See also: IRC log
<cferris> revised agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0073.html
Chris doing roll call
Chris: New CR issue we need to review now.
... need scribe for next meetings. Looking for Vol.
<cferris> scribe for 6/27 Charlton
Charlton: I'll Volunteer for next week.
<fsasaki> scribeNick: whenry
Chris: Need for July 7th
<cferris> scribe for 7/11 is Mark Little
Chris: goes down the list for "Volunteers"
Mark: I'll do 7th July
<cferris> RESOLUTION: minutes from 6/13 approved
Chris: Minutes approved
<Fabian> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0073.html
Chris: Please make registration immediately
... for future F2F in Dublin
... Have list if issues for review.
... Reviews schedule. No questions.
??: Editors status review
Chris: Review before F2F. Don't want to do this again at F2F
<fsasaki> editors +1!
Chirs: Thanks editors.
Paul: Wants all the current editors as editors
for next WG.
... Very Thankful.
<toufic> you'll have to catch them first, paul :)
<paulc> YES!
<toufic> +1 to dave
<toufic> great concept
<toufic> we should start a WG
Paul: Getting ready to kill off some action items.
Chris: 304 306 for next week
... 312 is done.
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0054.html
Chris: 314 for Asir. Is this done?
Asir: Sent email to WG saying it is done.
... Let me get you the thread.
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0056.html
Chris: Found it.
... 314 is done.
... 315 is done. Maryann with lots of followup from others.
<paulc> IBM results: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0064.html
Chris: 316 for Asir and WG. Done.
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0052.html
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0069.html
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0070.html
Chris: 317 for Maryann - guideline issues. Done
<cferris> Issue 4654:
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0055.html
<cferris> Issue 4660:
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0057.html
<cferris> Issue 4662:
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0058.html
<cferris> Issue 4663:
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0059.html
<cferris> Issue 4664:
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0060.html
<cferris> Issue 4661:
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0061.html
Chris: 318, Maryann to do this.
... 318, Maryann to do this.
Maryann: unable to do this on time (318)
... Next week. Asks Dave if he has anything else to add.
Dave: Nothing.
Paul: Thanks people for keeping it open.
... confirms open items.
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy-interop/2007Jun/att-0011/interop.zip
Chris: Asir found some minor issues with test cases proposed. Others have fixed the tests.
<cferris> ibm results: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0064.html
Chris: IBM has posted results of testing. Msg #
64
... Note from Asir
Asir: Confirms tests look good.
Chris: requests others to confirm tests.
... Anyone able to get this done in next couple of weeks?
(silence)
Chris: no answers.
Charlton: regrets needs to leave.
Chris: That's it for CR interop tests.
Chris: We can drop this from future agendas.
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4672
Chris: IBM found an issue. Problem with one of
the examples has an XML syntax error.
... reviews the problem
... Indicates Asir confirmed typo in email
... Proposal to fix this.
<cferris> (04) <sp:SignedParts/>
<cferris> (05) <sp:Body/>
<cferris> (06) </sp:SignedParts/>
<cferris> (04) <sp:SignedParts>
<cferris> (05) <sp:Body/>
<cferris> (06) </sp:SignedParts>
Chris: Any objectsion to the change?
<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 4762 closed with proposed changes
Paul: right action item is to ask editors to make sure the changes are made in Master version
Felix: Make change directly
<cferris> ACTION: editors to update staged and master versions of framework PR draft with resolution to issue 4672 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/20-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-319 - Update staged and master versions of framework PR draft with resolution to issue 4672 [on Editors - due 2007-06-27].
Good job. Making my job easy!
Chris: confirms list of CR issues is empty
... Notes a thread that Sergey started regarding ginorable and optional
Paul: Sergey is not on the call.
Chris: is confirming that Sergey does not want to open a bug.
<Fabian> quoting from his email: If yes then perhaps some primer/framework text can be updated in this version of the spec or in the v.next
<cferris> ACTION: Chris to follow-up with Sergey regarding his note: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0047.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/20-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-320 - Follow-up with Sergey regarding his note: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0047.html [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-06-27].
Chris: Takes an action to make sure there is no issue
Paul: Confirms this is the right thing to do.
Chris: 4376 issue. Asks Paul about candidate req
Confusion over the dates.
Discussion on dates continues.
Chris: no other issues, right?
Paul: that's correct.
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4566
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0054.html
Chris: Item 4566
Toufic: Discusses the issue
... Thought the text was misleading
Dave: Echoes Toufic's concern. Looked at it 3 times. But each read was different.
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4566
Dave: Need something some clarity around those that are manifested on wire vs does that are not manifested on wire.
Toufic: Has a proposal.
Asir: waits to see proposal on IRC
Toufic: Reshuffling of wording might be better.
<maryann> +1
whenry: requests to paste proposal on IRC.
<monica> +1
<monica> thereabouts....
<cferris> For behaviors that manifest themselves on the wire, assertion authors should define assertions so that they can be relevant to compatibility tests
Toufic: retypes proposal. (And we can all confirm he is typing it;-)
<toufic> for behaviours that manifest on the wire, assertion authors should define assertions that are relevant for compatibility tests
<maryann> +1
Toufic: Wants to confirm with everyone that this is good.
<abbie> +1
<monica> +1 too
<Fabian> +1
<cferris> proposal: 04 01For behaviors that manifest themselves on the wire, assertion authors should define assertions that are relevant for compatibility tests
Toufic: Is everyone okay with this? If so I'll make the change.
<cgi-irc> Symon Chang 415-402-aabb
Dan: The phrasing reads a little odd to me
now.
... If you have a behavior that someone cares about. Should have assertion
for compatibility tests. Clause reads incorrectly now.
<dorchard> For behaviours that are relevent to compatibility tests, assertions authors should define assertions for those behaviours.
<cferris> For behaviors that are relevant for compatibility tests, such as behaviors that manifest themselves on the wire, assertion authors should define assertions for those behaviors
Dave: Requests clarification of Dan's issue on compatibily tests
Toufic: This is not saying much as far as I'm concerned.
<cferris> Assertion authors should define assertions for behaviors that are relevant to compatibility tests, such as behaviors that manifest themselves on the wire
Chris: typing what I'm hearing so we can all see it.
Toufic: What is the intend of this best
practice?
... Is it to tell authors that when writing assertions about behaviours on
the wire then write them in mind of compatibility checks
Chris: Tries to clarify Toufic's point.
... Reiterates Toufic's points
Toufic: That is correct Chris
Chris: Do we want to have two to make it
clear?
... Those for maifestation on the wire and one for those that do not maifest
on the wire?
Maryann: consider that
... might be better.
Dan: Question: when should you define an assertion?
<FrederickHirsch> +1 to chris
Dan: When defining a protocol on the wire then you should define an assertion.
<asir> there are a couple of best practices for ignorable
Dan: the intent was not to say that if not doing wire manifestation or compatibilty that you should not use assertions.
Toufic: grammer made it look like this was not the case.
<asir> G2 is a best practice .. not a priniciple or a requirement
<cferris> 04 01Assertion authors should define assertions for behaviors that are relevant to compatibility tests, such as behaviors that manifest themselves on the wire or such things as a privacy policy
<monica> c/such things/others such
Maryann: wants to respond to Dan
... Only one other instance in Guidelines with use of compatibility
... I think that the concern is that we're not using terminology
consistently.
... Might want to group best practices.
... Might want to group best practices.
Toufic: Thinking about this a lot lately. Maybe I should get on the phone with those that are unhappy.
<monica> put to public list
Chris: Tries one more stab at it. If it doesn't work then it's back to email.
<cferris> Assertion authors should limit definition of assertions to those that are relevant to compatibility assessment (see Framework section 4.5) such as for behaviors that manifest themselves on the wire, or for non-manifested behavior such as a privacy policy
<prasad> so what is left?
Chris: Does this capture?
Monica: remove non-manifested
Dave: Exactly what I didn't like
Monica: "or for other behavior such as privacy policy"
Chris: Trying to capture.
Toufic: Tries to explain Dan's position. Not
trying to limit.
