19:44:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:44:49 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/06/18-ws-addr-irc
19:45:11 <bob> rrsagent, make logs public
19:45:49 <bob> meeting: WS-Addressing WG Teleconference
19:46:02 <bob> chair: Bob Freund
19:46:02 <monica> monica has joined #ws-addr
19:47:06 <bob> agenda:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Jun/0012.html
19:49:16 <David_Illsley> David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
19:54:31 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
19:54:39 <Zakim> + +329233aaaa
19:54:50 <bob> zakim, aaaa is bob
19:54:50 <Zakim> +bob; got it
19:58:14 <Zakim> +David_Illsley
19:58:22 <Zakim> +m2
19:59:28 <bob> zakim, m2 is monica
19:59:28 <Zakim> +monica; got it
19:59:55 <plh> plh has joined #ws-addr
20:00:05 <Zakim> +Plh
20:00:46 <Zakim> +David_Hull
20:01:55 <TonyR> TonyR has joined #ws-addr
20:02:00 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:02:14 <bob> zakim, Microsofr is ram
20:02:14 <Zakim> sorry, bob, I do not recognize a party named 'Microsofr'
20:02:20 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
20:02:35 <Zakim> +Mark_Little
20:02:48 <Rama> Rama has joined #ws-addr
20:02:53 <bob> zakim, Microsoft is ram
20:02:53 <Zakim> +ram; got it
20:03:18 <Zakim> +??P0
20:03:28 <TonyR> zakim, ??p0 is me
20:03:28 <Zakim> +TonyR; got it
20:03:29 <Zakim> +[Sun]
20:03:50 <TRutt__> TRutt__ has joined #ws-addr
20:03:50 <bob> zakim, Sun is rama
20:03:50 <Zakim> +rama; got it
20:03:56 <Ram> Ram has joined #ws-addr
20:05:00 <Zakim> +JeffM
20:05:41 <bob> zakim, JeffM is jeffm
20:05:41 <Zakim> +jeffm; got it
20:05:43 <Zakim> -David_Hull
20:05:57 <bob> zakim, who is here?
20:05:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see bob, David_Illsley, monica, Plh, ram, Tom_Rutt, Mark_Little, TonyR, rama, jeffm
20:05:59 <Zakim> On IRC I see Ram, TRutt__, Rama, TonyR, plh, David_Illsley, monica, RRSAgent, bob, Zakim
20:07:13 <plh> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Jun/0012.html
20:08:15 <bob> scribe: Tom Rutt
20:08:20 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
20:08:25 <bob> scribenick: Trutt__
20:08:46 <bob> zakim: IPcaller is katy
20:08:58 <bob> zakim, IPcaller is katy
20:08:58 <Zakim> +katy; got it
20:09:20 <plh> rrsagent, where am I?
20:09:20 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2007/06/18-ws-addr-irc#T20-09-20
20:09:22 <TRutt__> Topic: review of agenda
20:09:34 <TRutt__> Bob issued refised agenda.  No objections
20:09:44 <Zakim> +Anish_Karmarkar
20:09:46 <TRutt__> Topic: 4 June minutes approval
20:10:01 <Katy> Katy has joined #ws-addr
20:10:43 <TRutt__> Agreed to move Cindy McMally discussion earlier
20:10:53 <TRutt__> No objection to accept June 4 minutes
20:11:01 <TRutt__> Resolution: June 4 minutes accepted.
20:11:19 <jeffm> jeffm has joined #ws-addr
20:11:40 <monica> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2007Jun/0002.html
20:11:42 <TRutt__> Topic: Monica New issue
20:12:04 <monica> change from: In order to indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, an additional policy alternative should be provided which does not contain this assertion. This may be done in WS-Policy compact form by adding the attribute |wsp:Optional="true"| to the |wsam:Addressing| assertion.
20:12:13 <monica> change to: The optional assertion mechanism wsp:Optional, the compact authoring style defined by WS-Policy Framework, is used to specify that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use for the |wsam:Addressing| assertion (See WS-Policy Framework v1.5 [link]).
