19:57:50 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:57:50 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/04/02-ws-addr-irc
19:58:25 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
19:58:32 <Zakim> +Bob_Freund
19:58:46 <bob> meeting: WS-Addressing WG Teleconference
19:58:53 <bob> chair: Bob Freund
20:00:32 <Zakim> +m2
20:00:46 <TRutt_> TRutt_ has joined #ws-addr
20:01:24 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
20:01:37 <gpilz> gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:01:46 <bob> zakim, +m2 is monica
20:01:46 <Zakim> sorry, bob, I do not recognize a party named '+m2'
20:01:47 <TonyR> TonyR has joined #ws-addr
20:01:58 <bob> zakim, m2 is monica
20:01:58 <Zakim> +monica; got it
20:02:02 <anish> anish has joined #ws-addr
20:02:15 <Zakim> +David_Illsley
20:02:41 <Zakim> +Anish_Karmarkar
20:02:56 <Zakim> +??P9
20:03:07 <TonyR> zakim, ??p9 is me
20:03:07 <Zakim> +TonyR; got it
20:03:12 <monica> monica has joined #ws-addr
20:03:25 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
20:03:27 <monica> rama will not be able to join today
20:06:52 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:07:03 <yinleng> yinleng has joined #ws-addr
20:07:20 <bob> zakim, [microsoft] is ram
20:07:20 <Zakim> +ram; got it
20:07:49 <PaulKnight> PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
20:07:55 <TonyR> zakim, who is on the phone?
20:07:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see Bob_Freund, monica, Gilbert_Pilz, David_Illsley, Anish_Karmarkar, TonyR, Tom_Rutt, ram
20:08:35 <Zakim> +Paul_Knight
20:08:48 <Zakim> +??P2
20:08:51 <yinleng> zakim, ??P2 is me
20:08:51 <Zakim> +yinleng; got it
20:10:20 <Zakim> +David_Hull
20:10:53 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:11:06 <MrGoodner> MrGoodner has joined #ws-addr
20:11:13 <bob> zakim [microsoft is mrgoodner
20:11:32 <bob> zakim, [microsoft] is mrgoodner
20:11:32 <Zakim> +mrgoodner; got it
20:12:19 <PaulKnight> scribe: Paul
20:12:46 <PaulKnight> minutes of March 19 approved
20:12:50 <MrGoodner1> MrGoodner1 has joined #ws-addr
20:13:20 <PaulKnight> Bob: Several new issues added to mail list
20:13:28 <bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2007Mar/0000.html  
20:13:50 <PaulKnight> Bob: this one describes a pretty clear typo
20:14:51 <PaulKnight> Bob: This one is an editorial item, resolved as proposed.
20:14:59 <bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Apr/0003.html  
20:15:14 <PaulKnight> Bob: Next: attaching policy to an EPR.
20:16:08 <PaulKnight> TRutt: At WS-Policy, the feeling was that WS-Addressing should address it
20:16:19 <gpilz> q+
20:16:32 <PaulKnight> TRutt: It should be pretty fast, about 3 pages
20:16:51 <PaulKnight> MrGoodner: Skeptical of how fast it will be
20:16:52 <David_Illsley> q+
20:17:10 <PaulKnight> gpilz: Can it be in metadata spec?
20:17:20 <bob> ack gpi
20:17:27 <bob> ack david
20:18:10 <PaulKnight> David: Don't think it should be in metadata spec.
20:18:53 <PaulKnight> Bob: Earlier in WSA we did not feel we could address it well, and returned it to WS-Policy group
20:19:34 <PaulKnight> Bob: NOt sure we have enough domain knowledge in the group to do it.  It is more in the purview of WS-Policy.
20:19:37 <anish> i would the ws-policy wg would review our spec
20:19:45 <anish> s/i would/i would hope/
20:19:52 <PaulKnight> TRutt: It is not rocket science.
20:20:09 <anish> q+
20:20:40 <bob> ack ani
20:20:41 <PaulKnight> TRutt: We just need to come up with a way to reference policy EPR.
20:21:38 <PaulKnight> Anish: It should be done either here or in WS-Policy.  We could potentially do it if we have the expertise.  Perhaps we could form a joint task force with WS-Policy.
20:21:56 <PaulKnight> Bob: record this as a new item
20:22:39 <PaulKnight> ACTION: Bob to coordinate with WS-Policy about some way to address it jointly.
20:22:48 <bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Apr/0008.html  
20:23:15 <PaulKnight> Bob: Next Item from Anish
20:24:08 <PaulKnight> Bob: We will accept this as a new issue.
20:24:29 <PaulKnight> Bob:  Now for the main event: F vs. G
20:24:53 <PaulKnight> Bob: Consensus forming around G or G'; little support for F
20:25:14 <PaulKnight> TRutt: G is less verbose in most normal cases
20:25:41 <PaulKnight> Bob: Any objectin to using G as the base for further wordsmithing?
20:25:57 <PaulKnight> Bob: No objectin, we will use G going forward.
20:26:18 <PaulKnight> s/objectin/objection
20:26:40 <PaulKnight> TRutt: Monica had some important points
20:26:52 <monica> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Apr/0007.html
20:28:27 <PaulKnight> Monica: Describes her items as addressed in her message.
20:29:03 <anish> i should point out that this ties in with one of my comments too
20:29:31 <MrGoodner1> q+
20:29:41 <anish> q+
20:29:44 <PaulKnight> TRutt: How do we position these additional assertions?  
20:30:17 <PaulKnight> TRutt: It's a matter of how we word it, to imply we are adding limitatins.
20:30:39 <PaulKnight> s/limitatins/limitations
20:31:14 <David_Illsley_> David_Illsley_ has joined #ws-addr
20:31:35 <Zakim> +David_Hull.a
20:31:37 <Zakim> -David_Hull
20:31:57 <PaulKnight> Monica: When you have an empty policy, there is no claim.  It does not infer behavior.
20:31:59 <bob> ack mrgo
20:32:15 <dhull> dhull has joined #ws-addr
20:33:02 <PaulKnight> MrG: The nested addressing assertions imply further processing like the mixed mode.
20:34:22 <PaulKnight> TRutt: It is a user refinement of the capabilities.
20:34:53 <PaulKnight> Monica: Why not put a section in WSA that all these types are supported?
20:35:24 <PaulKnight> Tony: We have not written such a section yet.
20:35:32 <bob> ack ani
20:35:47 <PaulKnight> Monica: Would like to see such a section.
20:36:56 <TRutt_> TRutt_ has joined #ws-addr
20:37:02 <David_Illsley> q+
20:37:15 <David_Illsley> q-
20:37:41 <MrGoodner1> q+
20:37:42 <PaulKnight> Anish: It seems counter-intuitive that both anon and non-anon would be supported.
20:38:04 <bob> ack mrgo
20:38:30 <anish> q+
20:39:05 <TRutt_> TRutt_ has left #ws-addr
20:39:11 <bob> ack ani
20:39:16 <PaulKnight> MrGo: Don't see why you need to explicitly state the ability.
20:39:26 <TRutt_> TRutt_ has joined #ws-addr
20:39:39 <gpilz> q+
20:39:45 <monica> See: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#rPolicy_Alternative
20:40:00 <monica> Explicitly: An alternative with zero assertions indicates no behaviors. An alternative with one or more assertions indicates behaviors implied by those, and only those assertions.
20:40:02 <TRutt_> q+
20:40:15 <monica> Can't infer from empty.
20:40:26 <monica> When an assertion whose type is part of the policy's vocabulary is not included in a policy alternative, the policy alternative without the assertion type indicates that the assertion will not be applied in the context of the attached policy subject. 
20:40:43 <PaulKnight> Anish: Would ike to be able to state that you can have ReplyTo could be anon and FaultTo can be non-anon
20:40:51 <PaulKnight> s/ike/like
20:40:57 <David_Illsley> monica, the alternative would include an assertion, the wsam:Anonymous one for which we define the semantics
20:41:39 <PaulKnight> MrGo: Not sure what you want here.
20:41:41 <monica> q+
20:42:04 <bob> ack gpilx
20:42:13 <bob> axk gp
20:42:17 <bob> ack gp
20:42:33 <PaulKnight> gpilz: Anish is talking about granularity.
20:42:46 <anish> i agree with gil, that this is tangential to the current discussion
20:43:14 <anish> that is what i was trying to estabilish, that split usecase is not supported by any of the proposal (including mine)
20:43:20 <PaulKnight> gpilz: It is tangential.
20:43:44 <bob> ack tru
20:43:50 <David_Illsley> anish, I agree with your statement that we don't need to support that detailed usecase
20:44:31 <PaulKnight> TRutt: It is one of our use cases we need to support.  It's enough that the implementation supports either anon or non-anon. 
20:44:45 <MrGoodner1> q+
20:44:58 <bob> ack monica
20:45:11 <PaulKnight> TRutt: Hope we can come up with wording to get around empty problem.
20:46:06 <PaulKnight> Monica: Empty does not tell you anything.  See text pasted above.
20:46:10 <David_Illsley> q+
20:47:09 <PaulKnight> Bob: Would an empty nested assertion satisfy the need?  I've heard it described in various ways - asserts no influence, etc.
20:47:27 <TRutt_> q+
20:47:32 <PaulKnight> Bob: We're grappling with the nuances.
20:47:32 <anish> q+
20:47:36 <bob> ack mrg
20:48:20 <PaulKnight> MrGo: The proposal I sent in was vetted with our (Microsoft) policy guys.
20:48:22 <bob> ack david
20:49:16 <PaulKnight> David: Wouldn't outer non-nested assertions indicate the behavior?
20:50:13 <bob> q?
20:50:31 <PaulKnight> Monica: If it's not there, you can't imply anything from it - null behavior.  It is policy alternative vocabulary. 
20:50:44 <anish> q+ ram
20:50:48 <bob> ack tru
20:52:09 <bob> ack ani
20:52:10 <PaulKnight> TRutt: The algorithm treats empty as having some implied restriction.  If we can come up with some text to deal with it...
20:52:53 <PaulKnight> Anish: It is counterintuitive.  I'd like an assertion that says "I support addressing."
20:53:21 <PaulKnight> Anish: If I don't put it in, it should not imply that I support all protocols.
20:53:39 <dhull> s/find/finds/
20:54:34 <PaulKnight> Anish: What if you make a WSA claim on an endpoint that only supports one-way operations?
20:54:47 <David_Illsley> q+
20:54:53 <PaulKnight> Bob: Even one-way MEP has a way to support faults.
20:54:56 <David_Illsley> q-
20:54:59 <bob> ack ram
20:55:43 <PaulKnight> Ram: The absence of top-level or the absence of the nested assertion should be handled differently.
20:56:20 <PaulKnight> Monica: The primer does not address the nested assertion explicitly.
20:57:05 <PaulKnight> Ram: The nested assertions are to qualify the top-level assertion.
20:57:37 <PaulKnight> Bob: Should we construct a well-worded question to send to the WS-Policy group?
20:57:37 <anish> q+
20:57:57 <bob> ack ani
20:58:47 <PaulKnight> Anish: The spec does not say that if you support WSA then you must support anon or non-anon.
20:59:34 <anish> q+
21:00:17 <PaulKnight> Bob: the WSDL spec and now the Metadata spec elaborate on this.
21:00:40 <bob> ack ani
21:01:29 <dhull> +1 to WSA is more than response endpoints
21:01:43 <PaulKnight> Anish: We are focusing on anon and non-anon, but there are other cases we need to consider.
21:01:55 <David_Illsley> q+
21:02:16 <PaulKnight> Mrgo: This is a new use case we have not considered before.
21:02:31 <bob> q+
21:02:42 <PaulKnight> Anish: We should have an assertion that simply expresses support for WSA.
21:03:07 <PaulKnight> MrGo: I thought that was what proposal G was for.
21:03:53 <Zakim> -ram
21:04:02 <PaulKnight> Anish: I suggest adding some explanation disclaiming support for either anon or non-anon.  I think we actually agree.
21:04:48 <monica> q+
21:04:54 <PaulKnight> TRutt: That capability was considered several proposals ago.  F & G are simple use cases. 
21:04:59 <bob> q-
21:05:27 <PaulKnight> TRutt: The intersection algorithm precludes some approaches.
21:06:18 <PaulKnight> Anish: If we go with the clarification I am suggesting, would a client wanting non-anon response EPRs, would it not find a match?
21:06:29 <Zakim> -yinleng
21:06:45 <PaulKnight> TRutt: We need to understand the use cases.
21:06:45 <MrGoodner1> q+
21:06:53 <bob> ack davi
21:07:02 <anish> q+
21:07:33 <bob> ack monica
21:07:38 <Zakim> -TonyR
21:08:21 <bob> ack mrg
21:08:27 <PaulKnight> David: My concern is with letting the empty case imply support for specific response types.
21:10:05 <PaulKnight> MrGo: If you require mixed use case, you need nested policies to express it.
21:11:19 <PaulKnight> Monica: Is that domain-specific processing?
21:11:49 <bob> ack ani
21:12:02 <PaulKnight> MrGo: No, it doesn't have to introduce domain-specific processing.
21:12:19 <gpilz> q+
21:13:13 <bob> ack gpil
21:13:15 <PaulKnight> Anish: The top-level assertion does not make claims, without the nested assertions.
21:13:33 <PaulKnight> gpilz: I'm confused by this discussion.
21:13:55 <anish> q?
21:14:01 <anish> q+
21:14:23 <anish> q-
21:15:11 <PaulKnight> gpilz: WS-Policy defines vocabularies in the context of an assertion, which make it more complicated.
21:15:30 <TRutt_> qa+
21:15:36 <TRutt_> q+
21:15:41 <PaulKnight> Anish: yes, with nothing inside, it has different implications.
21:15:52 <MrGoodner1> q+
21:15:59 <anish> +1 to getting clarification from ws-policy wg
21:16:04 <PaulKnight> gpilz: Back to Bob's proposal to put pointed questions to WS-Policy.
21:16:06 <bob> ack tru
21:17:32 <PaulKnight> TRutt: The problem stems from Chris' inability to prevail on the meaining of empty in the WS-Policy group.  That group is split on this issue. We should problably write what we want to support our use cases.
21:17:35 <bob> ack mrg
21:17:55 <Zakim> -David_Hull.a
21:18:15 <anish> q+
21:18:16 <monica> q+
21:18:42 <bob> ack ani
21:18:47 <PaulKnight> MrGO: We discussed the negation issue.  We don't think it's an issue here.
21:19:24 <bob> ack monica
21:19:40 <PaulKnight> Anish: Somebody should work with WS-Policy on this.
21:20:08 <PaulKnight> Monica: Work is still going on in the Policy WG.
21:20:45 <PaulKnight> Bob: Can we package alternative "G" in a question for WS-Policy?  Is that a reasonable thing to do now?
21:21:02 <PaulKnight> MrGo: Can we begin by adopting proposal G?
21:21:16 <PaulKnight> TRutt: G with my proposals?
21:21:32 <PaulKnight> Anish: No problem with that.
21:22:13 <PaulKnight> Bob: We seem to be resolved to incorporate G with Tom's subsequent wordsmithing.
21:22:14 <monica> does that include anish's comments?
21:22:26 <anish> q+
21:22:35 <PaulKnight> TRutt: I think Tony can do the wordsmithing.
21:22:37 <anish> ping
21:22:57 <bob> ack ani
21:23:38 <PaulKnight> Bob: We have resolved to do what we just discussed, insert the text of G with Tom Rutt's additional text.
21:23:47 <monica> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Apr/0010.html
21:24:13 <PaulKnight> Monica: that is a link to Anish's comments.
21:24:45 <PaulKnight> Anish: Why should we have this restriction described in my comments?
21:25:24 <PaulKnight> Bob: the WS-Policy group indicated it could not be done, due to the level of abstraction.  It was in Chris Ferris' message to WSA.
21:25:55 <PaulKnight> Anish: I will look at that.
21:27:08 <PaulKnight> Anish: Not clear if we have defined this assertion closely enough.  What about SOAP vs. non-SOAP binding?
21:27:09 <bob> chris' response http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Feb/0006.html
21:27:21 <PaulKnight> TRutt: This sounds like a new issue.
21:27:47 <PaulKnight> Bob: Anish, can you submit something on this topic?
21:28:41 <PaulKnight> Bob: Please extract the issue.
21:28:48 <monica> yes, that is the one
21:28:50 <PaulKnight> Anish: It is in comment number 1.
21:30:30 <PaulKnight> Bob: It is in point E in Chris's message.
21:30:54 <PaulKnight> Anish: It does not really explain why.
21:31:51 <PaulKnight> Anish: There were two issues in my comment... the second is what it is claiming conformance to.
21:32:23 <PaulKnight> Bob: I will take the contents of the email and make it two issues.
21:32:33 <PaulKnight> Anish: okay
21:33:00 <PaulKnight> ACTION: Bob split Anish's email to make two issues.
21:34:27 <PaulKnight> Bob: I hope we can preserve proposal G, with clarifications, to send back to WS-Policy.  It should be ready before the next last call round.
21:34:50 <TRutt_> q+
21:35:15 <bob> ack tr
21:35:30 <PaulKnight> Bob: It would be good to finish before the last call , so we can get feedback early from WS-Policy instead of having it raised as an issue at last call.
21:36:28 <PaulKnight> Bob: Once we think we have a resolution, we should send it to WS-Policy, according to the W3C policy.
21:36:47 <PaulKnight> Trutt: We can send it as a reference to the new editor's draft.
21:37:03 <PaulKnight> Bob: Better to send it explicitly to WS-Policy.
21:37:23 <anish> q+
21:37:42 <bob> ack ani
21:37:48 <PaulKnight> Bob: Tom, can you send me the wordsmithed text to modify G.
21:38:22 <MrGoodner1> q+
21:38:41 <bob> ack mrg
21:38:53 <PaulKnight> Anish: Gil's question about negation, with interpretation of the absence of a nested assertiion implying negation, is that resolved?
21:39:29 <PaulKnight> MrGo: Don't need to deal with that now, with WS-Policy.
21:39:52 <PaulKnight> Anish: That seems to take us back to proposal F, not G.
21:40:24 <PaulKnight> Bob: The nuance is the point at which the vocabulary is defined.
21:41:11 <monica> there is no negation in current ws-p
21:41:12 <PaulKnight> Bob: Maybe we should excise the assertions if they are so difficult to understand.
21:41:56 <anish> if we all agree that there is no negation, then i don't have a problem. But like Gil, I remember Chris ferris vehemently stating the negation part
21:42:10 <monica> which chair?
21:42:19 <PaulKnight> Bob: I have solicited one of the WS-Policy co-chairs' opinion on this, and it appeared that either F or G is possible; G was a bit better.
21:42:22 <anish> it would be easier if the policy wg resolved this issue once and for all
21:43:01 <PaulKnight> Bob: Suggest a call next Monday...  It is a bank holiday in UK... ?
21:44:15 <PaulKnight> Bob: Aim for April 16th for next meeting.  We need as much attendance as possible.
21:44:50 <PaulKnight> Bob: Meeting adjourned due to lack of linear arguments.
21:45:59 <PaulKnight> Bob: As of today, we have resolved on G.  A through F are dead.  There were no objections when the question was called.
21:47:22 <PaulKnight> Anish: Initiating circular discussion among WS-Policy members on the call.  Minutes not taken.
21:48:20 <Zakim> -monica
21:48:22 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
21:48:23 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
21:48:23 <Zakim> -David_Illsley
21:48:25 <Zakim> -mrgoodner
21:48:27 <Zakim> -Anish_Karmarkar
21:48:28 <Zakim> -Bob_Freund
21:48:33 <Zakim> -Paul_Knight
21:48:34 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
21:48:36 <Zakim> Attendees were Bob_Freund, Gilbert_Pilz, monica, David_Illsley, Anish_Karmarkar, TonyR, Tom_Rutt, ram, Paul_Knight, yinleng, David_Hull, mrgoodner
21:48:36 <TRutt_> TRutt_ has left #ws-addr
21:48:38 <bob> Paul, thanks for scribing
21:48:43 <yinleng> yinleng has left #ws-addr
21:48:55 <bob> rrsagent, make logs public
21:49:18 <bob> rrsagent, generate minutes
21:49:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/04/02-ws-addr-minutes.html bob
22:04:46 <bob> bob has left #ws-addr