IRC log of ws-addr on 2007-04-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:57:50 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:57:50 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:58:25 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
19:58:32 [Zakim]
19:58:46 [bob]
meeting: WS-Addressing WG Teleconference
19:58:53 [bob]
chair: Bob Freund
20:00:32 [Zakim]
20:00:46 [TRutt_]
TRutt_ has joined #ws-addr
20:01:24 [Zakim]
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]
20:02:41 [Zakim]
20:02:56 [Zakim]
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]
20:03:27 [monica]
rama will not be able to join today
20:06:52 [Zakim]
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]
20:08:48 [Zakim]
20:08:51 [yinleng]
zakim, ??P2 is me
20:08:51 [Zakim]
+yinleng; got it
20:10:20 [Zakim]
20:10:53 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
20:26:40 [PaulKnight]
TRutt: Monica had some important points
20:26:52 [monica]
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]
20:29:41 [anish]
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]
20:31:14 [David_Illsley_]
David_Illsley_ has joined #ws-addr
20:31:35 [Zakim]
20:31:37 [Zakim]
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]
20:37:15 [David_Illsley]
20:37:41 [MrGoodner1]
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]
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]
20:39:45 [monica]
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_]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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_]
20:47:32 [PaulKnight]
Bob: We're grappling with the nuances.
20:47:32 [anish]
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]
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]
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]
20:54:53 [PaulKnight]
Bob: Even one-way MEP has a way to support faults.
20:54:56 [David_Illsley]
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]
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]
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]
21:02:16 [PaulKnight]
Mrgo: This is a new use case we have not considered before.
21:02:31 [bob]
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]
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]
21:04:54 [PaulKnight]
TRutt: That capability was considered several proposals ago. F & G are simple use cases.
21:04:59 [bob]
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]
21:06:45 [PaulKnight]
TRutt: We need to understand the use cases.
21:06:45 [MrGoodner1]
21:06:53 [bob]
ack davi
21:07:02 [anish]
21:07:33 [bob]
ack monica
21:07:38 [Zakim]
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]
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]
21:14:01 [anish]
21:14:23 [anish]
21:15:11 [PaulKnight]
gpilz: WS-Policy defines vocabularies in the context of an assertion, which make it more complicated.
21:15:30 [TRutt_]
21:15:36 [TRutt_]
21:15:41 [PaulKnight]
Anish: yes, with nothing inside, it has different implications.
21:15:52 [MrGoodner1]
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]
21:18:15 [anish]
21:18:16 [monica]
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]
21:22:35 [PaulKnight]
TRutt: I think Tony can do the wordsmithing.
21:22:37 [anish]
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]
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
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_]
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]
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]
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]
21:48:22 [Zakim]
21:48:23 [Zakim]
21:48:23 [Zakim]
21:48:25 [Zakim]
21:48:27 [Zakim]
21:48:28 [Zakim]
21:48:33 [Zakim]
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 bob
22:04:46 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr