IRC log of ws-addr on 2007-05-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:45:56 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:45:57 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:46:10 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-addr
19:46:37 [bob]
zakim, this will be #ws_addrwg
19:46:37 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, bob
19:46:47 [bob]
zakim, this will be addr
19:46:47 [Zakim]
ok, bob; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
19:47:59 [bob]
meeting: WS-Addressing WG Teleconference
19:48:08 [bob]
chair: Bob Freund
19:55:57 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
19:57:12 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
19:57:19 [Zakim]
19:57:37 [Zakim]
19:57:44 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-addr
19:57:50 [TRutt__]
TRutt__ has joined #ws-addr
19:58:28 [bob]
19:59:22 [bob]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Ram
19:59:22 [Zakim]
+Ram; got it
19:59:27 [plh]
plh has joined #ws-addr
19:59:33 [Zakim]
19:59:37 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
19:59:42 [Zakim]
20:00:06 [Zakim]
20:00:17 [Zakim]
20:00:28 [Zakim]
20:00:38 [Zakim]
20:01:22 [Rama]
Rama has joined #ws-addr
20:01:29 [Zakim]
20:01:46 [PaulKnight]
PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
20:02:08 [Zakim]
20:02:19 [Zakim]
20:02:29 [bob]
zakim, [Sun] is rama
20:02:29 [Zakim]
+rama; got it
20:02:41 [Zakim]
20:02:55 [bob]
zakim, [ibm] is paco
20:02:55 [Zakim]
+paco; got it
20:02:59 [Zakim]
20:03:07 [Zakim]
20:03:35 [Zakim]
20:03:39 [Zakim]
20:03:42 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:03:49 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
20:03:55 [bob]
zakim, [ipcaller] is katy
20:03:55 [Zakim]
+katy; got it
20:04:16 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
20:04:57 [bob]
scribenick: dhull
20:05:03 [bob]
scribe: David Hull
20:06:05 [dhull]
chair: Today's meeting will take non-zero time
20:06:16 [yinleng]
yinleng has joined #ws-addr
20:06:49 [TRutt__]
TRutt__ has joined #ws-addr
20:07:12 [Zakim]
+ +1.613.591.aaaa
20:07:14 [dhull]
chair: Previous minutes accepted without objection
20:07:31 [bob]
zakim, aaaa is yinling
20:07:31 [Zakim]
+yinling; got it
20:07:57 [dhull]
s/Previous/23 April/
20:08:09 [dhull]
chair: New issues --
20:09:11 [dhull]
chair: 1) Need for new namespace; we had held namespaces steady from CR to end. In this case we bounced from LC to WD, so new document should get new namespace.
20:09:43 [dhull]
chair: Philipped suggested new namespace on CR. Is it necessary to change on LC/CR transition if there is no substantive change?
20:10:52 [dhull]
Philippe: We have control over our namespace. No need to change. Should hold steady until CR. Last time we changed a lot until CR.
20:11:08 [dhull]
Chair: Any objection to using dated namespace of next LC for this document?
20:11:12 [Ram]
20:11:22 [anish]
20:11:26 [dhull]
Rama: Suggest short form (in IRC)
20:11:45 [dhull]
chair: requires director review
20:11:53 [dhull]
philippe: easily done
20:12:38 [dhull]
Anish: Chances of change after CR much lower. Would rather not assign this (permanent) NS to a WD. If we assign it now and there are changes, then we have to change the NS to something new.
20:12:41 [plh]
20:12:50 [bob]
ack anish
20:12:54 [dhull]
permanent NS should at least have a version
20:13:00 [bob]
ack plh
20:13:01 [Zakim]
20:13:24 [Zakim]
20:13:26 [dhull]
Philippe: Now is our chance to use the short form (as WSDL and others?)
20:13:47 [dhull]
Anish: Did they do that at CR? Having a stable NS is a good goal. Wary of doing it now.
20:13:51 [David_Illsley]
zakim, ??P9 is me
20:13:51 [Zakim]
+David_Illsley; got it
20:13:59 [Ram]
20:14:02 [dhull]
Plh: So we should adopt short form at CR?
20:14:02 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
20:14:06 [dhull]
Anish: yes
20:14:07 [bob]
ack ram
20:14:28 [dhull]
Ram: Want to freeze NS for interop testing. Stable NS helps that.
20:14:54 [anish]
20:15:03 [dhull]
Chair: (jumping ahead) both IBM and MSFT intend to do WSP interop testing soon.
20:15:04 [bob]
ack anish
20:15:44 [dhull]
Anish: Nice from interop and impl standpoint, but comparing against risk changes will occur. Less risky to change a dated NS to a shorter version.
20:15:54 [Ram]
20:16:38 [dhull]
Anish: Would rather assign such a name at CR. Is this draft LC or CR?
20:16:44 [dhull]
Plh: LC
20:16:44 [TRutt__]
20:17:18 [dhull]
Chair: Team rep -- what are the rules for the short NS? How many degrees of freedom do we have on keeping it throughout doc lifetime?
20:18:50 [dhull]
plh: Don't need director approval for dated NS. Changes automatically. But then have to remember exact date to use right namespace. Who remembers NS for WSA? So director approved /NS with group deciding anything after that. Approval is lightweight now.
20:18:51 [anish]
what happens if the short NS needs to change?
20:19:55 [dhull]
plh: WSP decided to use short version at ns. There's always a risk, even at CR. Here we are doing a new LC so likelihood of change should be small. Companies most concerned are those doing interop anyway.
20:19:55 [bob]
ack ram
20:19:57 [anish]
20:20:10 [bob]
ack tru
20:20:55 [dhull]
TRutt: We kept assertion names. Wasn't that to avoid NS change? Do we need NS change for non-syntactic, semantic changes?
20:20:58 [dhull]
Anish: Yes
20:21:13 [dhull]
TRutt: maybe we should change the names then
20:21:27 [dhull]
chair: Don't want to change names just to change names
20:21:32 [bob]
ack anish
20:21:57 [dhull]
Trutt: Wanted to clarify whether semantic change requires NS change
20:21:59 [dhull]
Plh: yes
20:22:31 [dhull]
Anish: Want to maximize chance short NS survives. LC isn't for interop anyway, that's CR, so that's when we should freeze.
20:22:33 [Ram]
20:23:23 [dhull]
chair: May I ask IBM and MSFT, who will do interop, if new dated NS for next LC draft, and then short NS on CR (if WSP is stable), be acceptable?
20:23:24 [David_Illsley]
20:23:44 [dhull]
Ram: The question is what NS to use for interop. This is why we want to freeze.
20:24:15 [dhull]
Ram: Good chance we're going to CR in three weeks.
20:24:24 [dhull]
Chair: No problem personally with dated NS
20:24:28 [TRutt__]
+1 with anish - keep dated namepace for now
20:24:35 [dhull]
Chair: And there is no shortage of them
20:24:39 [dhull]
+1 with Anish, Tom
20:25:16 [dhull]
Chair: Don't think optics of short NS is important. Fine with picking new dated NS, and even sticking with it if there are no substantive changes. Thoughts?
20:25:38 [dhull]
Ram: That's a fine position, approach. I would prefer shorter NS but other option is fine as well.
20:25:44 [David_Illsley]
20:25:58 [dhull]
Chair: Is it kosher to define a NS alias
20:26:24 [Ram]
20:27:17 [bob]
20:28:01 [bob]
ack ram
20:29:00 [anish]
20:29:14 [Ram]
20:29:14 [Ram]
20:30:21 [Ram]
20:30:36 [bob]
ack ram
20:32:11 [dhull]
RESOLUTION: Effective next publication as LC, we will use a May 2007 namespace and hold it constant absent breaking changes
20:32:27 [plh]
20:33:00 [dhull]
Ram: Useful to add change policy to namespace section? Makes expectations clear to reader.
20:33:09 [dhull]
+1 to making expectations clear in general
20:33:55 [dhull]
Anish: This would go in document you get by dereferencing NS?
20:33:57 [dhull]
Ram: Yes
20:34:28 [Ram]
20:34:49 [dhull]
plh: Skeptical of examples of breaking changes. These are all schema changes. Adding complex types, e.g., would not break
20:35:09 [bob]
ack ram
20:35:19 [dhull]
Chair: Amend proposal to use only text between URI: and "accordingly."
20:35:29 [dhull]
Ram: Just examples, not exhaustive set.
20:35:31 [dhull]
20:35:46 [bob]
ack dhull
20:35:58 [monica]
monica has joined #ws-addr
20:36:03 [anish]
dhull: we might want to tone down 'uri will not change with each subsequent revision'
20:36:18 [dhull]
Chair: would prefer that WG retain control over what is a breaking change
20:37:56 [anish]
dhull: suggestion that we accept the principle and then on the ML work on wordings
20:38:07 [dhull]
Katy: How about remove "arbitrarily"?
