IRC log of ws-addr on 2007-04-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:47:01 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:47:01 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:47:15 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-addr
19:47:40 [bob]
zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
19:47:40 [Zakim]
ok, bob; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
19:48:03 [bob]
meeting: Web Services Addressing Teleconference
19:48:11 [bob]
chair: Bob Freund
19:51:22 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
19:51:29 [Zakim]
19:58:50 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
19:59:46 [Zakim]
20:00:12 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:00:49 [Zakim]
20:01:35 [Zakim]
20:02:55 [Zakim]
20:03:21 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
20:03:40 [bob]
zakim, [IPCaller] is katy
20:03:40 [Zakim]
+katy; got it
20:04:16 [TRutt_]
TRutt_ has joined #ws-addr
20:05:09 [Zakim]
20:06:49 [Zakim]
20:06:57 [Zakim]
20:07:17 [Zakim]
20:07:22 [bob]
zakim, [Microsoft] is ram
20:07:22 [Zakim]
+ram; got it
20:07:48 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-addr
20:08:03 [bob]
scribe: Bob Freund
20:08:04 [Zakim]
20:09:10 [yinleng]
yinleng has joined #ws-addr
20:09:17 [bob]
resolution: minutes of 2007-04-02 accepted
20:09:54 [bob]
Topic: New issue
20:10:14 [Zakim]
20:10:19 [yinleng]
zakim, ??P13 is me
20:10:19 [Zakim]
+yinleng; got it
20:11:07 [bob]
resolution: accepted as proposed
20:11:32 [bob]
20:11:40 [TRutt_]
20:11:46 [Zakim]
20:11:59 [bob]
by Tom R wrt attaching a policy to an epr
20:12:10 [bob]
ack tru
20:12:37 [bob]
TomR: Addr did the wsdl, why not the policy?
20:12:54 [gpilz]
20:12:56 [Zakim]
20:12:59 [Ram]
20:13:02 [Zakim]
+ +1.619.692.aaaa
20:13:03 [bob]
... concern is that there will be a void if left unanswered
20:13:18 [bob]
ack gp
20:13:42 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
20:14:07 [TRutt_]
20:14:08 [bob]
Gil: I don't see how we can be tasked on how to put policy in an epr.
20:14:16 [bob]
ack ram
20:14:36 [anish]
20:14:39 [TRutt_]
WS addressin has decided how to attach wsdl to the EPR, we could do otherwise
20:14:55 [bob]
Ram: MEX seems to be developing as a way to get this done
20:15:25 [bob]
Tom: this method is not yet on a standards track
20:15:30 [bob]
20:15:52 [Katy]
20:16:17 [bob]
Anish: Why would MEX stop a wg from defining the functionality it needs
20:16:34 [anish]
20:16:36 [bob]
ack tr
20:16:37 [Ram]
20:16:45 [bob]
ack katy
20:16:52 [anish]
20:16:58 [Zakim]
20:17:18 [bob]
Katy: MEX seems to be the right place to do this work
20:17:24 [bob]
ack anish
20:17:33 [Zakim]
20:17:52 [bob]
Anish: Given that this is a proprietary spec, I don't know what version is considered
20:18:17 [bob]
... also how does it deal with attaching a policy to an epr?
20:18:38 [bob]
... does mex deal with packaging a policy with an epr?
20:18:55 [bob]
katy: Yes it deals with scoping
20:19:12 [bob]
20:19:36 [David_Illsley]
MEX 1.1 - - Section 6 Metadata in Endpoint References
20:19:54 [bob]
Anish: What is the timeline?
20:20:02 [bob]
Katy: I will try to find out.
20:20:07 [Ram]
20:20:14 [Ram]
20:20:47 [Ram]
20:21:03 [bob]
ack ram
20:21:27 [anish]
20:21:32 [Katy]
20:21:39 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
20:21:50 [bob]
Ram: take a look at mex 1.1 and see if it takes care of the problem
20:21:57 [bob]
ack anish
20:22:18 [Ram]
20:22:26 [TRutt_]
+1 with anish comment, Mex is not yet available
20:22:31 [David_Illsley]
>MEX 1.1 - - Section 6 Metadata in Endpoint References
20:22:38 [bob]
Anish: It is not clear if and when it might be available to us.
20:22:41 [bob]
ack katy
20:23:08 [anish]
20:23:15 [bob]
ack ram
20:23:52 [TRutt_]
20:23:53 [bob]
Ram: two questions, 1) is it the right way to go and 2) what it the timeline
20:23:59 [bob]
ack anish
20:24:28 [bob]
Anish: I don't think that the two questions are independant.
20:25:11 [Ram]
20:25:17 [bob]
... Past history does not make me confident that it will be timely
20:25:21 [bob]
ack tr
20:25:27 [bob]
ack ram
20:26:01 [gpilz]
20:26:05 [bob]
Ram: is this a problem that this wg should do or not?
20:26:23 [bob]
Anish: At lease some(many?) that think it should be done here
20:26:41 [bob]
ack gpil
20:27:10 [bob]
Gil: Given the history of WS-Policy, I understand Anish's concern
20:28:18 [Ram]
20:28:34 [bob]
ack ra
20:29:50 [Ram]
20:29:56 [bob]
ack ram
20:31:22 [TRutt_]
20:31:44 [Ram]
20:31:59 [bob]
ack tr
20:32:05 [Katy]
20:32:36 [bob]
ack ram
20:33:57 [bob]
ack katy
20:35:06 [Ram]
20:35:15 [bob]
ack ram
20:35:20 [anish]
20:35:33 [anish]
20:37:18 [bob]
resolution: defer decision until after cr
20:37:46 [TRutt_]
WS-policy Task Force Analysis:
20:37:46 [TRutt_]
From ws-policy framework 3.2 Definition: A policy alternative vocabulary is the set of all policy assertion types within the policy alternative.] 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.
20:38:09 [Zakim]
20:39:15 [bob]
TomR: above point is in discussion within WS-Policy
20:40:02 [bob]
TomR: Alternative H is a brute-force method that skirts the negation issue
20:41:05 [anish]
20:42:14 [bob]
... I think that we need to wait until WS-Policy decides
20:42:24 [bob]
ack ani
20:45:00 [bob]
Anisk: Consider negation and the none uri as separate issues
20:45:18 [bob]
... do you think that your response works for both types.
20:45:46 [bob]
TomR: Depending on how the negation issue will temper which resolution we pick
20:46:04 [anish]
20:47:20 [bob]
ack ani
20:47:54 [bob]
Anish: Is it what constitues a vocabulary in general or is it related only to nexted assertions?
20:48:14 [bob]
TomR: Most of the problem is from nested assertions
20:49:16 [bob]
... there are also issues with regard to the definition of vocabulary
20:49:47 [bob]
... this may be a vocabulary scoping rules
20:50:13 [bob]
Anish: Some policy wonks say that there is no negation, just something is not defined
20:52:32 [anish]
20:52:43 [bob]
ack ani
20:53:19 [Ram]
20:53:51 [bob]
Topic: Policy subject (viz Anish email)
20:55:03 [TRutt_]
20:55:04 [bob]
ack ram
20:55:28 [bob]
ack tru
20:55:37 [anish]
here is the email with my 2 issues:
20:56:47 [TRutt_]
There was a question from ws-policy members on the conformance to ws addressing, with respect to support for types of resonses
20:57:54 [dhull]
+1 (at least)
20:58:42 [bob]
Anish: we do not define what wsam means
20:58:57 [bob]
... what does it mean to assert the wsam: assertion
20:59:39 [bob]
... Second, then is a statement that such an assertion may not apply to a port type
21:00:05 [gpilz]
21:02:13 [Ram]
21:02:47 [bob]
Anish: Does it mean soap binding, does it mean core?
