providing the MC assertion as an alternative is the way to do this
21:44:12 <bob> ack anish
21:44:48 <gpilz> q+
21:45:13 <MrGoodner> anish: if you want addr with anon or MC, provide alternatives for WSA+wsa:anon and WSA+MC assertion
21:45:59 <MrGoodner> tomr: sent example that shows that
21:46:02 <bob> ack gpil
21:46:20 <MrGoodner> gpilz: we're trying to do to much to cover other peoples cases
21:47:10 <MrGoodner> ... we can adopt chris' proposal for 1, we should state our requirement for wsa:anonymous and requirement for anything else
21:47:35 <cferris> +1 to Gil
21:47:44 <MrGoodner> ... not our job to worry about how to say something like MC uri only
21:47:58 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
21:48:05 <MrGoodner> bob: so long as what we do doesn't put road blocks in front of other specs
21:48:44 <cferris> q+
21:48:52 <MrGoodner> gpilz: composition with other requirements not something we need to specify in our spec
21:49:06 <bob> ack cfer
21:50:18 <MrGoodner> cferris: agree with Gil, MC could be sibbling of wsa assertion or nested in the wsa assertion
21:50:19 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
21:50:26 <MrGoodner> ... former seems to make more sense
21:50:35 <MrGoodner> ... agree that isn't this groups problem
21:51:19 <MrGoodner> katy: need to look into this more, looking at Tom's example can see how this would work
21:51:40 <MrGoodner> bob: thinks people have good understandig of chris' comments
21:51:58 <MrGoodner> ... do we have a way forward?
21:53:02 <MrGoodner> bob: Tom, can you help Tony with text for this?
21:53:35 <MrGoodner> tomr: yes
21:53:52 <MrGoodner> ... just for normative text, exapmles will be later
21:54:51 <MrGoodner> bob: review text from Tom for next weeks call, discuss with Paco then
21:55:26 <MrGoodner> ... trying to get text on the call would not be helpful
21:56:00 <MrGoodner> Topic: Next meeting schedule, face to face possibility?
21:56:18 <cferris> q+
21:57:14 <MrGoodner> bob: see note on possible get together for testing
21:57:16 <MrGoodner> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Feb/0004.html
21:57:35 <MrGoodner> ... Katy confirmed, anyone else?
21:58:04 <MrGoodner> anish: Maybe, need to confirm
21:59:00 <MrGoodner> MrGoodner: don't think we will be able to, will inform if situation changes
21:59:10 <MrGoodner> bob: we need two for CR criteria
21:59:16 <MrGoodner> Topic: AOB
21:59:18 <MrGoodner> none
21:59:24 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
21:59:26 <Zakim> -TonyR
21:59:28 <Zakim> -Anish_Karmarkar
21:59:29 <Zakim> -Chris_Ferris
21:59:29 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
21:59:30 <MrGoodner> call adjourned at 1:59 PST
21:59:30 <Zakim> -Paul_Knight
21:59:30 <Zakim> -Bob_Freund
21:59:33 <Zakim> -??P5
21:59:35 <Zakim> -katy
21:59:53 <Zakim> -Dave_Hull
22:01:21 <bob> rrsagent, make logs public
22:02:03 <bob> rrsagent, generate minutes
22:02:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/02/26-ws-addr-minutes.html bob
22:25:35 <Zakim> -yinleng
22:25:36 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
22:25:38 <Zakim> Attendees were Tom_Rutt, Bob_Freund, Mark_Little, Gilbert_Pilz, Dave_Hull, Anish_Karmarkar, katy, yinleng, Paul_Knight, Chris_Ferris, +61.3.841.6.aaaa, TonyR
22:26:00 <yinleng> yinleng has left #ws-addr
23:03:12 <bob> bob has left #ws-addr
23:56:27 <cferris> cferris has left #ws-addr