20:12:39 <bob> q?
20:12:43 <anish> anish has joined #ws-addr
20:13:08 <Zakim> +Paul_Knight
20:13:36 <TRutt__> Philipe: the existing text is preferable.
20:13:38 <PaulKnight> PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
20:14:07 <David_Illsley> q+
20:14:25 <TRutt__> q+
20:14:51 <bob> ack david
20:15:02 <TRutt__> Dave I: can we keep the first sentence, then add the ref to optional in second sentence
20:15:31 <bob> ack tru
20:15:41 <TRutt__> Monica: I think that is good suggestion
20:16:21 <TRutt__> Tom: I agree with Dave I, we need a sentence that states that an alternative without can be provided, and that optional is one way to do this.
20:16:30 <TRutt__> Agreed to table final resolution
20:16:37 <TRutt__> Topic: Cindy Mcnally new issue
20:16:52 <TRutt__> Cindy McNally (cr41, lc141) http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/Overview.html#lc141 
20:16:59 <plh> zakim, mute mark
20:16:59 <Zakim> Mark_Little should now be muted
20:17:06 <bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2007Jun/0006.html
20:17:50 <plh>  http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/Overview.html#cr41
20:17:58 <plh>  http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/Overview.html#lc141
20:18:14 <David_Illsley> q+
20:18:33 <bob> ack david
20:18:34 <plh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2007Jun/att-0006/response.html
20:18:37 <TRutt__> Bob F: if we do not give acceptable disposition, this will turn up as a new formal objection
20:19:11 <anish> q+
20:19:23 <TRutt__> DAvid I: we have no tests for that
20:19:36 <bob> q?
20:19:41 <bob> ack anish
20:20:08 <TRutt__> Anish: If we make changes aloing lines of her suggestion do we have to go back to last call? what are delays?
20:21:41 <TRutt__> Philipe: I do not think the namespace will change.  We are touching mapping behaviour.  If we agree to make change, we should ask WSDL WG would be happy with change. If cindy is happy we can suggest progression.
20:21:50 <anish> q+
20:22:12 <bob> ack anish
20:22:28 <TRutt__> Tony R: I do not think this is a major change
20:23:05 <TRutt__> Anish: If we would have recieved this earlier, we might have accepted it.   
20:23:33 <TRutt__> Philipe: the original request was in December.
20:24:11 <TRutt__> Anish: the rationale and suggested resolution look good, and this is only for wsdl 2.0.  Impact will be quite low.
20:24:42 <TRutt__> Anish: If no delay we should accept
20:25:03 <TRutt__> Bob F: no negative, unless it impacts schedule.
20:25:32 <TRutt__> Philipe: I do not expect problems from wsdl working group.
20:25:37 <Ram> q+
20:25:49 <bob> ack ram
20:25:56 <TRutt__> Bob F: I propose we tell her we accept her resolution, subject to wsdl working group.
20:26:13 <TRutt__> Ram: this does not affect wsdl 1.1/
20:26:14 <David_Illsley> q+
20:26:19 <bob> ack david
20:26:20 <plh> q+
20:26:22 <TRutt__> Bob F: it only affects fault of wsdl 2
20:27:05 <plh> 4.4.4 Default Action Pattern for WSDL 1.1
20:27:20 <plh> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ws-addr-metadata-20070202/#defactionwsdl11
20:27:57 <TRutt__> Dave I: section 4.4 has a bug. in  Wsdl 1.1 example 
20:28:27 <anish> CR with no formal objection would be a "Good Thing"
20:28:34 <TRutt__> Bob F: can we accept Cindy resolution and also inform wsdl 2.0 group so it will  not affect our timeline
20:28:48 <TRutt__> No objection to proposal
20:29:01 <David_Illsley> [operation name] is the name of the operation (/definition/portType/operation@name).
20:29:04 <TRutt__> RESOLUTION LC141 resolved by proposal from Cindy
20:29:27 <Zakim> +David_Hull
20:29:45 <TRutt__> Philipe: Dave I proposal does not change pattern but it affects description
20:29:56 <TRutt__> LC144 editorial comment to 4.4
20:30:18 <TRutt__> Resolution: Proposal from Dave I to resolve LC144
20:30:38 <TRutt__> Philipe 4.4.2 should be simial to 4.4.4
20:30:50 <TRutt__> s/simial/similar/
20:30:50 <monica> In order to indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, the compact authoring style for an optional policy assertion provided by WS-Policy v1.5 [link], is used. The wsp:Optional attribute, as a syntactic shortcut, can be used with the |wsam:Addressing| assertion. This indicates two policy alternatives – one that contains the policy assertion and another which does not. 
20:31:09 <TRutt__> TOPIC: Monical New issue
20:31:25 <TRutt__> q+
20:31:32 <bob> ack tru
20:33:55 <TRutt__> Tom: I would prefer that we keep the first sentence. then add Monica text
20:34:46 <TRutt__> Tom: Keep the first sentence in the existing text, and change "is" to "may be" in monica first sentence
20:35:36 <monica> In order to indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, an additiona policy alternative should be provided which does not contain this policy assertion. To indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, the compact authoring style for an optional policy assertion provided by WS-Policy v1.5 [link], may be used. The wsp:Optional attribute, as a syntactic short, can be used with the |wsam:Addres
20:35:49 <bob> ack plh
20:36:00 <monica> c/additiona/additional
20:36:04 <TRutt__> +1 to Monical proposal
20:36:41 <David_Illsley> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuitewsdl/testcases/
20:38:11 <Zakim> -Mark_Little
20:38:32 <TRutt__> No objection to accept Monica proposal to resolve LC133
20:38:49 <bob> s/133/143
20:38:56 <TRutt__> RESOLTION: LC143 resolved by Monica proposal above
20:39:54 <anish> q+
20:39:55 <TRutt__> Bob F: 2.1 and 2.2 are marked at risc.  We have test plan for 2..1 but none for 2.2,  
20:40:12 <TRutt__> Anish: we do not have to decide now about 2.2.
20:40:36 <TRutt__> Bob F: we know of no plans for 2.2, so it looks clear that 2.2 will not make it.
20:41:51 <TRutt__> TOPIC: Test plans for 2.1
20:42:07 <Zakim> -Anish_Karmarkar
20:42:53 <TRutt__> Dave I:  2.1 does not reqire explicit semantic processing, so all we can test was proff that the processor can accept eprs with this xml.
20:44:23 <TRutt__> Dave I: extacting info form EPR is mandatory test, actual processing to understand can be additional test.  
20:44:52 <Ram> q+
20:44:53 <TRutt__> Bob F: what is state of implemetation of 2.1 processors
20:45:01 <bob> ack anish
20:45:06 <bob> ack ram
20:45:17 <TRutt__> Dave I: we can have 2 interop implementations in proper time.
20:46:43 <David_Illsley> q+
20:46:53 <TRutt__> Bob F: how to present aggregate results of test plans  etc.
20:47:21 <TRutt__> Dave I: I do not have tome to do this now
20:48:34 <TRutt__> Bob: can someone consolidate the earlier test results with the newer results, archiving all tests for test suite for wsmd doc, as done for core and binding specs.
20:48:47 <TRutt__> Rama: I can help to do this.
20:49:49 <TRutt__> Bob F: we need this before next call,
20:49:54 <TRutt__> Rama: not likely
20:50:40 <TRutt__> Dave I: we have time after next monday for completion od 2.1 testing, so next week is not acceptable.
20:50:53 <TRutt__> Bob F: two weeks from today is more appropriate.
20:51:08 <TRutt__> Bob F: July 2 is the target.
20:51:32 <TRutt__> Bob F: is June 29 acceptable.
20:51:34 <TRutt__> Rama: yes
20:52:13 <David_Illsley> Rama: I'm happy to consult on what was done previously, I just don't have the time to do the collation at the moment
20:52:26 <TRutt__> Tom: can be not have a meeting next week.
20:52:34 <Rama> that would be helpful
20:53:11 <TRutt__> Bob F: asuming no new news on 2.2, we will not have a meeting next week.  Only if we have something by thurs of this week, will we schedule meeting for next week.
20:54:06 <TRutt__> Philipe: we can incorporate new text from Cindy directly into a PR>
20:54:39 <TRutt__> Bob F: Do we agree that July 2 is deadline for removal of at risk text?
20:54:55 <TRutt__> Jeff M: we should evaluate when time comes.
20:56:01 <TRutt__> Bob F: June 29 is the deadline for the implementaton to keep at risk feature.
20:57:14 <TRutt__> Philipe: I see a reason for an additional step as new CR.
20:57:20 <Ram> q+
20:57:55 <TRutt__> Tony: where is monica proposal
20:58:15 <TRutt__> Tony R: I now see where it goes.
20:59:01 <TRutt__> Phillipe: how soon can we have new changes
20:59:04 <TRutt__> Tony: today
20:59:21 <TRutt__> Philipe: is everone acceptable to make that a new CR text?
20:59:33 <Zakim> -bob
20:59:35 <bob> zakim, code?
20:59:35 <Zakim> the conference code is 2337 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), bob
21:00:21 <bob> Are there any objectiond to plh's proposal?
21:01:11 <TRutt__> PHilipe: we could send new CR request to director with the new text.  The CR would still end on 29th. On July 2 we decide whether to move to PR.
21:01:33 <bob> that is the proprosal
21:01:42 <TRutt__> Philipe: the draft for PR would be available on July 15.
21:02:03 <bob> code is not valid
21:02:24 <plh> Bob, try * 0 ?
21:02:34 <bob> i am and am holding.
21:02:42 <bob> I will try the ud number
21:03:29 <Zakim> +??P3
21:03:58 <Ram> q+
21:04:24 <bob> ack ram
21:04:39 <TRutt__> Ram: Why do we have to go thru extra CR step?
21:05:12 <TRutt__> Bob F: if we do not go thru CR, and folks to not agree to drop 2.2, we would have less than two implementations.
21:06:25 <TRutt__> Ram: we can still have CR results on July 2?
21:06:39 <TRutt__> Bob F: yes we could still ask for PR on July 2.
21:08:04 <TRutt__> Agreed to produce CR by 21st.
21:08:06 <Zakim> -jeffm
21:08:13 <TRutt__> Next Call July 2.
21:08:13 <Zakim> -monica
21:08:15 <Zakim> -ram
21:08:18 <TRutt__> Meeting adjourned
21:08:20 <Zakim> -Plh
21:08:21 <Zakim> -??P3
21:08:22 <TRutt__> TRutt__ has left #ws-addr
21:08:22 <Zakim> -Paul_Knight
21:08:22 <Zakim> -David_Illsley
21:08:24 <Zakim> -David_Hull
21:08:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/06/18-ws-addr-minutes.html plh
21:08:27 <Zakim> -rama
21:08:29 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
21:08:29 <Zakim> -TonyR
21:08:30 <bob> tom, thanks for scribing
21:08:37 <bob> zakim, who was here?
21:08:37 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, bob.
21:08:42 <Zakim> -katy
21:08:44 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
21:08:46 <Zakim> Attendees were +329233aaaa, bob, David_Illsley, monica, Plh, David_Hull, Tom_Rutt, Mark_Little, ram, TonyR, rama, jeffm, katy, Anish_Karmarkar, Paul_Knight
21:08:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/06/18-ws-addr-minutes.html plh
21:08:57 <bob> thanks plh
21:09:34 <bob> thanks tony
21:11:25 <TonyR> TonyR has left #ws-addr
21:26:22 <Rama> Rama has left #ws-addr
22:11:24 <bob> bob has left #ws-addr