See also: IRC log
http://www.w3.org/2007/04/18-ws-policy-minutes.html
Fabian regrets recorded by Felix.
<cferris> RESOLUTION: revised minutes approved
RESOLUTION: April 18 minutes adopted as revised.
<cferris> Paul will chair next week, Chris to chair May 9
<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0102.html
<monica> ping
Target for Guidelines May 21
Paulc: Agenda item at f2f ?
Maryann: Yes
... will report status at subsequent meetings
Action 243 on Asir Done
ACTION-275 on Abbie done
ACTION-281 Prasad and Asir to scrutinize the HP results to be marked done
Action 279 in progress (ws-a and ws-policy)
ACTION-282 Asir to open and close new issue on test scenarios done
Action 283, 284, 285, 286 later on agenda
ACTION-283 Cferris done
ACTION-285 Monica on context done
ACTION-286 Maryann in progress
cferris: status recorded
paulc: confirms fixed IP addresses behind
firewall.
... public endpoints ok, but otherwise plan to attend. remote client access
unlikely to ottawa servers.
<monica> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0059.html
paulc: issue 4393 has proposal from glen http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4393
... glen email plus monica amended included in Charleton message 57 in
archive
<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0057.html
s/message 57/message 55/
RESOLVED: resolve issue 4393 with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0057.html
RESOLUTION: 04 01RESOLVED: resolve issue 4393 with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0057.html
paulc: b) Versioning and extensibility in
primer needs cleanup
... Maryann on http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4414
Maryann: Terminology cleanup: authorship roles
cleaned up.
... scenario on hypothetical end of life assertion using ignorable attribute
is included.
<cferris> frederick: there was a TBD and I suggest first choice
frederick: TBD is to be resolved with first choice
<cferris> ... on page 4
<paulc> ac asir
Frederick language: "policy alternative offered should not contain the EndOfLife policy
assertion even with an ignorable attribute. This is because an
alternative with the EndOfLife assertion with an ignorable attribute
will only intersect with a client operating in strict intersection
mode, IF the client also has an EndOfLife policy assertion."
<paulc> Asir comments:
<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0107.html
asir: two items first is When the WG adopted Dave O's proposal [1], WG amended the proposal by adding the adjective 'hypothetical' to all occurrences of the 'EndOfLife assertion'.
maryann: maybe "hypothetical" be included consistently
paulc: item 2 editorial on This sentence comes across as if a client would always intersect with one alternative in a policy as long as the first policy alternative does not contain the hypothetical EOL policy assertion. Suggested editorial change is:
s/alternative in a policy expression/alternative in Company-X policy expression/
Editorial ACTION: Maryann to add in Asir's 2 changes
asir: a seems like the choice
frederick: a the choice
dorchard: a was my choice
maryann: reviews issue (maryann can summarize)
frederick: provides defense of a and will summarize
maryann: an end of life assertion is one where a client can determine when the policy expires...(roughly)
<asir> that is the intent
maryann: if that is so, then policy assertion should be introduced at the outset
<asir> b) is fine .. then we need to adjust subsequent paragraphs
<asir> Dave O suggestion sounds fine
dorchard: perhaps we need to expose the flow of the offering and how it relates to various client reactions
<monica> no
paulc: can the editors fix this?
<monica> +1
asir: one more cut.
<Fabian> +1 on one more cut
<monica> +1 for one more cut (asir was slow on the draw)
<scribe> ACTION: on dorchard, maryann 4414 to be implemented except for paragraphs needing restructuring concerning end of life [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/25-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
<scribe> ACTION: dorchard, maryann 4414 to be implemented except for paragraphs needing restructuring concerning end of life [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/25-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - dorchard,
<fsasaki> ACTION: david maryann 4414 to be implemented except for paragraphs needing restructuring concerning end of life [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/25-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-287 - Maryann 4414 to be implemented except for paragraphs needing restructuring concerning end of life [on David Orchard - due 2007-05-02].
<cferris> RESOLUTION: resolved to adopt the proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0052.html without the bit about the TBD which is being reworked by Maryann and DaveO
<toufic> can we go for a record?
<monica> paul, there is a queue.
monica: charlton and monica and glen would like to be informed about dorchard and maryann
<paulc> Monica suggest taking into consideration the adopted text for 4393 during the work on ACTION-287.
(scribe experiencing local interrupts, now back)
paulc: agenda item 8
Which WS-SecurityPolicy version should be used as a reference
Which WS-SecurityPolicy version should be used as a reference
<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0096.html
asir: Last week of Feb. I assumed action to
make updates. several topics, namespace, align with Sec. policy. Noted that a
parameter has been removed so 1 change is needed
... 9 to 10 occurrences with line numbers need update
monica: should we wait until vote is over
paulc: notes s p has passed so far
... can changes be made now?