21:02:55 [bob]
ack ram
21:03:28 [Ram]
21:03:53 [TRutt_]
21:04:04 [David_Illsley]
21:04:16 [bob]
Anish: What if I want to not support the none uri (one way messafe with faults, for example)
21:04:18 [bob]
ack ram
21:05:37 [bob]
Ram: Alt G is a solution that defines what we need
21:05:51 [David_Illsley]
21:06:18 [Ram]
21:06:26 [TRutt_]
The "none" uri is just a special way to say that a partcular message is purely one way, it can be used regardless of what "response" types are supported/required for messages which expect a response of fault. I think we can word things to get around this none problem
21:06:51 [bob]
Anish: Even in alt G does not specify if the soap binding is used or not. i.e. what spec are we making an assertion concerning
21:06:56 [bob]
ack tru
21:07:55 [bob]
TomR: It is important to know what the client can do. Anish, please clarify what you mean by none
21:08:23 [bob]
Anish: what assertion are you making and what spec does it apply to
21:10:09 [bob]
ack ram
21:10:52 [bob]
Ram: we can consider both possible outcomes from the WS-Policy froup
21:11:13 [bob]
... if negation does not exist, would that take away our concern about none?
21:11:48 [TRutt_]
The 'None" uri implies that no response is expected. We could define the other policy assertions to only apply for cases where responses are expected, It is a matter of how we word the assertions
21:12:14 [bob]
Anish: For me it would
21:13:05 [bob]
Ram: What is the right thing in our opinion?
21:13:50 [David_Illsley]
21:14:39 [gpilz]
21:15:37 [bob]
ack david
21:16:21 [bob]
David: I assumed that the assertion applied to the subject, that means the core spec would be used and applied to the appropriate binding
21:16:28 [bob]
ack gil
21:17:17 [bob]
Gil: I am -1 on separate abstract and non-abstract assertions
21:17:35 [anish]
21:18:23 [gpilz]
ack gpilz
21:18:24 [bob]
ack gp
21:18:40 [bob]
ack ani
21:19:03 [bob]
Anish: Are you proposing a context dependant assertion?
21:19:14 [bob]
Gil: That is pretty much it
21:21:21 [bob]
Gil: I don't agree to the restriction prohibiting an absract assertion
21:21:50 [bob]
... I also don't like to define the assertion to apply to only one spec.
21:22:14 [bob]
... spelling it out and tying it to spicific documents is a good thing to do
21:24:01 [anish]
21:24:10 [bob]
ack ani
21:25:29 [David_Illsley]
21:25:57 [bob]
ack david
21:30:49 [Ram]
21:30:59 [bob]
ack ram
21:32:16 [Ram]
21:33:11 [bob]
action: gil and anish to work uo a joint proposal
21:33:18 [gpilz]
I thought so
21:33:38 [bob]
ack ram
21:33:53 [gpilz]
then we should
21:34:35 [gpilz]
my main point is that WS-Addressing is supposed to be a general purpose facility
21:35:06 [gpilz]
that being the case, I can't see why we should define per-binding assertions to indicate a requirement that it be used
21:35:21 [gpilz]
obviously, if you are using SOAP
21:35:35 [gpilz]
and you say you are using addressing
21:36:06 [dhull]
I'm just saying that we use "engaged" to describe a similar concept in one of our specs.
21:36:12 [gpilz]
I'm not sure that anybody who isn't a standards person would have a hard time understanding this
21:36:28 [David_Illsley]
21:36:32 [anish]
21:36:34 [Zakim]
21:36:35 [Zakim]
21:36:36 [Zakim]
21:36:37 [Zakim]
21:36:38 [Zakim]
21:36:40 [Zakim]
- +1.619.692.aaaa
21:36:41 [Zakim]
21:36:45 [Zakim]
21:36:50 [yinleng]
yinleng has left #ws-addr
21:37:21 [gpilz]
21:37:41 [gpilz]
does that mean I should obey the laws that apply to cars, bikes, or walking?
21:37:58 [gpilz]
obviously, if I am driving a car, I should obey those laws that apply to cars
21:38:01 [gpilz]
21:38:05 [Zakim]
21:38:07 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
21:38:08 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bob_Freund, Gilbert_Pilz, David_Illsley, Tom_Rutt, katy, David_Hull, Anish, ram, Mark_Little, yinleng, Dave_Hull, +1.619.692.aaaa
21:39:57 [bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
21:41:20 [bob]
Next meeting will be April 23, but if the WS-Policy has not clarified its position on negation, then it might be canceled if no other issues arise.
21:41:32 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:41:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
21:53:58 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr