19:53:48 RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr 19:53:49 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/03/19-ws-addr-irc 19:54:05 zakim, this will be ws_addrwg 19:54:05 ok, bob; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 19:54:35 meeting: Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference 19:54:50 rrsagent, make logs public 19:55:01 chair: Bob Freund 19:56:32 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0041.html 19:57:49 WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started 19:57:56 +Gilbert_Pilz 19:58:04 gpilz has joined #ws-addr 19:58:32 +Bob_Freund 20:00:45 Rama has joined #ws-addr 20:00:49 +Mark_Little 20:01:29 monica has joined #ws-addr 20:02:04 +??P7 20:02:15 MrGoodner has joined #ws-addr 20:02:20 +Tom_Rutt 20:02:25 +m2 20:02:27 anish has joined #ws-addr 20:02:37 zakim ??P7 is MrGoodner 20:02:42 TonyR has joined #ws-addr 20:03:36 TomR has joined #ws-addr 20:03:50 Monica Martin, Sun 20:04:20 +Anish_Karmarkar 20:04:38 yinleng has joined #ws-addr 20:05:40 +??P10 20:05:59 zakim, ??P10 is me 20:05:59 +yinleng; got it 20:06:05 zakim ??P10 is yinleng 20:06:40 +Paco:Francisco_Curbera 20:07:00 +Paul_Knight 20:07:15 +[Microsoft] 20:07:29 PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr 20:07:50 zakim, [Microsoft] is ram 20:07:50 +ram; got it 20:09:09 scribe: TomR 20:09:24 Topic: Agenda 20:09:29 Ram has joined #ws-addr 20:09:55 Resolution: New issue concerning version of policy namespace accepted 20:10:14 Topic: Minutes from last meeting 20:10:24 Resolution: Minutes of last meeting accepted 20:10:32 Paco has joined #ws-addr 20:10:35 Topic: LC2 Issue 1 ws policy comments 20:10:55 Proposals for E, with New proposal F. 20:11:44 Proposal E: Parameters 20:12:08 Proposal F: This new alternative F takes the approach of nested support 20:12:08 > assertions, however 20:12:08 > non presence of a nested policy assertion now implies that the 20:12:08 > associated response mode is not supported. 20:13:41 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/att-0038/WSAddrPolicyEdits-alternativeF.pdf 20:14:00 q+ 20:15:18 +David_Hull 20:15:34 -Mark_Little 20:16:15 ack gpil 20:16:44 q+ to ask about composibility with rm assertion 20:17:11 Gil: my concern is with nonAnonymous assertion. Non presense of non anonmous means non anymous supported. Due to wide open definition of non anonymous 20:18:57 dhull has joined #ws-addr 20:20:00 ack anish 20:20:00 anish, you wanted to ask about composibility with rm assertion 20:20:25 The policy expression can compose with ws make connection, by also asserting nonAnonymous support 20:23:44 Anish: rm is optional, use anon back channel. Need two alternatives, anon another non anon as well as rm 20:24:14 We can do examples for all of these cases. 20:25:42 Composition with RX should be shown to everyone's happyness. 20:29:53 Gil: Reply to anon, fault to is non anonymous. These assertions cover responses as a Bob: can we enumerate use cases for an email discussion. 20:30:01 q+ 20:30:13 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0043.html 20:30:24 ack mrg 20:34:01 Marc G: we have been talking about another alternative with nested assertions, (alternative G). This mail is differnent says addressing without nested policy says only ws addressing is supported. It retains required language, but they cannot be used on same alternative. 20:34:16 Tom what is difference between new G and the old alternative A. 20:34:27 Bob: I did not see your mail Marc. 20:36:10 q+ 20:36:32 ack gpil 20:36:34 +??P0 20:36:38 General agreement on use of nested policy. 20:36:43 zakim, ??p0 is me 20:36:43 +TonyR; got it 20:36:44 q+ 20:37:09 Gil Client can look at parameters to determine if it can interact with a server 20:37:14 -Gilbert_Pilz 20:37:19 Need to also ensure we understand how this is handled in the default intersection algorithm. Consider how such assumptions may have an influence with other composable specifications. Particularly if you wish to leverage was is defined in WS-Policy. 20:37:23 Paco: I agree with that. 20:37:33 c/was/what 20:37:41 +Gilbert_Pilz 20:37:44 q+ 20:38:45 q+ 20:39:04 ack mrg 20:39:24 Tom: we need to understand the requirements before we can decide on parameters of nested policy assertions. 20:39:37 i don't understand the schema ns issue. i.e., why is it an issue 20:39:47 Marc G: we worked on this new proposal G, since we find value in doing the intersection matching. 20:40:04 anish - because then we have to argue about what version of WS-Policy we reference 20:40:21 plh has joined #ws-addr 20:40:23 s/we have to/we are likely to/ 20:40:25 +Plh 20:40:38 q+ 20:40:48 q- 20:41:22 q+ 20:42:10 Gil: if we used nested parameters we wuld not need the wsp namespace in our schema. 20:42:38 Anish: this metadata spec in w3c has w3c restrictions. anyway. 20:42:38 ack mrg 20:43:15 Marc G: I agree with anish. and the fix to the new issue is to change to CR reference. 20:44:22 Bob: can we agree that alternative e is unacceptable, since intersection mechanism. 20:44:29 No objection: 20:44:49 Bob: can Marc explain the differences. 20:45:57 Marc : G stays with requirements semantics. F has empty addressing meaing no responses, G empty means addressing is fully supported. for mixed mode F has both, for G use unqualivied addressing assertion. 20:46:39 Marc G: both compose with make connectib 20:46:53 Tony: what about no responses. 20:47:45 Marc G: G does not allow saying no responses. But non is allowed in both 20:47:59 s/non/none 20:48:50 Tom: how important is use case for no responses supported. 20:49:05 Bob: is more time required. 20:49:25 general agreement to discuss both over email. 20:50:13 Bob: Is one week ok for next meeting? 20:50:48 +Paul_Knight.a 20:51:03 Bob: April 2 for next meeting 20:51:10 Agreed, next meeting April 2. 20:51:23 regrets for next meeting 20:52:15 Topic: New issue on namespace 20:52:27 Marc: it is a simple bug fix. 20:53:29 Bob: does everyone agree to resolve by plugging in the new namespace from CR version of WS Policy. 20:53:53 Resolution: New issue resolved by fixing to CR version of WS Policy. 20:54:28 Agreed to have use case discussion for proposals F or G on email. 20:54:44 http://www.w3.org/ns/ws-policy 20:56:23 Bob: Policy interop in May in Ottawa. IBM can test metadata interop but we need at least one other company. 20:57:03 -Paco:Francisco_Curbera 20:57:05 Bob: Other companies should come forward, so we can meet our interop requirement of 2. 20:57:27 -Gilbert_Pilz 20:57:30 -Plh 20:57:31 -Tom_Rutt 20:57:32 -m2 20:57:33 -Paul_Knight.a 20:57:34 -ram 20:57:36 -??P7 20:57:37 -yinleng 20:57:38 -David_Hull 20:57:39 -Anish_Karmarkar 20:57:40 yinleng has left #ws-addr 20:57:41 TomR has left #ws-addr 20:57:41 -Bob_Freund 20:57:48 rrsagent, generate minutes 20:57:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/03/19-ws-addr-minutes.html bob 20:57:57 TonyR has left #ws-addr 20:58:02 -TonyR 20:58:11 +[IPcaller] 20:58:44 Katy has joined #ws-addr 21:00:04 David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr 21:00:33 +David_Illsley 21:05:33 zakim, who is here? 21:05:34 On the phone I see Paul_Knight, [IPcaller], David_Illsley 21:05:38 On IRC I see David_Illsley, Katy, plh, dhull, Ram, MrGoodner, Rama, RRSAgent, Zakim, bob 21:06:24 david, sorry about our summertime switch 21:06:42 -Paul_Knight 21:07:44 so it's all over? 21:07:54 yes, we wrapped up. 21:07:58 :-) 21:08:12 when's the next call? 21:08:15 Next week decide between alternative F and G 21:08:21 Next call is April 2 21:08:31 s/week/call 21:08:34 so now I can go and watch tele! 21:08:38 ok, thanks, speak to you then 21:08:39 :o) 21:08:42 -David_Illsley 21:08:44 sure, what's on? 21:08:53 I'll take a look - not sure 21:08:54 David_Illsley has left #ws-addr 21:08:58 sorry we missed the call 21:09:00 noting good here 21:09:06 NP 21:09:26 bye for now - we are back to summertime next week 21:09:29 thanks 21:09:33 bye 21:09:48 bob has left #ws-addr 21:10:32 -[IPcaller] 21:10:33 WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended 21:10:34 Attendees were Gilbert_Pilz, Bob_Freund, Mark_Little, Tom_Rutt, m2, Anish_Karmarkar, yinleng, Paco:Francisco_Curbera, Paul_Knight, ram, David_Hull, TonyR, Plh, [IPcaller], 21:10:36 ... David_Illsley 21:13:09 Rama has left #ws-addr