See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Bob Freund
resolution: minutes of 2007-04-02 accepted
resolution: accepted as proposed
by Tom R wrt attaching a policy to an epr
TomR: Addr did the wsdl, why not
... concern is that there will be a void if left unanswered
Gil: I don't see how we can be tasked on how to put policy in an epr.
<TRutt_> WS addressin has decided how to attach wsdl to the EPR, we could do otherwise
Ram: MEX seems to be developing as a way to get this done
Tom: this method is not yet on a standards track
Anish: Why would MEX stop a wg from defining the functionality it needs
Katy: MEX seems to be the right place to do this work
Anish: Given that this is a
proprietary spec, I don't know what version is considered
... also how does it deal with attaching a policy to an epr?
... does mex deal with packaging a policy with an epr?
katy: Yes it deals with scoping
<David_Illsley> MEX 1.1 - http://specs.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/09/mex/WS-MetadataExchange.pdf - Section 6 Metadata in Endpoint References
Anish: What is the timeline?
Katy: I will try to find out.
Ram: take a look at mex 1.1 and see if it takes care of the problem
<TRutt_> +1 with anish comment, Mex is not yet available
<David_Illsley> > MEX 1.1 - http://specs.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/09/mex/WS-MetadataExchange.pdf - Section 6 Metadata in Endpoint References
Anish: It is not clear if and when it might be available to us.
Ram: two questions, 1) is it the right way to go and 2) what it the timeline
Anish: I don't think that the two
questions are independant.
... Past history does not make me confident that it will be timely
Ram: is this a problem that this wg should do or not?
Anish: At lease some(many?) that think it should be done here
Gil: Given the history of WS-Policy, I understand Anish's concern
resolution: defer decision until after cr
<TRutt_> WS-policy Task Force Analysis: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0022.html
<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.”
TomR: above point is in
discussion within WS-Policy
... Alternative H is a brute-force method that skirts the negation issue
... I think that we need to wait until WS-Policy decides
Anisk: Consider negation and the
none uri as separate issues
... do you think that your response works for both types.
TomR: Depending on how the negation issue will temper which resolution we pick
Anish: Is it what constitues a vocabulary in general or is it related only to nexted assertions?
TomR: Most of the problem is from
... there are also issues with regard to the definition of vocabulary
... this may be a vocabulary scoping rules
Anish: Some policy wonks say that there is no negation, just something is not defined
<anish> here is the email with my 2 issues: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Apr/0010.html
<TRutt_> There was a question from ws-policy members on the conformance to ws addressing, with respect to support for types of resonses
<dhull> +1 (at least)
Anish: we do not define what wsam
... what does it mean to assert the wsam: assertion
... Second, then is a statement that such an assertion may not apply to a port type
Anish: Does it mean soap binding,
does it mean core?
... What if I want to not support the none uri (one way messafe with faults, for example)
Ram: Alt G is a solution that defines what we need
<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
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
TomR: It is important to know what the client can do. Anish, please clarify what you mean by none
Anish: what assertion are you making and what spec does it apply to
Ram: we can consider both
possible outcomes from the WS-Policy froup
... if negation does not exist, would that take away our concern about none?
<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
Anish: For me it would
Ram: What is the right thing in our opinion?
David: I assumed that the assertion applied to the subject, that means the core spec would be used and applied to the appropriate binding
Gil: I am -1 on separate abstract and non-abstract assertions
Anish: Are you proposing a context dependant assertion?
Gil: That is pretty much it
... I don't agree to the restriction prohibiting an absract assertion
... I also don't like to define the assertion to apply to only one spec.
... spelling it out and tying it to spicific documents is a good thing to do
<scribe> ACTION: gil and anish to work uo a joint proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/16-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
<gpilz> I thought so
<gpilz> then we should
<gpilz> my main point is that WS-Addressing is supposed to be a general purpose facility
<gpilz> that being the case, I can't see why we should define per-binding assertions to indicate a requirement that it be used
<gpilz> obviously, if you are using SOAP
<gpilz> and you say you are using addressing
<dhull> I'm just saying that we use "engaged" to describe a similar concept in one of our specs.
<gpilz> I'm not sure that anybody who isn't a standards person would have a hard time understanding this
<gpilz> here's an analogy: YOU MUST OBEY ALL TRAFFIC LAWS
<gpilz> does that mean I should obey the laws that apply to cars, bikes, or walking?
<gpilz> obviously, if I am driving a car, I should obey those laws that apply to cars
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.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: bob Found Scribe: Bob Freund Default Present: Bob_Freund, Gilbert_Pilz, David_Illsley, Tom_Rutt, katy, David_Hull, Anish, ram, Mark_Little, yinleng, Dave_Hull, +1.619.692.aaaa Present: Bob_Freund Gilbert_Pilz David_Illsley Tom_Rutt katy David_Hull Anish ram Mark_Little yinleng Dave_Hull +1.619.692.aaaa Got date from IRC log name: 16 Apr 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/04/16-ws-addr-minutes.html People with action items: anish gil[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]