IRC log of ws-addr on 2007-07-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:52:17 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:52:17 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:52:35 [bob]
zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
19:52:35 [Zakim]
ok, bob; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
19:52:58 [bob]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference
19:53:03 [bob]
Chair: Bob Freund
19:53:58 [bob]
19:55:50 [plh]
plh has joined #ws-addr
19:58:25 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
19:59:01 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
19:59:08 [Zakim]
19:59:12 [Zakim]
19:59:16 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p5 is me
19:59:16 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
19:59:56 [Zakim]
20:00:13 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-addr
20:00:29 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
20:00:31 [Zakim]
20:00:39 [mlittle]
mlittle has joined #ws-addr
20:00:51 [Zakim]
20:00:56 [Zakim]
20:01:07 [bob]
zakim, P8 is katy
20:01:07 [Zakim]
sorry, bob, I do not recognize a party named 'P8'
20:01:18 [Zakim]
20:01:21 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
20:01:23 [bob]
zakim, ??P8 is katy
20:01:23 [Zakim]
+katy; got it
20:01:32 [bob]
zakim, Microsoft is ram
20:01:32 [Zakim]
+ram; got it
20:01:45 [Zakim]
20:01:59 [PaulKnight]
PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
20:04:30 [Zakim]
20:04:44 [bob]
zakim, Sun is rama
20:04:44 [Zakim]
+rama; got it
20:04:52 [mlittle]
mlittle has joined #ws-addr
20:05:07 [bob]
scribe: mlittle
20:05:52 [mlittle]
topic: approval of minutes of 18th of June
20:06:06 [mlittle]
chair: no cleanup yet, should be ok?
20:06:26 [mlittle]
chair: any objections to accepting? No objections. Minutes accepted.
20:07:37 [mlittle]
Item: What happened to CR? Philippe
20:07:37 [mlittle]
Item: Test status and re-assignment for consolidated report
20:07:37 [mlittle]
Item: WSDL 2.0 sections and testing
20:07:37 [mlittle]
Item: possibility for transition to pr what and when?
20:07:37 [mlittle]
Item: Consolidated errata against Core and SOAP binding
20:07:40 [mlittle]
Item: Deferred issues Proposal for note on attachment of policy to an endpoint Tom Rutt
20:09:11 [mlittle]
chair: WS-core working group for maintenance. Take whatever pieces we need to provide to that new working group.
20:09:37 [mlittle]
item: What happened to CR?
20:11:02 [mlittle]
philippe: request was rejected because process says that minimal duration should be long enough to allow time for comments. Given we weren't able to publish CR draft after decision, we only allowed 1 week for comments. Not long enough. Were allowed to go to last call and go to 2 weeks comment period. Only removing a section. Then Philippe realised no tests on section on impact on WSDL 2.0.
20:12:09 [mlittle]
philippe: WSDL 2.0 working group tests were against previous versions of WS-A and did not involve on-the-wire testing. Not an implementation. Therefore not sufficient. Since changing this part there needs to be tests. Director was not happy about this fact.
20:12:46 [mlittle]
chair: WSDL sections are modest. Philippe agrees.
20:13:05 [Zakim]
20:13:08 [mlittle]
Anish: 2.1 and 2.2 tests?
20:13:47 [Ram]
20:13:54 [mlittle]
Katy and rama go through tests around 2.1 and 2.2. There are tests for 2.1 for mandatory and optional (IBM and Sun have done this).
20:13:58 [bob]
ach ram
20:14:05 [mlittle]
Ram: so these tests are unit or interop tests?
20:14:16 [mlittle]
rama: testing EPRs only.
20:14:24 [TRutt__]
TRutt__ has joined #ws-addr
20:14:36 [mlittle]
chair: these tests are documented.
20:15:05 [mlittle]
chair: so we have tests for 2.1 but not for 2.2.
20:15:28 [mlittle]
chair: Are Oracle interested in testing for 2.2?
20:15:46 [mlittle]
Anish: still trying, but timelines are tough at the moment. Will keep trying.
20:16:44 [mlittle]
chair: section 2.1 will make it in the document, but 2.2 is still at risk. We still need a consolidated set of tests. Rama, you need guidance on that? Did Arun work on that in the past?
20:17:09 [mlittle]
rama: yes.
20:17:47 [mlittle]
rama: having trouble duplicating the build environment.
20:18:40 [mlittle]
chair: I believe everything is there. Not sure what the problems are.
20:19:38 [mlittle]
rama: not sure about the original format of the testing. Need help from the original members.
20:19:52 [mlittle]
20:20:16 [mlittle]
chair: let's get all of the original prime parties on a call to get this done. Is that possible in a week's time?
20:20:18 [mlittle]
ram: agrees.
20:20:52 [mlittle]
action: ram to get as much information as he can before the call, or to get the principles from MSFT on the call.
20:21:24 [mlittle]
Item: WSDL 2.0 sections and testing
20:21:34 [mlittle]
chair: can we get testing through IBM in a couple of weeks time?
20:21:41 [mlittle]
katy: yes, for the 20th of July.
20:22:22 [mlittle]
katy: don't we need another implementation.
20:22:41 [mlittle]
chair: yes, but we don't have that. One implementation is better than none.
20:23:02 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
20:23:20 [Rama]
Rama has joined #ws-addr
20:23:26 [Zakim]
20:24:05 [mlittle]
chair: yes, anish is correct, i.e., go straight to PR from LC.
20:24:21 [mlittle]
chair: call next week around testing only. All principles should attend where possible.
20:24:33 [mlittle]
tomr: does this mean everyone needs to attend?
20:24:45 [mlittle]
chair: no, only the principles need to attend.
20:25:35 [mlittle]
chair: if we can get those things completed by the end of the month then we should aim to get this out asap after that.
20:26:24 [mlittle]
chair: end of July target for release.
20:26:36 [mlittle]
item: Consolidated errata against Core and SOAP binding
20:27:26 [mlittle]
chair: recorded actions of two minor errata. Plus removal of misleading text around anonymous addresses. When do we consolidate and publish an edited specification. Is there anyone who believes errata is urgent?
20:27:30 [Ram]
20:28:21 [mlittle]
chair: will prepare material for transition to some maintenance group for work rather than address within this group. Just double check: no urgency?
20:28:22 [mlittle]
20:28:30 [mlittle]
everyone agrees.
20:28:40 [bob]
ack ram
20:29:21 [mlittle]
existing work should be covered by IPR, right?
20:30:45 [mlittle]
chair: does the working group agree that pending successful conclusion of wsdl 2.0 tests that we can then go to PR?
20:30:46 [mlittle]
20:31:17 [mlittle]
chair: any opposition 20th of July making transition request to PR?
20:31:30 [mlittle]
chair: hearing no opposition, we resolve to do that.
20:31:59 [mlittle]
resolution: group will make a transition request to PR after 20th of July if wsdl 2.0 testing completes successfully.
20:32:57 [mlittle]
ram: principles for testing should do due diligence to make sure they go into the call prepared.
20:33:00 [mlittle]
chair: agree.
20:33:01 [mlittle]
20:33:21 [mlittle]
Deferred issues Proposal for note on attachment of policy to an endpoint Tom Rutt
20:33:39 [mlittle]
chair: tom, any further thoughts?
20:34:09 [mlittle]
tomr: maybe best way forward would be let this be a matter for W3C. Member submission would stimulate this.
20:34:48 [anish]
20:35:02 [mlittle]
chair: if the issue exists then it may make a member submission more difficult to accept.
20:35:19 [mlittle]
tomr: understood. in that view I would be happy to drop this issue.
20:35:33 [mlittle]
chair: any opposition to dropping issue?
20:36:04 [mlittle]
tomr: dropping this issue would help any member submission around this?
20:36:24 [mlittle]
chair: dropping the issue is more prejudical than the issue existing (for any hypothetical member submission).
20:36:36 [mlittle]
chair: we could declare this issue outside the scope of this working group.
20:36:45 [mlittle]
tomr: can we say that it's against this version of the document?
20:37:01 [mlittle]
anish speak up ;-)
20:37:30 [bob]
ack anish
20:38:38 [mlittle]
anish: hyopthetical question on hyopthetical question. Let's assume we close the issue, the W3C can deal with any member submission in any way it wants. If we close this issue as "not interested at present", then someone can reopen the issue if new information (member submission) comes along. Right?
20:38:41 [mlittle]
chair: agree.
20:39:44 [mlittle]
chair: hoping that on 23rd of July we can go PR and get the specification to a rec. This working group has then completed its charter. Policy work is really outside the scope of this working group. Further moving on to more policy issues is definitely outside of scope.