20:38:12 [dhull]
Chair: Seconded
20:38:49 [dhull]
plh: Need to change a bit more. Need to make clearer we don't intend to change after CR.
20:39:02 [bob]
URI will not change with each subsequent revision of the corresponding XML Schema documents as the specifications transition through Candidate Recommendation, Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation status. However, should the specifications revert to Working Draft status, and a subsequent revision, published as a CR or PR draft, results in non-backwardly compatible changes from a previously published CR or PR draft of the specification, the namespace URI will
20:39:04 [plh]
s/after CR/from the next LC document/
20:39:12 [Ram]
20:39:59 [bob]
URI will not change arbitrarily with each subsequent revision of the corresponding XML Schema documents as the specifications transition through Candidate Recommendation, Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation status. However, should the specifications revert to Working Draft status, and a subsequent revision, published as a LC, CR or PR draft, results in non-backwardly compatible changes from a previously published LC, CR or PR draft of the specification, the
20:40:11 [dhull]
Why not just strike "with each subsequent revision of the corresponding XML Schema documents", leaving URI will not change as the specifications transition through...
20:40:45 [anish]
dhull: delete stuff about xml schema
20:40:55 [dhull]
Chair: So how about ...
20:42:39 [bob]
URI will not change as the specifications transition through Candidate Recommendation, Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation status. However, should the specifications revert to Working Draft status, and a subsequent revision, published as a LC, CR or PR draft, results in non-backwardly compatible changes from a previously published LC, CR or PR draft of the specification, the namespace URI will be changed accordingly.
20:42:44 [dhull]
Katy: Do we even need this? No one wants to make changes?
20:42:54 [Ram]
20:43:02 [dhull]
Plh: This is for the world at large. Very useful to make guarantees.
20:43:36 [dhull]
RESOLUTION: Text above (modulo grammar) accepted as useful addition to our NS document.
20:44:52 [Rama]
Rama has left #ws-addr
20:44:56 [dhull]
Chair: Ram, have your issues been adequately addressed?
20:44:59 [Ram]
20:45:00 [Rama]
Rama has joined #ws-addr
20:45:02 [dhull]
Ram: Yes, but there is one more
20:45:35 [anish]
20:45:44 [dhull]
Chair: The issue is the referenced version of WSP, now that it is in CR. They have a nice-n-shiny new NS. Shall we update to refer to it?
20:45:53 [dhull]
Chair: No objection
20:46:10 [dhull]
RESOLUTION: Update doc to reference current WS-Policy short namespace
20:46:32 [dhull]
Chair: Any other new issues? Hearing non ...
20:46:38 [dhull]
20:46:40 [Zakim]
20:46:50 [dhull]
Chair: LC36 use cases with Tom and Dave
20:47:00 [TRutt__]
First example shows intersection of two policies, each with two alternatives, one in common.
20:47:00 [TRutt__]
20:47:00 [TRutt__]
20:47:00 [TRutt__]
Addressing non-anon with Jabber
20:47:00 [TRutt__]
Addressing non-anon with http
20:47:01 [TRutt__]
20:47:03 [TRutt__]
20:47:05 [TRutt__]
Addressing non anon with mail
20:47:07 [TRutt__]
Addressing non-anon with Jabber
20:47:09 [TRutt__]
20:47:11 [TRutt__]
Intersection yields
20:47:13 [TRutt__]
20:47:13 [anish]
i have an issue that I have not sent in. but it is an ed. issue and should not block us from making progress
20:47:15 [TRutt__]
Addressing non-anon with Jabber (a)
20:47:17 [TRutt__]
Addressing non-anon with Jabber (b)
20:47:19 [TRutt__]
20:47:59 [dhull]
TRutt: Some discussion of whether these are client and server or something else. Shouldn't matter.
20:48:34 [dhull]
TRutt: Intersection works in this case. Significant that you're pulling in separate parameters (maybe significant)
20:48:49 [anish]
20:48:58 [TRutt__]
Example 2 tries to introduce other response transport options than jabber, http or mail
20:48:58 [TRutt__]
20:48:58 [TRutt__]
20:48:58 [TRutt__]
Addressing non-anon (no restriction)
20:48:58 [TRutt__]
Addressing non-anon with Jabber
20:48:59 [TRutt__]
Addressing non-anon with http
20:49:00 [dhull]
TRutt: Would rather not discuss exactly what is being intersected. Believe intersection algorithm works here.
