19:47:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:47:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/04/16-ws-addr-irc
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> +Bob_Freund
19:58:50 <David_Illsley> David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
19:59:46 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
20:00:12 <gpilz> gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:00:49 <Zakim> +David_Illsley
20:01:35 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
20:02:55 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
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> +David_Hull
20:06:49 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:06:57 <Zakim> +Anish
20:07:17 <Zakim> -David_Hull
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> +Mark_Little
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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2007Apr/0000.html 
20:10:14 <Zakim> +??P13
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> Topic: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Apr/0003.html
20:11:40 <TRutt_> q+
20:11:46 <Zakim> +Dave_Hull
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> q+
20:12:56 <Zakim> -Anish
20:12:59 <Ram> q+
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_> q+
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> q+
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> q?
20:15:52 <Katy> q+
20:16:17 <bob> Anish: Why would MEX stop a wg from defining the functionality it needs
20:16:34 <anish> q-
20:16:36 <bob> ack tr
20:16:37 <Ram> q-
20:16:45 <bob> ack katy
20:16:52 <anish> q+
20:16:58 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
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> +Gilbert_Pilz
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> q?
20:19:36 <David_Illsley> MEX 1.1 - http://specs.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/09/mex/WS-MetadataExchange.pdf - 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> q+
20:20:14 <Ram> q-
20:20:47 <Ram> q+
20:21:03 <bob> ack ram
20:21:27 <anish> q+
20:21:32 <Katy> q+
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> q+
20:22:26 <TRutt_> +1 with anish comment, Mex is not yet available
20:22:31 <David_Illsley> >	MEX 1.1 - http://specs.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/09/mex/WS-MetadataExchange.pdf - 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> q+
20:23:15 <bob> ack ram
20:23:52 <TRutt_> q+
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> q+
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> q+
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> q+
20:28:34 <bob> ack ra
20:29:50 <Ram> q+
20:29:56 <bob> ack ram
20:31:22 <TRutt_> q+
20:31:44 <Ram> q+
20:31:59 <bob> ack tr
20:32:05 <Katy> q+
20:32:36 <bob> ack ram
20:33:57 <bob> ack katy
20:35:06 <Ram> q+
20:35:15 <bob> ack ram
20:35:20 <anish> q+
20:35:33 <anish> q-
20:37:18 <bob> resolution: defer decision until after cr
20:37:46 <TRutt_> WS-policy Task Force Analysis: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0022.html  
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> -Mark_Little
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> q+
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> q+
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> q+
20:52:43 <bob> ack ani
20:53:19 <Ram> q+
20:53:51 <bob> Topic: Policy subject (viz Anish email)
20:55:03 <TRutt_> q+
20:55:04 <bob> ack ram
20:55:28 <bob> ack tru
20:55:37 <anish> here is the email with my 2 issues: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Apr/0010.html
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> +1
21:02:13 <Ram> q+
21:02:47 <bob> Anish: Does it mean soap binding, does it mean core?
21:02:55 <bob> ack ram
21:03:28 <Ram> q+
21:03:53 <TRutt_> q+
21:04:04 <David_Illsley> q+
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> q-
21:06:18 <Ram> q+
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> q+
21:14:39 <gpilz> q+
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> q+
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> q+
21:24:10 <bob> ack ani
21:25:29 <David_Illsley> q+
21:25:57 <bob> ack david
21:30:49 <Ram> q+
21:30:59 <bob> ack ram
21:32:16 <Ram> q+
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> hehe
21:36:32 <anish> :-)
21:36:34 <Zakim> -yinleng
21:36:35 <Zakim> -ram
21:36:36 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
21:36:37 <Zakim> -Bob_Freund
21:36:38 <Zakim> -David_Illsley
21:36:40 <Zakim> - +1.619.692.aaaa
21:36:41 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
21:36:45 <Zakim> -katy
21:36:50 <yinleng> yinleng has left #ws-addr
21:37:21 <gpilz> here's an analogy: YOU MUST OBEY ALL TRAFFIC LAWS
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> right?
21:38:05 <Zakim> -Dave_Hull
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 http://www.w3.org/2007/04/16-ws-addr-minutes.html bob
21:53:58 <bob> bob has left #ws-addr