19:56:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:56:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/04/30-ws-addr-irc
19:56:26 <Ram> Ram has joined #ws-addr
19:56:38 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ws-addr
19:56:57 <bob> zakim, this will be #ws_addrwg
19:56:57 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, bob
19:57:11 <David_Illsley> David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
19:58:11 <Katy> Katy has joined #ws-addr
19:58:11 <TonyR> TonyR has joined #ws-addr
19:58:39 <TonyR> zakim, who is on the phone?
19:58:39 <Zakim> sorry, TonyR, I don't know what conference this is
19:58:40 <Zakim> On IRC I see TonyR, Katy, David_Illsley, Zakim, Ram, RRSAgent, bob
19:58:52 <TonyR> zakim, this will be addr
19:58:52 <Zakim> ok, TonyR, I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM already started
19:58:53 <PaulKnight> PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
19:59:09 <TonyR> zakim, who is on the phone?
19:59:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller], Bob_Freund
19:59:17 <Zakim> +David_Illsley
19:59:20 <bob> meeting: WS-Addressing WG Teleconference
19:59:28 <bob> chair: Bob Freund
19:59:39 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
19:59:55 <Zakim> +Paul_Knight
20:00:52 <anish> anish has joined #ws-addr
20:01:01 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:01:05 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
20:01:09 <Zakim> +m2
20:01:12 <Rama> Rama has joined #ws-addr
20:01:21 <Zakim> +Anish_Karmarkar
20:01:26 <bob> zakim, m2 is monica
20:01:26 <Zakim> +monica; got it
20:01:36 <gpilz> gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:01:44 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
20:01:48 <dhull> dhull has joined #ws-addr
20:01:48 <bob> zakim [Microsoft] is ram
20:01:52 <monica> monica has joined #ws-addr
20:01:54 <Zakim> +[Sun]
20:01:59 <Zakim> +Mark_Little
20:02:18 <Zakim> +David_Hull
20:02:18 <bob> zakim, [Sun} is rama
20:02:19 <Zakim> sorry, bob, I do not recognize a party named '[Sun}'
20:02:24 <Zakim> +??P10
20:02:26 <Zakim> -??P10
20:02:31 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
20:02:31 <bob> zakim, [Sun] is rama
20:02:32 <TonyR> zakim, ??p10 is me
20:02:33 <Zakim> +rama; got it
20:02:35 <Zakim> I already had ??P10 as ??P10, TonyR
20:02:39 <dhull> zakim, who is on the phone?
20:02:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller], Bob_Freund, David_Illsley, Paul_Knight, [Microsoft], monica, Anish_Karmarkar, Gilbert_Pilz, rama, Mark_Little, David_Hull, Tom_Rutt
20:03:08 <bob> zakim, [Microsoft] is ram
20:03:08 <Zakim> +ram; got it
20:03:12 <TRutt__> TRutt__ has joined #ws-addr
20:03:22 <TonyR> zakim, ??p10 is me
20:03:22 <Zakim> I already had ??P10 as ??P10, TonyR
20:03:26 <bob> zakim, [IPcaller] is katy
20:03:26 <Zakim> +katy; got it
20:03:36 <TonyR> zakim, why don't you show me?
20:03:36 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, TonyR.
20:04:30 <dhull> zakim, can you hear me?
20:04:30 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, dhull.
20:05:22 <dhull> zakim, have you met my friend Eliza?
20:05:22 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, dhull.
20:05:34 <bob> scribe: katy
20:05:43 <bob> zakim, who is here?
20:05:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see katy, Bob_Freund, David_Illsley, Paul_Knight, ram, monica, Anish_Karmarkar, Gilbert_Pilz, rama (muted), Mark_Little, David_Hull, Tom_Rutt
20:05:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see TRutt__, monica, dhull, gpilz, Rama, anish, PaulKnight, TonyR, Katy, David_Illsley, Zakim, Ram, RRSAgent, bob
20:06:41 <Zakim> +??P10
20:06:50 <TonyR> zakim, ??p10 is me
20:06:50 <Zakim> +TonyR; got it
20:07:36 <Katy> TOPIC: Approve Meeting minutes from last week
20:07:47 <Katy> RESOLUTION: approved
20:09:15 <Katy> TOPIC: New Issues - comment from Ashok concerning examples
20:09:16 <dorchard> dorchard has joined #ws-addr
20:09:27 <anish> tony, i noticed that Umit name is spelled in an interesting way ;-)
20:09:39 <Zakim> +Dave_Orchard
20:09:42 <Katy> Chair: those examples were contained in email to ws-policy group 
20:09:53 <Katy> ...and we have not heard back from then yet
20:10:14 <anish> i had a similar problem with her name and ended up create an entity for her name, which worked a little bit better wrt xsl processors
20:10:32 <Katy> ... WS-policy co-chairs hoping to get response back by end of next ws-policy call
20:11:55 <dhull> +1 on not going to LC until we hear back from WSP
20:12:05 <Katy> TOPIC: Date to go to last call
20:12:26 <anish> waiting seems appropriate
20:12:30 <Katy> Chair: Is group happy to wait until we have receieved response to ws-policy prior to going to LC
20:12:52 <Katy> RESOLUTION: Agreed, we will wait for wsp response prior to LC
20:13:02 <TRutt__> q+
20:13:18 <dorchard> q+
20:13:20 <bob> ack tru
20:13:27 <dorchard> q-
20:14:18 <Katy> TOPIC: LC 139
20:14:18 <anish> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/Overview.html#lc136
20:14:40 <Katy> TOPIC: LC 136
20:15:46 <Katy> DavidH: We already discussed what kind of response endpoints are valid, would be nice to also say 'these sort of addresses are ok or not'
20:16:03 <Katy> ... we agreed not to design for this at the moment
20:16:07 <anish> q+
20:16:24 <Katy> ... but I would like to be confident that we can extend to cater for this at a later date
20:16:47 <bob> ack anish
20:17:03 <TRutt__> q+
20:17:30 <Katy> Anish: Is this something that one could do via the extensibility point on the anonymous/nonanonymous response assertions
20:18:01 <Katy> ... do we have this extensibility for this case, would attribute extensibility be enough
20:18:39 <gpilz> q+
20:18:58 <Katy> DavidH: If we have nonAnonymous and someone could add 'mailTo only' that would be what we want
20:19:09 <bob> ack tru
20:19:41 <Katy> Tom: These elements were designed for exactly this for the makeConnection protocol
20:20:00 <gpilz> q-
20:20:10 <Katy> ... rather than extensibility elements, do an 'wsp:All' composing wsaddressingNonAnon with makeConnection
20:20:11 <gpilz> +1 Tom
20:20:58 <Katy> ... no need to use attribute and element extensibility - just have mailTo as its own highlevel assertion
20:21:35 <Katy> DavidH: But makeConnection composes if that's the only thing that I can do 
20:22:12 <gpilz> q+
20:22:17 <Katy> ... what if I know that from one source my server can cope with http&mailTO and http&java - intersection should be java
20:22:33 <Katy> Tom: You can do this already with wsp vocab
20:23:05 <Katy> DavidH: Not convinced that the intersection worked in this case
20:23:22 <bob> q+ DaveO
20:23:31 <bob> ack gpil
20:24:28 <Katy> Gil: Most of DaveH's comments are critiques of wsp - should not be burden of this group to take on these issues
20:25:53 <bob> ack daveo
20:26:40 <Katy> DaveO: Given wsp current status, going to LC of the document anytime in next couple of weeks would be premature
20:27:09 <dhull> q+
20:27:24 <Katy> ... very fundamental issues like absence is negation - tricky stuff not goiing to be completed in next week or so
20:28:45 <Katy> ... may just be a case of proving that the composability with makeconnection and intersection performs as required
20:29:38 <Katy> ... encouraging group to do the work at this stage to check that the extensibility points can by used to do what wsa required
20:30:14 <Katy> Chair: At very minimum prove that use case for CR 33 is solved
20:30:56 <TRutt__> q+
20:31:32 <Katy> DaveO: should prove that the assertions do what we expected them to
20:31:39 <bob> ack dhull
20:32:00 <Katy> chair: +1 lots of work been done already on this but we should all critique and check we are happy with this 
20:32:36 <Katy> DavidH: From project management point of view - we cannot do anything until wsp gets its story straight
20:33:56 <Katy> ... I would like to be absolutely sure that the vocab allows to define what addresses are allowed for future
20:34:14 <bob> q+ daveO
20:34:20 <bob> ack tru
20:34:58 <Katy> Tom: Investigated these intersections and they are difficult.  I would like to understand DavidH's concerns
20:35:28 <Katy> ... perhaps David and I could have private email exchange to try to work through these issues without cc-ing the whole group 
20:35:34 <dhull> q+
20:36:22 <bob> ack dhull
20:36:37 <Katy> Chair: Would be good to write up and share the results of this discussion with the group for us all to understand/critique
20:37:00 <Katy> DavidH: happy to work with Tom on this
20:37:09 <dhull> q-
20:37:21 <bob> ack daveo
20:37:49 <dhull> q+
20:38:49 <anish> q+ to ask a question about assertion extensibility and negation to the policy experts
20:38:54 <Zakim> -katy
20:39:10 <bob> oops, lost katy
20:39:17 <Katy> DaveO: ws-a is inherently dependent on wsp current issues.  advocate holding on until wsp complete
20:39:23 <Katy> just re-dialing :o)
20:40:18 <bob> q?
20:41:17 <TRutt__> DaveO: the addressing policy assertions seem simple, however it concerns me that ws addressing is having a dificult time meeting their requirements with ws policy.  It concerns me that this has been so time consuming,
20:42:23 <Zakim> +??P0
20:42:23 <TRutt__> Bob: some ot the ws policy terms are not used in familar manner,  IF the policy spec could be made less obscure it would help normal people use it.
20:42:49 <Katy> just back - sorry ran out of skype minutes :o)
20:43:14 <Katy> I just joined 
20:44:09 <TRutt__> q+
20:44:48 <bob> ack dhull
20:45:27 <Katy> DavidH: Question is what we could do now prior to wsp resolution
20:46:20 <Katy> Chair: We can look into this issue and take assumption that alternative G is the right one 
20:46:43 <Katy> ... and work on how to resolve this issue with this assumption
20:47:07 <Katy> ... Agree with DavidH we should get this recorded somewhere 
20:48:54 <David_Illsley> (aside) I believe our current schema prevents future parameters or nested assertions of the wsam:NonAnonymousResponses assertion
20:49:11 <Zakim> -Dave_Orchard
20:49:31 <anish> david, i'm begining to think the same thing
20:49:32 <Katy> ACTION: DavidH and Tom to work together to produce thought exercise on composability to cover LC 136
20:49:51 <anish> ... and i wonder if ws-policy framework is structured to encourage that
20:50:07 <bob> q?
20:50:13 <bob> ack anish
20:50:13 <Zakim> anish, you wanted to ask a question about assertion extensibility and negation to the policy experts
20:50:41 <Katy> ACTION: (cont) Target date middle of next week for meeting in fortnight
20:51:39 <TRutt__> q+
20:51:48 <Katy> Anish: Assuming that absence=negation, does this mean that policy assertions are not meant to be extensible, 
20:51:52 <bob> ack tru
20:52:03 <Katy> ... works with makeconnection maybe not others
20:52:37 <Katy> Tom: there is distinction between top level assertions and nested assertions 
20:52:49 <Katy> ... because nested assertions are applied within a context
20:53:06 <Katy> ... whereas top level ones are in global context
20:54:43 <Katy> Chair: DavidH's issue remains open
20:54:51 <Katy> TOPIC: Interop
20:55:12 <Katy> Chair: Hopes for interop in May appear dashed
20:55:13 <Ram> q+
20:55:14 <Ram> q+
20:55:29 <bob> ack ram
20:55:31 <Katy> ... would like an idea of who can participate
20:56:00 <Katy> Ram: Feel positive that MS could participate but not committed plan
20:56:08 <David_Illsley> q+
20:56:13 <Katy> ... do we have test scenarios that we can use for testing?
20:56:40 <Ram> q+
20:56:46 <Katy> David: May be able to salvage some of the work that we did last summer for this but haven't had time to look over it in detail
20:56:51 <bob> ack david
20:56:57 <bob> ack ram
20:57:07 <Katy> David: IBM still also abls to commit to some kind of interop when spec returns to LC
20:57:37 <Katy> Ram: In order to do an interop, the WG has to approve a set of test scenarios
20:57:55 <Ram> q+
20:57:58 <Katy> Chair: Yes, we need to start looking at this now - need participation 
20:58:12 <Katy> Ram: Happy to be part of task force
20:58:29 <Katy> ... would be useful to have some focus on future calls to discuss this
20:59:08 <Katy> Chair: We did have separate calls for testing before or we could just use the regular calls
20:59:44 <Ram> q+
20:59:45 <Katy> ACTION: David and Ram to refresh group on statud of test cases and what needs to be developed in 2 week's time
21:00:04 <bob> ack ram
21:01:07 <Katy> Chair: I don't expect a meeting next Monday
21:01:15 <Katy> Chair: AOB?
21:01:41 <Ram> q+
21:01:42 <Katy> Chair: Assume that we will cancel next Monday but keep on calandar just in case
21:02:23 <bob> ack ram
21:02:27 <Katy> ... we have published editors' draft of new spec, please take good look at it to check resolutions incorporated
21:03:40 <TRutt__> TRutt__ has left #ws-addr
21:03:46 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
21:03:57 <Zakim> -Anish_Karmarkar
21:03:59 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
21:04:00 <Zakim> -Paul_Knight
21:04:01 <Zakim> -David_Hull
21:04:02 <Zakim> -TonyR
21:04:03 <Zakim> -ram
21:04:03 <Zakim> -Bob_Freund
21:04:04 <TonyR> TonyR has left #ws-addr
21:04:04 <Zakim> -monica
21:04:05 <Zakim> -rama
21:04:07 <Zakim> -David_Illsley
21:04:28 <bob> katy, thanks for scribing
21:04:35 <Katy> np 
21:04:41 <bob> rrsagent, please generate minutes
21:04:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/04/30-ws-addr-minutes.html bob
21:05:17 <bob> rrsagent, make logs public
21:05:28 <bob> rrsagent, please generate minutes
21:05:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/04/30-ws-addr-minutes.html bob
21:06:14 <bob> rrsagent, make logs public
21:06:30 <bob> rrsagent, generate minutes
21:06:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/04/30-ws-addr-minutes.html bob
21:07:32 <Rama> Rama has left #ws-addr
21:09:37 <bob> bob has left #ws-addr
21:25:35 <dhull> dhull has joined #ws-addr
21:56:51 <Zakim> -Mark_Little
22:05:00 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, katy, in WS_AddrWG()4:00PM
22:05:01 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
22:05:03 <Zakim> Attendees were Bob_Freund, David_Illsley, Gilbert_Pilz, Paul_Knight, Anish_Karmarkar, monica, Mark_Little, David_Hull, Tom_Rutt, rama, ram, katy, TonyR, Dave_Orchard