20:49:01 [TRutt__]
20:49:03 [TRutt__]
20:49:05 [TRutt__]
Addressing non-anon (no restriction)
20:49:07 [TRutt__]
Addressing non-anon with mail
20:49:09 [TRutt__]
Addressing non-anon with Jabber
20:49:11 [TRutt__]
20:49:13 [TRutt__]
Intersection yields:
20:49:15 [TRutt__]
20:49:17 [TRutt__]
Addressing non-anon (no restriction) (c)
20:49:19 [TRutt__]
Addressing non-anon (no restriction) (d)
20:49:21 [TRutt__]
Addresiing non-anon with Jabber (c)
20:49:23 [TRutt__]
Addressing non-anon with Jabber (d)
20:49:25 [TRutt__]
20:50:09 [dhull]
TRutt: Second example addresses optionality. WSP optionality is a bit dangerous, but if you put ever alternative you can deal with in, intersection can handle it.
20:50:52 [dhull]
TRutt: Defined separate namespace wts with two fictitions assertions for this example. Don't actually exist.
20:51:19 [dhull]
Trutt: Second example end up with two jabbers
20:51:56 [dhull]
Trutt: Know from result that HTTP non-anon will work
20:51:58 [dhull]
20:52:04 [anish]
20:52:07 [bob]
ack anish
20:52:14 [bob]
ach dhull
20:52:39 [dhull]
Dhull: How do I know HTTP is OK
20:53:47 [bob]
dhull: You know http works, jabber will work, other things may work
20:54:01 [bob]
20:54:25 [gpilz]
20:54:38 [bob]
dhull: Do you agree that we have lost information?
20:55:03 [bob]
ack dhull
20:56:14 [bob]
dhull: Policy is not suited for making intelligent domain dependent decisions
20:57:05 [bob]
... what the intersection alg. can do is to compare assertions that exist on both sides
20:57:59 [bob]
... All intersection is doing is pulling together two sources of information
20:58:45 [gpilz]
20:59:22 [bob]
... if we can use a better division of labor between policy and addr, that would be preferable.
20:59:43 [bob]
trutt: Dave is reading too much into what policy can do
20:59:53 [bob]
21:00:03 [Ram]
21:00:17 [bob]
.. the example is trivial, but is intended to be illustrative
21:01:10 [Zakim]
21:01:18 [bob]
... all the intersection does is demonstrate agreement between parties even though other things may work
21:02:03 [TRutt__]
TRutt__ has joined #ws-addr
21:02:45 [bob]
dhull: I think that the policy alg. does fine, I think that what it does is compare two sets of assertions and thats all
21:03:38 [Ram]
21:05:01 [Ram]
21:05:32 [TRutt__]
21:06:56 [bob]
ack ram
21:08:07 [dhull]
21:08:43 [bob]
ram: I think that there is a lot of agreement, and therefore that we can get to closure
21:08:56 [bob]
ack tr
21:09:03 [bob]
ack dh
21:09:58 [anish]
even folks in wsp wg want clarity. clarity is lacking in the ws-p specs
21:11:31 [Ram]
3.1.6 Finding Compatible Policies
21:11:51 [Ram]
When a client is looking for an endpoint with compatible policy, one common method used is to take the policy intersection between the policy which the client is looking for, and the policy asserted in the WSDL document; a non-empty intersection is sought. The policy used by the client must be written carefully to avoid unexpected results. This is most obvious when the client is not looking for explicit support of a particular kind of response; failing to take
21:11:55 [Ram]
21:12:56 [bob]
ack ram
21:13:38 [anish]
21:13:46 [bob]
ack anish
21:16:02 [gpilz]
21:17:53 [bob]
dhull: It is hard to figure what we should to different
21:18:56 [bob]
ack gpil
21:19:26 [Katy]
21:19:55 [TRutt__]
21:20:10 [Katy]
21:21:09 [TRutt__]
21:21:36 [TRutt__]
21:21:45 [dhull]
21:23:00 [dhull]
Chair: Section 4.5 of WSP deals with intersection. Full semantics of assertions domain-defined. Can define totally domain-specific alg. or use default. Which one used is differentiated by QName.
21:23:10 [TRutt__]
21:23:24 [anish]
q+ is domain-specific algorithm pulled in only if there are parameters defined?
21:23:25 [dhull]
Chair: Believe we have used default for purpose of comparing policies.
21:23:41 [bob]
ack tr
21:23:43 [anish]
is domain-specific algorithm pulled in only if there are parameters defined?
21:23:47 [dhull]
TRutt: We have not provided any parameters. IMO don't need domain-specific rules now.