20:40:33 [mlittle]
chair: in reality, this issue is out of scope of this working group. W3C could change the charter. But as the charter stands, it's not in scope. We could agree that and close the issue as such. Or we could close it as no action. Either way will allow way to be clear for further actions.
20:41:31 [mlittle]
katy: in this new maintenance group you'd be able to raise issues?
20:41:45 [mlittle]
philippe: no new features, only maintenance. No new IP. bug fixes only.
20:42:23 [mlittle]
philippe: works well in the XML working group.
20:42:41 [anish]
20:42:55 [mlittle]
tomr: WS-Policy working group could deal with this, but they had a close vote 8-to-7 to say no.
20:42:57 [bob]
ack anish
20:43:02 [mlittle]
chair: yes, and maybe that could change.
20:43:17 [Katy]
20:43:25 [bob]
ack katy
20:43:28 [mlittle]
anish: agree to close as no action. Then let's see what happens.
20:43:44 [mlittle]
resolution: close issue with no action.
20:44:05 [mlittle]
chair: AOB?
20:44:31 [mlittle]
tony: put out emails while resolving changes. No feedback.
20:44:33 [mlittle]
20:45:32 [dhull]
+1 to Tony's changes and apologies for not responding
20:45:38 [mlittle]
I +1-ed. Will check, because we (Red Hat) had network issues a week or so ago. Lost emails, but didn't check these ones. Sorry.
20:45:53 [dhull]
Whose servers are you running with? :-)
20:45:54 [Katy]
+1 again - yes - sorry for not replying Tony
20:46:09 [mlittle]
chair: propose that group thanks editors. Tony especially.
20:46:17 [dhull]
+1 (at least!)
20:46:22 [mlittle]
resolution: record that the group thanks Tony and the editors for all their work.
20:46:24 [mlittle]
20:46:41 [dhull]
20:46:44 [dhull]
20:47:15 [mlittle]
chair: hold open 16th to 23rd and 30th of July in case we have a meeting.
20:47:22 [mlittle]
chair: lack of agenda means no meeting.
20:47:54 [mlittle]
chair: will call one meeting to recognise the fact that a PR transition has occurred.
20:47:59 [bob]
ack dhull
20:49:06 [mlittle]
chair: with any luck only one more meeting :-)
20:49:26 [mlittle]
Let's meet in SecondLife ;-)
20:49:43 [Zakim]
20:49:46 [Zakim]
20:49:47 [Zakim]
20:49:52 [Zakim]
20:49:53 [Zakim]
20:49:54 [Zakim]
20:49:55 [Zakim]
20:49:56 [Zakim]
20:49:57 [Zakim]
20:49:58 [bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
20:49:58 [Zakim]
20:49:58 [Rama]
Rama has left #ws-addr
20:50:00 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
20:50:10 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
20:50:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
20:50:16 [Zakim]
20:50:17 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
20:50:18 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bob_Freund, TonyR, Mark_Little, Plh, Anish_Karmarkar, katy, ram, Paul_Knight, rama, Tom_Rutt, David_Hull
20:57:41 [yinleng]
yinleng has joined #ws-addr
20:59:06 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
20:59:13 [Zakim]
20:59:14 [Zakim]
20:59:16 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
20:59:18 [Zakim]
Attendees were
21:00:03 [TRutt__]
TRutt__ has left #ws-addr
21:03:45 [bob]
hi yinleng, we are done
21:06:04 [yinleng]
yinleng has left #ws-addr
21:15:35 [bob]
21:15:49 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutexs
21:15:49 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'generate minutexs', bob. Try /msg RRSAgent help
21:15:59 [bob]
rrsagent, please generate minutes
21:15:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
21:16:45 [bob]
21:16:55 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:16:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
21:17:38 [bob]
22:03:14 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
22:24:10 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
22:24:27 [bob]
s/more preju/less preju
22:26:01 [bob]
s/still at risk./still at risk and will be dropped without two implementations by July 20.
22:26:27 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:26:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
22:29:00 [bob]
s/close issue with no actions/close issue lc137 with no action.
22:29:07 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:29:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
22:29:59 [bob]
s/close issue/close issue lc137
22:30:05 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:30:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
22:31:22 [bob]
s/close issue with no action/close issue lc137 with no action
22:31:39 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:31:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
23:02:30 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr