IRC log of ws-ra on 2009-01-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:21:45 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
14:21:45 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:53:40 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra
16:31:31 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-ra
16:52:36 [dug]
Zakim is so polite :-)
17:09:28 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
18:30:35 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra
20:45:10 [gregcarp]
gregcarp has joined #ws-ra
21:02:33 [Li]
Li has joined #ws-ra
21:06:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
21:07:07 [Zakim]
21:07:23 [Bob]
Bob has joined #ws-ra
21:08:12 [Bob]
zakim, this is WS_WSRA
21:08:12 [Zakim]
Bob, this was already WS_WSRA()11:00AM
21:08:13 [Zakim]
ok, Bob; that matches WS_WSRA()11:00AM
21:09:29 [gregcarp]
zakim, [Microsoft] is gregcarp
21:09:29 [Zakim]
+gregcarp; got it
21:09:45 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
21:10:07 [gpilz]
21:10:16 [gpilz]
zakim who is here
21:10:20 [Geoff]
Geoff has joined #ws-ra
21:10:32 [gpilz]
Zakim help
21:10:34 [Prasad]
Prasad has joined #ws-ra
21:10:47 [gregcarp]
zakim, help
21:10:47 [Zakim]
Please refer to for more detailed help.
21:10:49 [Zakim]
Some of the commands I know are:
21:10:50 [Zakim]
xxx is yyy - establish yyy as the name of unknown party xxx
21:10:52 [Zakim]
if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is substituted
21:10:53 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
21:10:54 [Zakim]
xxx may be yyy - establish yyy as possibly the name of unknown party xxx
21:10:57 [Zakim]
I am xxx - establish your nick as the name of unknown party xxx
21:10:59 [Zakim]
xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name and yyy, etc. as participants within that group
21:11:01 [Zakim]
xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants in group xxx
21:11:04 [Zakim]
who's here? - lists the participants on the phone
21:11:06 [Zakim]
who's muted? - lists the participants who are muted
21:11:08 [Zakim]
mute xxx - mutes party xxx (like pressing 61#)
21:11:11 [Zakim]
unmute xxx - reverses the effect of "mute" and of 61#
21:11:13 [Zakim]
is xxx here? - reports whether a party named like xxx is present
21:11:15 [Zakim]
list conferences - reports the active conferences
21:11:16 [Zakim]
this is xxx - associates this channel with conference xxx
21:11:17 [Zakim]
excuse us - disconnects from the irc channel
21:11:18 [Zakim]
I last learned something new on $Date: 2008/12/09 02:16:52 $
21:11:31 [wu]
wu has joined #ws-ra
21:11:43 [gpilz]
zakim: who's here?
21:12:10 [Bob]
scribenick: wu
21:12:28 [Bob]
scribe: Wu Chou
21:12:29 [gpilz]
zakim, who's here?
21:12:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.908.696.aaaa, ??P5, gregcarp
21:12:30 [Zakim]
On IRC I see wu, asir, Prasad, Geoff, gpilz, Bob, Zakim, Li, gregcarp, dug, RRSAgent, Yves
21:12:51 [wu]
bob: ready to go
21:13:34 [Li]
li is on the phone
21:13:38 [wu]
bob: accepting new issues and go through submitted WS-E issues
21:14:26 [wu]
li: issue opened in response 6397
21:14:49 [Zakim]
21:15:00 [wu]
li: three issues may be caused by it
21:15:05 [Zakim]
21:15:37 [Yves]
21:16:02 [asir]
zakim, who is talking?