21:24:22 [dhull]
Chair: (Anish) forced to use domain-specific if you have parameters.
21:24:30 [dhull]
TRutt: Even with params can use default
21:24:47 [dhull]
TRutt: Can if you want. We haven't defined params, so don't need domain-specific rules
21:25:03 [dhull]
Anish: So domain specific is pulled in only if params defined?
21:25:45 [dhull]
Monica: THere are other cases w/o parameters. E.g. domain has top-level assertion with empty nested policy expression and you want those to be compatible. By default not compatible.
21:26:00 [Ram]
21:26:10 [bob]
ack ram
21:26:17 [dhull]
Monica: (example needs second policy with non-empty)
21:26:49 [TRutt___]
TRutt___ has joined #ws-addr
21:27:24 [dhull]
Chair: Testing
21:27:56 [Zakim]
21:28:03 [dhull]
Ram: We have reported back on interop scenarios. Have submitted document for review. Hope we have covered all cases we wanted to test. Hope to do testing on this and report progress.
21:28:17 [dhull]
Chair: Have folks had a chance to look? Please review if you can.
21:28:22 [David_Illsley]
phone died... will look for another battery but don't hold out much hope
21:28:38 [dhull]
Ram: Hope interop testing will show whether real implementations can use what we've done.
21:28:56 [dhull]
Chair: Do you believe we have a sound basis for moving ahead with testing?
21:29:35 [dhull]
Ram: Yes, absolutely. Our product teams worked on it quite a bit. We believe this is exactly it and we have covered all the useful cases.
21:30:04 [dhull]
Katy: We totally agree with Ram. We have a good list of cases with good coverage and expect to show good interop.
21:30:51 [dhull]
Chair: From chairs of WSP, participants should send contact info to Abbie Barber (sp?) point-to-point so he can provide a pass to get into event.
21:31:17 [dhull]
Ram: Thanks for pointing this out. We will do so.
21:31:20 [dhull]
Katy: Will do.
21:32:03 [dhull]
Chair: Given that there are no open issues and that the changes we have made have fulfilled WSP issues, no reason to move to LC.
21:32:18 [anish]
is the document that will be taken to LC:
21:32:45 [anish];%20charset=utf-8
21:32:56 [dhull]
Chair: There being no objections, we shall proceed to LC with the version currently pointed to as the editors' draft on our web site.
21:33:56 [dhull]
RESOLUTION: version;%20charset=utf-8 will be LC draft. LC period statutory minimum of 3 weeks.
21:34:44 [dhull]
Chair: Please take close look at interop scenarios for features at risk
21:35:24 [dhull]
Chair: AOB?
21:35:33 [dhull]
Ram: Editors will update NS?
21:35:42 [dhull]
Chair: Yes, along with status section.
21:36:00 [Zakim]
21:36:11 [dhull]
Ram: Need NS for interop
21:36:16 [dhull]
Chair: You know what it will be?
21:36:19 [dhull]
Ram: Yes
21:36:42 [dhull]
Chair: With luck, it will be in the document by tomorrow, subject to Philippe's bandwidth constraings.
21:36:49 [Zakim]
21:36:50 [Zakim]
21:36:51 [dhull]
Chair: AOB?
21:36:53 [Zakim]
21:36:54 [Zakim]
21:36:55 [Zakim]
21:36:56 [yinleng]
yinleng has left #ws-addr
21:36:56 [dhull]
Chair: Adjourned
21:36:56 [Zakim]
21:36:58 [Zakim]
21:37:00 [Zakim]
21:37:03 [Rama]
Rama has left #ws-addr
21:37:04 [Zakim]
21:37:09 [bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
21:37:10 [Zakim]
21:37:19 [Zakim]
21:37:20 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
21:37:21 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bob_Freund, Ram, Plh, David_Illsley, Dave_Hull, Anish_Karmarkar, Paul_Knight, Gilbert_Pilz, rama, paco, Tom_Rutt, katy, +1.613.591.aaaa, yinling, monica
21:37:30 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:37:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
21:54:02 [bob]
i/chair: To/scribe: dhull
21:54:11 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:54:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
21:55:09 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr
22:04:54 [TRutt___]
TRutt___ has left #ws-addr
22:07:24 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
22:08:03 [TonyR]
zakim, who is on the phone?
22:08:03 [Zakim]
apparently WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended, TonyR
22:08:04 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TonyR, Paco, dhull, Ram, Zakim, RRSAgent
22:09:21 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
23:49:52 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr