See also: IRC log
Meeting Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference
<MrGoodner> that would help :-)
<scribe> scribe: bob
TomR: Major point is to make all
of the assertions requirements
... The first two are probably non-starters
... I do not want to spend time on alternative a since it has problems
... Alternative b is just like a and has similiar problems.
... Alternative c can be made to work, but I think that its use-case is fairly small.
... Alternative d is my preference.
... These proposals pertain to the response message and can handle mixed alternatives since it pertains to a single exchange
Katy: I think that we have been over this ground before, I think that we established a need.
TomR: I think that you need to come up with a use case when a server needs to specify a delayed response.
Katy: The case is a server behind a firewall
TomR: How would it get the
request in the first case?
... Is that use case strong enough to support this alternative?
MarcG: We have not talked about informational items expressed as parameters.
TomR: I guess parameters can be alternative e
Gil: Features should be weighed against their usefulness and necessity
Gil: Parameters are low cost, but the default intersection algorithm will not deal with them.
TomR: Parameters will be passed to you.
Cfer: Although I am in favor of
E, one must be aware of the cost.
... The cost is the need to understand the interpretation of the parameters.
... on the other hand, dealing with all of the combinatorial mechanics, one might end up with a ridiculously complex think
MarcG: I do not think that we need to define the logic, it might be good enough to convey the information
Gil: I support alternative e and to break down the parameters to fine granularity
TomR: Do we need the complexity, isn't it enough to express what the server supports, after all, the client picks.
Bob: Are there any objections to alternative e?
Gil: if it just says "addressing" and there are no parameters, what does it mean?
<Zakim> gil, you wanted to ask a question
<scribe> ACTION: TomR to craft some new language utilizing policy parameters by tomorrow [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/05-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
plh: WS-Naming claims to profile ws-addressing, but violates ws-addressing
<scribe> ACTION: distribute "key points" in ws-naming [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/05-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]
Next meeting to be March 19
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/redic/ridic/ Succeeded: s/comples/complex/ Found Scribe: bob Inferring ScribeNick: bob Present: Gilbert_Pilz Bob_Freund David_Illsley Plh Chris_Ferris Dave_Hull katy MrGoodner Tom_Rutt Regrets: Tony Anish Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0027.html Got date from IRC log name: 5 Mar 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/05-ws-addr-minutes.html People with action items: distribute tomr[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]