See also: IRC log
<toufic> hi philippe
<toufic> yes it's me, although i see myself as "toufic" here ...
<scribe> scribe: whenry
Paul: Reviewing list
... Asir will do next week
<cferris> whenry, Paul_Cotton, Plh, Toufic, Tom_Rutt, asir, Chris_Ferris, Prasad, Ashok, DaveO,
Paul: Minutes adopted for Sept
... Anyone got some draft comments prepared or pending?
... Nothing, ok
Paul: Chris please mark complete actions
Philippe: Still have issue (#?) pending
<PaulC> 344, 356 and 357 are all completed.
Phillipee: End of month - October
<PaulC> 333 re IESG link to our Rec should be done by end of Oct.
Paul: skip this item
... Moving to Primer item
... Discusses groupings of several items
... start 5187
Asir: about updating
... concrete proposal made in attachment
Paul: Describes the various updated references in proposal
<cferris> look fine to me
Paul: anyone any itmes to discuss?
Chris: Has a question to Philippe about convention for 7.2
Philippe: Don't think we have a convention
Paul: Which spec?
... What about looking at WSDL spec?
Chris: Good idea
<cferris> [SOAP 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework (Second Edition)]
<cferris> SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework (Second Edition), M. Gudgin, et al., Editors. World Wide Web Consortium, 24 June 2003, revised 27 April 2007. This version of the "SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework (Second Edition)" Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-soap12-part1-20070427/. The latest version of "SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework" is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/.
Philippe: Look at XML schema
Paul: Asir is this okay?
... describes the mechanism
... With that addition do we have any objections?
<cferris> RESOLUTION: 5187 closed with proposal from Asir in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0026.html as amended by proposal to add (Second Edition) to SOAP 1.2 reference
5188 - Incorrect Examples in Section 4 - Primer, Asir
Paul: Drop incorrect example in
4.1 and amend example in 4.2 with different namespace
... So don't use wsp namespace
Paul: There are some examples with future versions, is that wwhat we're saying?
??: How are we going to do this?
Dave, Asir, Chris: discuss how this will get done
Paul: There are several namepsaces used that are not in table. Okay with using wsp16 here?
<PaulC> a) Accept proposal in message 27 to remove example in Section 4.1
<PaulC> b) change proposal in message 27 to NOT remove example in Section 4.2 but instead to use the prefix wsp16: instead of wsp:.
<cferris> RESOLUTION: close issue 5188 by accepting proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0027.html to remove example in Section 4.1 and b) change proposal in message 27 to NOT remove example in Section 4.2 but instead to use the prefix wsp16: instead of wsp:.
Paul: Any further discussion or
... none heard
Asir: There is some editoral work that DaveO will do
Paul: Proposes to remove
vocabulary term in the Primer
... describes the proposal
Paul: Detailed proposal is in
attachment. No fabian on the call
... Show of hands of support
<Fabian> reading IRC
Asir: I've reviewed. and support
Paul: Welcomes Ashok
<toufic> Now that ashok is here, I can drop off :) :)
Paul: Any further discussion or
... None. Okay. Resolved
<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 5204 closed with proposal from Fabian in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/att-0052/00-part
<Fabian> thx guys
Toufic: I have to go to another call
5128 - editorial nit in example in section 5.3.2, Chris
Paul: Any objections?
... None heard. Mark as resolved
<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 5128 closed with proposal in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5128#c1
Paul: Items a thru n here
Asir: 14 items
Paul: We'll go through one at a time and Asir you can explain any pushback or only concentrate on ones with pushback. Out since last Friday. Any pref?
Dave: Only nes commented on are important
Asir: a,d,e, g, k, i, l
Paul: That's half!
And you then get a call from her while in isle 4
Paul: Item a then
Asir: [reads the sentence] Don't
know what a policy domain. Replaced ws-policy to a specific
... Pushback from Maryann
Chris: describes compromise
Paul: Type it in please Chris
<cferris> An assertion is a piece of metadata that describes a capability related to a specific domain that has chosen to express their capabilities via the WS-Policy expressions
Paul: IS this okay? I'll move on
Asir: Didn't understand what relationship was talking about
Chris: Maryann thinks
relationship is the right word
... There may not be a relationship - domains unrelated - but there is a relationship
<FrederickHirsch> +1 to Chris
Paul: 'd' is deleted
Asir: Item 'e'
... Drop the example
Chris: Maryann pushed back
... this maybe a confusion issue
... I agree that this is a bad example
... I think RM spec will say this is not allowed
Paul: Move on to 'g'
... [reviews items so far]
... Item 'g'
Asir: About multiple assertions. Sentence is not accurate or consistent with framework. Suggested sentence to one similar in framework doc
Chris: I agree with the issue. [reviews proposal]
Frederick: Break it into two sentences and change ending
<FrederickHirsch> change "simply redundancy, and multiple" to "simply redundancy. Multiple"
Chris: [is going to rewrite and post for review]
Chris and Asir discuss proposed sentence changes
Chris: Let's take it off line and we'll work ou a proposal
Paul: Item 'i'
Asir: section 7.5.1
... Looking at the exmaple and best practice they are the same. I suggest we drop 2nd sentence
Chris: Maryann pushed back and thought we'd adopted the template and we're violating the template
Asir: NEver really had this
Chris: Is there an e.g. for this best practice. I'll believe you if there is
Chris: I think we can accept this
Paul: We'll label this accepted
... Item 'k'
Asir: Section 5.7.1
... This is saying if we have an overloaded assertion we should break it up
... However I think this is wrong if you look more closely at it
... We put it all together and rephrased it
Chris: Maryann says it was fine
the way it was
... We lose someting if we leave it the way it is.
Paul: Asir, willing to leave it the way it is?
Asir: I think it's broken
Chris: I'm fine with some of the change
<PaulC> Item k proposal:
<PaulC> If the behavior indicated by an assertion varies when attached to different policy subjects the Assertion Authors should consider the following:
Paul is typing up the change
<PaulC> Decompose the semantics with several assertions.
<PaulC> Rewrite a single assertion targeting a specific policy subject.
Asir: grammatical errors but okay
Paul: Item 'l'
Asir: Maryann didn't see context
Chris: I don't see any push back
Paul: The first point
Chris: Looks fine but let me have a look at it
Paul: Leave the title and add your [Asir's] text.
Paul types up recommenation
<PaulC> Proposl l: Assertion Extensibility. Assertion authors should allow for extensibility (see best practice 5. Start with a Simple Assertion).
Asir: That's fine
<PaulC> Summary: a) adopted as amended
<PaulC> d) not adopted
<PaulC> e) adopted as proposed
<PaulC> g) not processed
<PaulC> i) Adopted as proposed
<PaulC> k) adopted as amended
<PaulC> l) adopted as amended
Paul: Do we want to keep open until we finish 'g'? Or Chris new issue?
Chris: Happy too open new issue
Paul: Any objection?
<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 5184 closed with proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0023.html amended as follows: Summary: a) adopted as amended
<cferris> d) not adopted
<cferris> e) adopted as proposed
<cferris> g) not processed
<cferris> i) Adopted as proposed
<cferris> k) adopted as amended
<cferris> l) adopted as amended
<cferris> ACTION: Chris to open issue related to idem g in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0023.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-358 - Open issue related to idem g in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0023.html [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-10-24].
5185 - Guidelines - BP 1 and 21 are Duplicates, Asir
Asir: Found two best practices
and there appears to be dups
... Suggest use text in BP 1 and move it. I sent change marker
... No feedback
Paul: Any other discusson or
<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue TOPIC: 5185 resolved with proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0030.html
<cferris> rrsaget, where am i?
Asir: Lots of references out of date
Paul: Any discussion or objections?
<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 5186 closed wiht proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0025.html amended as we did with 5187 with regards to SOAP 1.2 Second Edition reference
Asir: Talks about granularity
currently captured by 28.
... What are we trying to motivate?
... Suggesting 2 point proposal
Asir: Some email discussion.
Asir: Maryann said bp 28 could
move up to 5.7.1
... Suggest drop BP 19
Paul: Part 1 is make 28 more
... Part 2 is whether we need 19 or not. No consensus yet on this. Chris?
<toufic> we could always remove the "optional" attribute from the spec
Chris: There is some special consideration especially with mesage exchange patterns.
<toufic> JUST KIDDING!
Chris: There will be a point that will be lost if we drop 19
Paul: Should we rework 19?
Chris: [describes use case with 'optional'] Will work with Maryann to reword 19.
<PaulC> Optionality is covered in 5.6.1
Asir: [regarding Chris' example] I think mtom is pretty detailed covered in section 5.6.1
Chris: I'll enter Action item later.
<Ashok> However, authors can write assertions that control the order in which behaviors are applied.
Ashok: I'd like an example of this in the primer. If we could do that I'm done.
Paul: Can people use the queue?
... Shouldn't this go in the Guidelines?
Ashok: I'm okay with that
... I thought the primer was better but either place.
Paul: So you're flexible?
<cferris> ACTION: Chris to draft concrete proposal for resolving 5189 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-359 - Draft concrete proposal for resolving 5189 [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-10-24].
Everyone denies being in the queue
Chris asks about a rewording
Ashok: I'd like one that goes across domains
<Zakim> DaveO, you wanted to support using existing assertion
Dave: I want to support Chris'
proposal to use WS-Security
... This is a real use case with a real solution and makes sense
<cferris> +1 to doing as little work as possible!
Dave: If we try to create our one it causes problems: we'd have to make one up and we'd get into debates
Asir: +1 to Chris and Dave
... Tech committee in OASIS have example doc. And I don't know why we'd do additional work
Ashok: Cause I'd like an example
<DaveO> -1 to across domain example.
<cferris> I would like to add that Tony Nadalin has also privately expressed a desire to reuse an existing example, notably the ws-security policy example
<cferris> +1 to daveo's -1
<asir> +1 to daveo's -1
Paul: What you're hearing is that we've discussed this before and people don't believe a cross domain example is good.
Ashok: I've argued that WS_Policy should be independent. It will be used in lots of different places.
Chris: [asks for clarification when there are conflicts] Which one do we use?
Ashok: [describes how he has asked various people and couldn't get an answer for an example]
Chris looks for example in security spec.
Dave: Does this matter - whether example is there or not?
Asir: That's what I was going to
... DaveO made my point. I don't think it matters
Paul: We have consensus to try
and meet part of your need by adding an exampel to one of the
... What I'm not hearing is consensus to go beyond that
Ashok: If thhey could find the examples we could make pointers to it and make it even better
DaveO: I don't understand that point
Ashok: If there is an example
"ordering of assertions is subject to following rules" then we
could reference that and it would make the guidence
... I just want to make it a bit better. What's the problem with that?
<trackbot> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/
DaveO: Why is it better?
Ashok: Because it isn't
... It's not taking us forward.
Paul: I agree with that
... I'm still not consensus
... Primer or Guidlelines
Chris: Still trying to work ?? out
Paul: Someone else provide some help on where this should go?
Chris: Section 5.3 ?
<dmoberg> got to leave for airport
Paul: It could be 5.3.5, right?
Paul: take this as a strawman -
section 5.3.5. Does someone want to take an action item.
... BTW we have no issue here. Nothing in bugzilla. We need to create a bugzilla issue and someone on point to write a proposal
Chris: Can I take Ashok's
... First paragraph
<dorchard> I have to drop off now. My position is clear, BEA proxy to Chris Ferris
Paul: Is there a budding propposal in there (september)
Asir: Proposal would be the email
I sent Monday
... This monday in response to DaveO's question
Paul: I disagree (that it was that email)
<cferris> new guidelines issue http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5206
<asir> Here is action 350 - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0021.html
<PaulC> Asir's older note on this topic: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0021.html
Asir: Maybe I added more details. Let me pull it up
Paul: Ashok, if you look at this you can see an example
<asir> here is the message that relates to WS-Security - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0029.html
Paul: I thought there was an
example in there
... This is a pretty complicated example
Asir: YEs. But we're talking about security
Paul: Looking at watch, will we
make an advance on this issue?
... Need someone to take Action item
Asir: I want to make sure Ashok is involved
Paul: Three of you (Chris, Asir, Ashok) get something done for next week
<cferris> ACTION: Asir to work with Chris, Ashok and Maryann on a concrete proposal for issue 5206 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-360 - Work with Chris, Ashok and Maryann on a concrete proposal for issue 5206 [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2007-10-24].
Paul: Did the little birdy or angel Philleppe drop off?
Asir: Looking for a link back to security policy
<PaulC> Looking for text, example and link back to SP that explains the text in the issue from the framework.
Paul: Summarize: Last call next
Friday. Next weeks agenda 3 items. Chris's 5184. 5189(Chris
Maryann), 5206 (Chris, Asir, Ashok)
... Be forewarned if we close issues next week co-chairs will vote to move documents
... Chris I'll make a draft agenda and send it out to you
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Phillippe/Philippe/g FAILED: s/\?\?/DaveO/ Succeeded: s/Aisr/Asir/ Succeeded: s/wsp1/wsp16/ Succeeded: s/??/DaveO/ Succeeded: s/a,b/a,d/ Succeeded: s/Air/Asir/ Succeeded: s/assser/asser/ Succeeded: s/simpliar/similar/ Succeeded: s/way it is/way it is?/ Succeeded: s/keep up/keep open/ Succeeded: s/5185/TOPIC: 5185/ Succeeded: s/to 5.7.2/to 5.7.1/ Succeeded: s/Action time/Action item/ Succeeded: s/: Ashok,/Paul: Ashok,/ Succeeded: s/Looing/Looking/ Found Scribe: whenry Inferring ScribeNick: whenry Present: 04_01whenry Paul_Cotton Plh Toufic Tom_Rutt asir Chris_Ferris Prasad Ashok DaveO Frederick Ashok Abbie Dale Regrets: Maryann Charlton Fabian Sergey Felix WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 17 Oct 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-ws-policy-minutes.html People with action items: asir chris WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]