IRC log of ws-addr on 2007-04-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:56:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:56:24 [RRSAgent]
logging to
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]
19:59:20 [bob]
meeting: WS-Addressing WG Teleconference
19:59:28 [bob]
chair: Bob Freund
19:59:39 [Zakim]
19:59:55 [Zakim]
20:00:52 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
20:01:01 [Zakim]
20:01:05 [Zakim]
20:01:09 [Zakim]
20:01:12 [Rama]
Rama has joined #ws-addr
20:01:21 [Zakim]
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]
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]
20:01:59 [Zakim]
20:02:18 [Zakim]
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]
20:02:26 [Zakim]
20:02:31 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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__]
20:13:18 [dorchard]
20:13:20 [bob]
ack tru
20:13:27 [dorchard]
20:14:18 [Katy]
20:14:18 [anish]
20:14:40 [Katy]
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]
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__]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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__]
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]
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]
20:37:21 [bob]
ack daveo
20:37:49 [dhull]
20:38:49 [anish]
q+ to ask a question about assertion extensibility and negation to the policy experts
20:38:54 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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__]
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]
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]
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__]
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]
20:55:14 [Ram]
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]
20:56:13 [Katy]
... do we have test scenarios that we can use for testing?
20:56:40 [Ram]
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]
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]
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]
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]
21:03:57 [Zakim]
21:03:59 [Zakim]
21:04:00 [Zakim]
21:04:01 [Zakim]
21:04:02 [Zakim]
21:04:03 [Zakim]
21:04:03 [Zakim]
21:04:04 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
21:04:04 [Zakim]
21:04:05 [Zakim]
21:04:07 [Zakim]
21:04:28 [bob]
katy, thanks for scribing
21:04:35 [Katy]
21:04:41 [bob]
rrsagent, please generate minutes
21:04:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate 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 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 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]
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