... Dan's says it's a good idea to make a assertion for wire manifestation
Chris: If we're to make progress then we'll have to have discussion between the calls on the mailing list.
<FrederickHirsch> disagree with this rephrasing - assertions not only limited to compatibility, but should be stated where it is relevant to compatibility
zakin, unmute me
zamkin, mute me
<cferris> ACTION: Toufic to initiate email thread on issue 4672... wg members to weigh in via email before next week's call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/20-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-321 - Initiate email thread on issue 4672... wg members to weigh in via email before next week\'s call [on Toufic Boubez - due 2007-06-27].
<asir> +1 to what Prasad is going to say
Frederick: concerned about changing the meaning
<Zakim> prasad, you wanted to revisit issue 4672 for example 1-1
Prasad: example 1.1. has the same problem. want
to make sure people are aware of it.
... same syntatic error.
Chris: good catch.
... added it to the resolution
<cferris> RESOLUTION: revise previous resolution for issue 4672 to address similar error in example in section 1.1
Chris: now on Bug 3978
... Reviews issues and status. Maryann had lots of actions and all done.
MAryann: tried to split out all the different
sections. All proposed changes into one document.
... Separate proposals.
... two proposals to consider.
<abbie> sorry guys
There was a bridge issue where another call was dropping in on our bridge.
Chris: asks Maryann to go through each one.
Paul: Require higher level plan.
Maryann: Trying create a diff. A version that
people could see the restructure.
... including a table
... DaveO wants to make additional proposal
... If we could discuss then progress could be made while I'm out.
Chris: On editors call you'll disucss what
could be done before F2F
... Paul I agree that we need another plan.
Chris reviews Maryann's shedule
Chris: Take the time to walk us through each of
the issues.
... Then we can have Editors report back next week on what they can get
done.
Maryann: That's fine.
... 317: there is alist of 6 bugs
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4654
Maryann: 4654 - policy attachments has 4 parts.
<toufic> sorry, i have to drop off the call
Maryann: reviews the 4 parts.
Chris: Any questions?
Asir: I see best practices. Sounds like a bumper sticker. What exactly is the best practice? And who should be following?
Marryann: Don't understand.
Asir: don't see the best practice yet.
Maryann: This would need to have a statement.
Asir: Do you plan to have a target audience for the best practices.
Maryann: not aware we were targeting. maybe I'm missing something
<FrederickHirsch> is it - assertion authors should not assume attachment points impact meaning of assertion
Asir: maybe I'm missing something
... Sounds like you are talking to policy attachment authors
Maryann: Don't think we were ever targeting policy attachment authors
<FrederickHirsch2> is idea to say - assertion authors should not assume attachment point impacts meaning of assertion
<FrederickHirsch2> not quite sure though of meaning of context free
Asir: Only have a bumber sticker. I'll follow up whne we have a Best Practice
<monica> By default, context is part of policies (which may be confusing with the best practice as written). This should be specific to the attachment mechanism being independent of the policy alternative. +1 to Frederick
Monica: I think that best practices title is
very confusing.
... When we see the best practice it will be more clear.
<asir> am also confused because we have another best practice - The semantics of a policy assertion should not depend on the attachment mechanism used.
Paul: Bumper sticker. Word context doesn't
appear in the text.
... when described part two: you said it was text from orig. document ?
Maryann: Text got removed from guidelines material
Paul: Now I understand.
... How should we dispose of this item.
Maryann: another proposal that if friendly ammendements we can do another round and then put into the docs.
Paul: at least people said they want to see what the best practice is.
Maryann: I can float something today on the list.
<monica> +1
<monica> my email is: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0069.html
Paul: I recommend to assign you an action or go back to this thread and get more text
<prasad> I have a general comment on reorganizing the section
<cferris> ACTION: Maryann to initiate email thread elaborating on best practice related to issue http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4654 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/20-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-322 - Initiate email thread elaborating on best practice related to issue http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4654 [on Maryann Hondo - due 2007-06-27].
rssagent, where am I?
<asir> I think Prasad is referring to issue 3978
Prasad: Who is this addressed to?