... (as member) any impact of changes on interop?
asir: already updated
Unanimous consent to resolve issues in 4318
cferris typing resolution
<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4318 resolved with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0096.html
Issue 4478
<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4477 closed with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0077.html
Any objection to resovle 4477
no
<cferris> RESOLUTION 4478 closed with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0078.html
no objections to 4477 or 4478 resolutions
paulc: asks for input from Bob F and Asir on
example indicating how behavior arises from several assertions
... seeks consensus on whether more clarification is needed for this topic
glen: asks whether an easy clarification is available?
paulc: perhaps an action item is needed for writing text?
<scribe> ACTION: asir to amend note in accordance with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0081.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/25-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-288 - Amend note in accordance with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0081.html [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2007-05-02].
<monica> queue please
<monica> queue please
Action item discussions on 283, 284, 285 and related issues
<maryann> i need to drop off the call for a few minutes, i will try to monitor the chat and respond, my apologies
paulc: Seeks advice on how to untangle these issues for discussion.
cferris: Ashok and my responses are similar explanation.
monica: Action 288 is impacted by current issues.
<asir> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0106.html
paulc: Action 284 to start
asir: reviews definitions of vocabularies and for nested policy alternatives
Fabian: paulc recommends point be made in email on difficulties with defs on nested p. alternative vocab.
<DaveO> +1 to monica
<monica> thanks david o
monica: context of parent policy assertion should be tracked
cferris: new qualification about directly contained not adequately defined
paulc: suggests that an email argument for that position be developed
<monica> Clarification: The parent policy assertion provides context to a nested policy assertion. The policy assertion is unique when created but has context when nested and qualifies a parent.
<DaveO> I've been wondering about assertions used as nested vs not, and "dual" purpose assertions like that in vocabularies
ashok: If new language is inadequate, then an infoset based definition might be developed
asir: policy reference question is an artifact and is normalized away and it is in that form the def is applied
<DaveO> It seems like we tried to avoid being really rigorous in our data model, and we can't avoid that rigor
monica: an infoset defintion may interact with several other issues
<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0105.html
<monica> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0105.html
<prasad> If we get consensus on the concept of "direct children" I think providing a proper definition is an easier task
monica: presents views on how meaning of nested assertions depends on parent policy assertion and many implications discussed
paulc: ashok and chris on action 283 on vocabulary of intersected policies
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0065.html
DaveO: Policy vocabularies of each policy differ { A B C} not equals {A B D}
<monica> ping
danroth: Dorchard mentioned useful information lost, and asks why he says that
Dorchard: traces impact on not agreeing what
negations of policies are present
... Will there be behavioral differences
... Proposes pre-intersected and post-intersected vocabularies, if that
proves useful. Need some use cases here.
Fabian: Don't know why client will need to know about server vocabulary
monica: revisits how empty, absence, and vocabulary defs interact
<Fabian> client computes compatibility between server and client policy, will establish which one of its alternatives are compatible
paulc: issue 283 concludes?
<Fabian> one it knows the compatible alternatives, it picks once of the compatible alternatives out of the client policy and applies them. It is not interested in the server policies anymore.
cferris: address briefly removal of does not apply
<cferris> scribe: cferris
dale: watching everyone struggle with the work going on in ws-a wg
<DaveO> Dan, would you say that a client knowing that certain assertion types were not intersected is no different (and thefore not useful) than knowing the policy assertions were never offered?
dale: all this discussion was actually a
surprising argument
... tried to figure out how we got here
... the root seems to be the "is not applied"
... didn't think that we had to hold onto that principle
... give assertion authors a negative particle that could be applied
consistently
... posing a question... why does the framework need the absence is negation
principle
... imposing implications that are uncomfortable to assertion authors
... we are having problem defining vocabulary
... could save some work
... if we jettisoned the negation principle
... you don't need them to explain intersection
... maybe leave to future effort to produce something that provided for
explicit negation
<scribe> scribe: dmoberg
Dorchard: Needs to know utility of absence is inapplicable, and find concrete cases of its utility
<Zakim> DaveO, you wanted to respond to Monica
monica: framework generic intent. absence may impinge
Dorchard: if useful across all domains, then it should be in framework.
<monica> cool - thanks bob
monica: ws-addressing did encounter these difficulties about the absence principle
<monica> +1
<monica> to bob
<bob> my comment was 06it should not matter, policy IMO should be evaluated level for level01
tomrutt: wants to note that many problems about the situation of a nested policy alternative
<Ashok> I don't understand why nested policy has only one alternative
<Ashok> Are you saying the you cannot use Optional withing a nested policy?
<asir> am not aware of anyone making that claim
<Ashok> What claim Asir?
cferris: notes that the new asir definitions would possibly prevent application of absence principle (since no other policy alts in canonical form)
<cferris> at the nested level
paulc: address Bob's plea for response by
asking working group to respond by email to our list if any changes are
needed
... adjourned!