21:16:06 [wu]
li: propose to move subcription manager to from field of the SOAP header to reserve these identifier
21:16:13 [Zakim]
asir, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.908.696.aaaa (60%), ??P5 (39%)
21:16:45 [dug]
21:17:05 [wu]
geoff: perhaps there are use cases might be useful
21:17:14 [Bob]
ack dug
21:17:42 [gpilz]
21:18:01 [wu]
dug: how use of subscription manager in subend
21:18:50 [wu]
li: used by subscriper
21:18:52 [Bob]
ack gp
21:19:45 [wu]
gpilz: question assumtion of subscriber
21:20:12 [Geoff]
21:20:19 [Bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
21:20:24 [wu]
21:20:47 [Bob]
ack eo
21:20:54 [Bob]
ack geo
21:21:07 [dug]
21:21:10 [gpilz]
21:21:53 [wu]
Geoff: its a use case and people may be
21:22:10 [Bob]
ack wuack wu
21:22:14 [Bob]
ack wu
21:24:21 [Prasad]
Prasad has joined #ws-ra
21:24:26 [Bob]
ack dug
21:26:23 [Bob]
ack gpil
21:27:45 [Geoff]
21:29:40 [wu]
gpilz: epr comparison is hard to compare
21:29:45 [Bob]
ack geo
21:29:56 [Li]
21:30:10 [dug]
21:30:32 [wu]
Geoff: existing implementation may use this feature, do we want to be backward competible
21:30:41 [Bob]
ack li
21:31:51 [wu]
li: even we treat epr a block, it is in the from field and will be echoed back by WS-A
21:31:54 [gpilz]
21:31:59 [Bob]
ack dug
21:33:41 [Bob]
ack gpi
21:33:45 [wu]
dug: the reason for correlation. epr comarison we should not avoid
21:34:41 [dug]
21:35:01 [asir]
21:35:46 [wu]
gpilz: bk competibility, we change namespace may break bk competibility, we can use epr we can compare
21:35:48 [Bob]
ack dug
21:36:20 [wu]
dug: featurewise we may not lose much
21:36:25 [Bob]
ack asir
21:36:28 [dug]
s/much/anything/ :-)
21:38:00 [wu]
bob: gil opposes accepting this as a new issue
21:39:17 [wu]
wu: we should exmine this, espcially there are exsting implementation
21:39:49 [wu]
bob: we do not accept this issue at this time and wu/gil will discuss this issue
21:41:23 [wu]
bob: we will set this issue to no action at this moment
21:42:02 [Bob]
rrsagent, pointer
21:42:02 [RRSAgent]
21:44:59 [Bob]
The only opposition to not accepting this new issue was Wu of those present
21:45:26 [Bob]
21:45:55 [wu]
bob: issue 6424
21:47:18 [wu]
asir: push also through mailing list
21:47:55 [wu]
bob: to make our discussion on the pub mailing list in addition to bugzilla
21:49:10 [gpilz]
21:49:22 [wu]
li: an example is attached and listed examples of infoset model
21:49:28 [Bob]
ack gpil
21:50:28 [wu]
gpilz: should accept this issue, understand benefits
21:50:57 [Prasad]
21:51:12 [Prasad]
21:51:14 [wu]
gpilz: show some benefits of abstract properties
21:51:54 [wu]
li: original benefits are listed in wu's presentation
21:52:06 [dug]
21:52:34 [wu]
yves: xsi is a xml format
21:52:58 [wu]
yves: which is beyond soap
21:53:01 [Bob]
ack dug
21:53:02 [Yves]
21:53:14 [Yves]
21:53:19 [wu]
bob: there are other cases and a reason for WS-A
21:53:47 [wu]
dug: if valuabe, should apply to others
21:54:23 [wu]
Yves: there are many standards use Infoset
21:55:02 [gpilz]
21:55:04 [Yves]
like SOAP1.2 WSDL2, Addressing etc... It also allows the use of MTOM, for example, or other optimization that may be needed
21:55:10 [wu]
li: Infoset in eventing clear advantages may apply to others
21:55:46 [wu]
bob: implication of adopting Infoset
21:56:44 [wu]
Yves: just define Infoset and apply it to various cases
21:56:56 [dug]
21:57:12 [Bob]
ack gpi
21:57:54 [asir]
21:58:09 [Bob]
ack dug
21:58:32 [wu]
wu: it will be one standard, but make it more readability
21:59:27 [wu]
Yves: it should not affact readability
22:00:26 [Bob]
ack asir
22:00:50 [asir]
not a general statement, but for WS-A I like the infoset speak
22:01:13 [wu]
asir: maybe wu can try write it for one section
22:01:38 [Prasad]
The spec is readable as is. Adding infoset notation to make it more readable is a lot more work (for editors to create) and whole WG to review and make sure it is correct etc. is unnecessary work IMHO. Like Dug and others, I find Infoset notation more confusing than helpful
22:01:51 [wu]
bob: likely to support to take a prototype chapter?
22:02:19 [dug]
Prasad - any reason you didn't get on the Q to say that?
22:02:24 [wu]
bob: Li are you willing to take one chapter?
22:02:35 [wu]
li: a section?
22:03:21 [Prasad]
Dug, I can jump the q and say it exactly the way want it (in the minutes)
22:03:24 [wu]
Geoff: yes, say for example a section - subscribe
22:03:39 [Bob]
action: Li Produce a exemplar of the proposal for an operation such as subscribe
22:03:51 [Prasad]
22:06:14 [wu]
gpilz: could be important for WS-E since data can be large
22:07:05 [wu]
bob: 6025, li go ahead
22:07:13 [Bob]
Topic: Issue 6425
22:07:29 [wu]
li: the proposal using EPR to address event source
22:07:43 [gpilz]
22:08:39 [wu]
li: two examples included in the proposal, including an example in csta for dynamic event source
22:08:54 [wu]
bob: where part in WS-E spec will be affacted
22:09:06 [wu]
li: in subscribe section
22:09:10 [Bob]
22:09:18 [dug]
22:09:19 [Bob]
ack gpil
22:10:14 [wu]
gil: how well can you do it and not sure how to address someting
22:10:15 [dug]
22:10:37 [wu]
dug: not sure what spec is missing
22:11:14 [wu]
bob: they ask for the pointer which part of WS-E will be affacted
22:11:55 [wu]
li: if we want to subscript to one of 10 port, subscribe to one of them
22:14:12 [wu]
li: if only with top level address to send message to, not clear how to address lower or dynamic resources
22:14:47 [wu]
Geoff: full example to compare before and after may help
22:15:56 [gpilz]
22:16:14 [wu]
li: port type is from Annex of WS-E, annotate portType as event source, how to subscribe to this type ...
22:17:23 [wu]
gil: port has address, support single binding
22:17:46 [wu]
asir: can support multiple ports in wsdl
22:18:15 [wu]
bob: maybe follow Geoff suggestion as next step
22:18:19 [wu]
li: OK
22:18:36 [Bob]
action: Li to produce a before/after text demonstrating the change desired for 6425
22:20:28 [wu]
bob: 6426, li you have the floor
22:20:41 [gpilz]
22:21:38 [wu]
li: WS-E delivery is a single element. It is in wrong place to move to WS-E delivery
22:22:25 [wu]
li: schema does not reflect this element properly
22:22:39 [Bob]
22:22:45 [wu]
li: proposal is to address this
22:22:48 [Bob]
ack gpil
22:23:18 [wu]
gil: i agree, thanks to bring this issue
22:23:38 [wu]
gil: the mode is left open ended
22:24:31 [wu]
gil: however, example schema has an error
22:24:42 [wu]
li: fine we will make text consistent
22:25:12 [Bob]
22:26:10 [wu]
gil: delivery type should have some form of any for extension
22:26:13 [wu]
li: good
22:26:56 [wu]
asir: proposal seems concrete
22:28:44 [wu]
bob: to make the amandament to the proposal, send it to public mailing list
22:29:11 [wu]
Geoff: put section number in to help understanding it
22:29:18 [Bob]
action: Li to update proposal for 6426 to the public list
22:30:10 [wu]
break and back after 15min
22:30:11 [Zakim]
22:39:19 [Zakim]
22:40:04 [gregcarp]
zakim, [Microsoft] is gregcarp
22:40:04 [Zakim]
+gregcarp; got it
22:44:23 [wu]
bak in action now
22:45:20 [Bob]
22:47:04 [wu]
bob: 6401
22:48:22 [gpilz]
22:48:27 [wu]
dug: Don't have ocncrete proposal. one thought is using WS-policy
22:49:33 [wu]
gil: putting policy in side wsdl is not very natural
22:49:59 [gpilz]
actually describing operations inside policy isn't very natural
22:50:15 [gpilz]
22:50:20 [gpilz]
22:50:24 [Bob]
ack gpiq?
22:50:34 [gpilz]
22:51:02 [wu]
dug: different portType ... looking for suggestions
22:52:30 [wu]
Geoff: two points to consider, run time, compile (develop) time. we should lose track of both of those
22:52:36 [Bob]
ack gpi
22:53:41 [Bob]
22:53:48 [wu]
gil: agree to two aspects, inventing new describe language may not be good
22:54:24 [wu]
gil: maybe raise an issue to WS-I and it does not apply here
22:55:07 [Prasad]
22:55:12 [Bob]
ack bob
22:55:22 [dug]
22:55:23 [wu]
gil: tell WS-I R2303 not apply here
22:55:46 [Bob]
ack Prasad
22:56:18 [dug]
22:56:54 [wu]
prasad: the reason of WS-I is binding, outside WS-E may still a problem
22:57:36 [wu]
prasad: I have no issue since I argued to keep notification
22:59:22 [wu]
bob: is binding is properly specified in ws-e
23:00:02 [wu]
dug: changing BP to do this, may not be a reasonable thing to do
23:01:22 [wu]
bob: write a W3 Note, not W3C recommendation but referrencable
23:01:36 [dug]
actually, it may or may not be reasonable - we just need to check because changing BP will have impact on people
23:01:47 [wu]
bob: this is about outbound operation binding
23:01:58 [Bob]
23:03:47 [wu]
wu: Binding must be in the context of subscribe/notify web service interaction, which is stateful.
23:04:53 [wu]
bob: Gil to carry to BP group to extend R2303 allow binding through sub/notify
23:05:04 [wu]
23:05:29 [wu]
bob: how to close this as no action?
23:05:44 [wu]
dug: this may be an issue
23:06:13 [wu]
bob: restiction is raised because of binding. ws-e provided this binding
23:07:47 [wu]
gil: may be try WS-I to see how WS-I react
23:08:13 [Bob]
ack wu
23:11:46 [wu]
wu: tool should not be a reason to limit standard
23:11:53 [wu]
23:12:29 [wu]
bob: we have charter to work with BP
23:12:43 [Bob]
ack wu
23:12:56 [dug]
23:13:20 [gpilz]
23:13:39 [Bob]
ack dug
23:14:04 [wu]
dug: BP important to us, most our tools using it
23:15:53 [Bob]
s/work/be aligned with
23:17:38 [Bob]
ack gpil
23:17:41 [wu]
dug: BP not fair not awaring this. there is other way. I am not suggesting that
23:19:50 [gregcarp]
23:19:57 [Li]
23:20:07 [wu]
gil: BP complaint mode vs. ws-transfer complaint can be hard
23:20:47 [Li]
23:22:24 [wu]
bob: if BP 1.2 or BP2.0 can make the situation different
23:22:32 [gregcarp]
23:24:37 [Bob]
action: Gil to carry BP output-only operation prohibition to WS-I
23:24:45 [Bob]
ack greg
23:24:54 [wu]
gregcarp: odd to prohibate valuable apps due to profile. prohibate forever due to not in the profile is not perceivable
23:26:28 [wu]
bob: Gil has action to take up this with WS-I
23:28:12 [Yves]
23:30:16 [wu]
bob: 6405
23:31:25 [wu]
dug: this is an updated proposal from yesterday discussion
23:32:11 [Geoff]
23:34:24 [Bob]
ack Geoff
23:34:56 [wu]
Geoff: thank for improvement, but not like overloading term format
23:38:01 [wu]
bob: change 6405 to resolved status
23:38:48 [wu]
bob: 6427. go ahead
23:40:02 [wu]
li: proposal is to copy the default value to schema for benefit of apps and tools
23:40:29 [wu]
dug: can we do more for other standards?
23:41:10 [wu]
dug: this is all or just an example
23:41:23 [wu]
li: only an example and there are more in ws-e
23:41:36 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
23:41:50 [gpilz]
23:43:36 [wu]
asir: send a list to the group to look at it, than change it
23:44:29 [wu]
bob: wu list all such changes in ws-e, share with group, then move on
23:45:13 [wu]
bob: 6428, li
23:45:55 [wu]
li: 6428 about mode attribute in ws-e, which is used for separate things
23:46:12 [Bob]
23:46:23 [Bob]
ack no one
23:47:08 [wu]
li: it should be open/extensible, suggest to add new attribute "Format"
23:47:09 [gregcarp]
23:47:34 [wu]
dug: you may need more information than URI than Format, which can be something to consider
23:47:46 [Bob]
ack greg
23:49:42 [Bob]
23:50:13 [wu]
dug: you may need more than URI to address it
23:51:34 [wu]
gregcarp: is it cleaner way or you can do something additional
23:51:37 [dug]
a new element, sibling to Delivery/Mode, might be cleaner
23:52:09 [wu]
li: it would odd to do two things on one URI
23:53:35 [wu]
Geoff: maybe consider dug suggestin, adding more than URI
23:54:12 [wu]
Geoff: I would like to think if there is additional extensibility
23:55:01 [wu]
bob: 6429 now
23:55:59 [wu]
li: this is related to delivery mode. propose to define standard wrap interface
23:57:27 [wu]
gil: recommand this a separate WSDL
23:57:39 [wu]
li: exactly, this is the WSDL for the event sink