<asir> +1 to Prasad's point .. the proposed text is talking to attachment authors instead of assertion authors
Prosad: It is confusing due to "attachment mechanism" phrase
s/PRosad/Prasad/
Prasad: It's for an assertion author and not attachment author.
Maryann: Felt this was a section that was not giving enough guidance.
Prasad: I understand but the text is confusing.
Maryann: I understand and I was hoping the WG could help me.
Prasad: I understand but the text is
confusing.
... I understand but the text is confusing.
Chris: reviews queue
Monica: On the email I sent I had two other
comments.
... I'll work them with Maryann.
... Main one is regarding prefered attachment mechanism. How did this get
into the guidelines document?
Maryann: Does anyone recall where this one came
in?
... explains some history of where item came in.
... A merge occured. This caused me to review the document.
Monica: I don't think we talk about preferences
in either document.
... How can we determine the best practices based on what we have.
<asir> based on authoring experience
Chris & Asir: Confused.
<asir> infer from existing policy assertions doc
Chris: Can we move on?
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4660
Maryann: 4660
... Make bumper stickers be statements.
... and group them. Restructure the text to make them appear in a certain
order.
... Or make another table that would logically group a set of assertions.
... discusses an example.
... Try to have pointers or links that would logically group.
... Tried to rephrase
Asir: Looking at reorganized table. At F2F we
decided to drop. Your proposal will depend on latest version.
... Another table in appendix would help. instead of reworking.
Maryann: Right. That's why I had two proposals
Asir: Some ofth ebumper stickers changed at Ottowa F2F
Maryann: Right. That's what I was trying to indicate.
<prasad> +1 to option B (additional table)
Paul: What are we going to do? Is Maryann going to rework ?
Maryann: I could apply to the next stable version.
<dorchard> darn. The editors specifically said that we'd do all edits by monday and give maryann the lock to do these bugs.
<cferris> ACTION: Maryann to update issue 4660 using stable version as baseline in 2 weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/20-ws-policy-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-323 - Update issue 4660 using stable version as baseline in 2 weeks [on Maryann Hondo - due 2007-06-27].
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4661
Maryann: 4661 related to action item 305
... Looked at text from XML outline
... Trying to reorganize 532
... XML Outline and schema document. Tried to propose to make more generic
with optional or ignORable with e.g.
Maryann
Maryann: Using RM example as the example. Just to reorganize best practices so that attributes are used.
Chris: questions anyone?
... related to email that Sergey had sent.
... Sergey suggested more clarity regarding optional or ignorable.
Maryann: Yes or it might be the next item. Hope Sergey can add clarification.
Asir: For this 4662 I had some comments. Will follow-up.
Maryann
<cferris> ACTION: Asir to follow-up on 4662 to relate msft comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/20-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-324 - Follow-up on 4662 to relate msft comments [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2007-06-27].
Maryann: if you have a specific proposal that
would be great.
... 4663 - Section 8. Another bug on the list that Asir owns (?) or a
question on the nature of section 8
Pebbles: Woof woof woof I agree
Asir: 4663 - the proposal seems to be a copy of section 3
Maryann: Proposal to include some text and make it a reference.
Monica: Minor editoral changes. It was included in email earlier.
<monica> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0069.html
Chris: Maryann can you take an action?
Maryann: Yes when I come back
<cferris> ACTION: Maryann to revise proposal for 4663 based on feedback from Monica and discussion on today's call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/20-ws-policy-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-325 - Revise proposal for 4663 based on feedback from Monica and discussion on today\'s call [on Maryann Hondo - due 2007-06-27].
Maryann: send me mail with any other comments.
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4664
Maryann: 4664 - has to do with the nesting.
... some mail from Monica on this.
Asir: We sent two comments to the list (1 and
2)
... Action 316
<asir> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0052.html (items 1 and 2
Asir: #2 first - don't use the word vocabulary
Maryann: Monica do you have a comment?
Asir: #1, I prosposed to replace that.
Chris: Running out of time at this point. Suggest we take to email
Maryann: Good. We can do this
Asir: enough info in my email to update proposal
Chirs: out of time. thanks everyone for dialing in.
Paul: We're going to take this to email.
... Next week - PR issues.
... next week shorter meeting.
\quit