IRC log of ws-ra on 2009-02-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:25:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
20:25:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:26:01 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
20:26:26 [Bob]
zakim, this will be #WS_WSRA
20:26:26 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, Bob
20:26:36 [Bob]
zakim, this will be WS_WSRA
20:26:36 [Zakim]
ok, Bob; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
20:26:56 [Bob]
meeting: WS-Resource Access Working Group
20:27:04 [Bob]
chair: Bob Freund
20:28:52 [Bob]
20:28:57 [prasad]
prasad has joined #ws-ra
20:29:21 [Sumeet]
Sumeet has joined #ws-ra
20:29:34 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has now started
20:29:36 [Zakim]
20:29:39 [Zakim]
20:29:41 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.876.aaaa
20:29:42 [Zakim]
- +1.408.876.aaaa
20:29:42 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.876.aaaa
20:30:05 [Zakim]
20:30:23 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Ashok_Malhotra has joined #ws-ra
20:30:29 [Bob]
zakim, aaaa is prasad
20:30:30 [Zakim]
+prasad; got it
20:30:42 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.274.aabb
20:30:47 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra
20:31:09 [Zakim]
20:31:16 [Zakim]
20:31:18 [Bob]
zakim aabb is fmaciel
20:31:30 [TRutt1]
TRutt1 has joined #ws-ra
20:31:34 [Bob]
zakim, aabb is fmaciel
20:31:34 [Zakim]
+fmaciel; got it
20:31:47 [Zakim]
20:32:13 [Zakim]
20:32:13 [Bob]
zakim, [IB is dug
20:32:13 [Zakim]
+dug; got it
20:32:22 [Zakim]
20:32:42 [Zakim]
20:32:56 [Zakim]
20:32:57 [Zakim]
20:33:13 [Zakim]
20:33:17 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
20:33:29 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
20:33:40 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
20:34:01 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
20:34:03 [Bob]
zakim, P32 is katy
20:34:03 [Zakim]
sorry, Bob, I do not recognize a party named 'P32'
20:34:40 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-ra
20:36:18 [Bob]
zakim, ??P32 is katy
20:36:18 [Zakim]
+katy; got it
20:36:19 [jeffm]
jeffm has joined #ws-ra
20:36:44 [Bob]
20:36:49 [Bob]
20:37:53 [Bob]
scribe: Li Li
20:38:15 [gpilz]
only in jury duty you get to meet a better class of people
20:38:16 [dug]
lesson learned: be late :-)
20:38:49 [li]
approval of agenda
20:38:57 [li]
agenda approved
20:39:09 [li]
approval of minutes
20:39:37 [li]
minutes approved w/o objection
20:40:21 [li]
discussion of f2f meeting
20:41:59 [li]
bob: discuss if to attend w3c tag meeting in ca in november
20:44:29 [li]
bob: we need to decide by 10th march if to attend
20:45:08 [li]
bob: review action items
20:45:34 [li]
action #14
20:45:34 [trackbot]
Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
20:45:52 [li]
review action #14 - done
20:47:31 [li]
bob: review FPWD
20:48:24 [li]
??: something missing in FPWD
20:48:34 [dug]
20:48:36 [Bob]
20:48:40 [dug]
s/something/link to issue list
20:48:52 [Ashok_Malhotra]
20:49:02 [Bob]
ack ashok
20:49:36 [dug]
20:49:45 [Bob]
ack dug
20:50:12 [li]
bob: is it ok insert links to issue list
20:50:21 [li]
dug: no benefit to do so
20:50:41 [asir]
20:50:47 [Bob]
ack asir
20:51:59 [li]
asir: issues should be inserted
20:52:02 [asir]
please see item 3 in
20:52:50 [li]
check item #3 in the above link
20:53:18 [Bob]
proposal: In the status section of each spec, there should be a statement
20:53:20 [Bob]
that explains the intent of this working draft. Perhaps something along
20:53:21 [Bob]
the lines of: This working draft is meant only as a direct translation of
20:53:23 [Bob]
the submitted spec into W3C format. There are many issues in the working
20:53:24 [Katy]
20:53:24 [Bob]
group that will cause changes to this draft. Please see working group
20:53:26 [Bob]
issue list.
20:53:32 [Bob]
ack katy
20:53:59 [li]
kathy: is fpwd for w3c?
20:54:39 [li]
bob: any objection to the proposal?
20:55:19 [li]
ashok: problem with wording
20:56:04 [li]
??: object to proposal
20:56:35 [Bob]
20:57:36 [li]
roll calling on proposal: y/n
20:57:53 [li]
ibm: no
20:58:05 [li]
avaya: abstain
20:58:09 [li]
redhat: no
20:58:19 [li]
software ag: abstain
20:58:44 [li]
proposal failed
20:59:12 [li]
bob: any other objection to fpwd?
20:59:16 [li]
asir: no
20:59:32 [Ashok_Malhotra]
Oracle also voted 'No'
20:59:58 [li]
bob: any objection to publish 5 fpwd?
21:00:24 [li]
no objection, will request to publish them dated today
21:01:07 [li]
bob: topic new issues
21:01:25 [Bob]
Issue 6587
21:01:43 [li]
21:02:08 [Bob]
21:02:24 [li]
21:03:28 [Bob]
Action: Dug as owner of 6588
21:03:29 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-17 - As owner of 6588 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-03-03].
21:03:38 [li]
21:05:19 [Bob]
Action: Dug as owner of 6594
21:05:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-18 - As owner of 6594 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-03-03].
21:05:30 [li]
21:06:00 [dug]
I'm sure the mute button learns all sorts of new phrases :-)
21:06:17 [asir]
21:07:41 [Geoff]
21:07:56 [Bob]
ack geo
21:08:22 [li]
geoff: how to set filter for future?
21:08:43 [dug]
isn't this part of the issue discussion?
21:09:01 [li]
gil: it's up to event source to decide
21:09:16 [Bob]
Action: Gilbert as owner of 6595
21:09:16 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-19 - As owner of 6595 [on Gilbert Pilz - due 2009-03-03].
21:09:30 [li]
21:10:40 [Bob]
Action: Geoff as owner of 6603
21:10:40 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-20 - As owner of 6603 [on Geoff Bullen - due 2009-03-03].
21:10:54 [li]
21:11:53 [Bob]
acton: Dug as owner of 6604
21:12:02 [Bob]
action: Dug as owner of 6604
21:12:02 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-21 - As owner of 6604 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-03-03].
21:12:14 [li]
topic: issues with proposals
21:12:36 [li]
21:13:31 [Bob]
action: katy crate proposal for 6587
21:13:32 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-22 - Crate proposal for 6587 [on Katy Warr - due 2009-03-03].
21:13:46 [li]
katy: to improve proposal
21:13:58 [li]
21:14:42 [li]
geoff: introduce the proposal
21:15:09 [Bob]
Geof's proposal at
21:15:51 [li]
geoff: align with http, backward comp, ws-i compliant
21:16:27 [li]
options for compliant to bp: relax, use policy, or go to bp wg
21:17:16 [li]
bob: any questions about the proposal?
21:17:50 [li]
bob: objection to accept proposal?
21:18:02 [li]
dug: why voting this one instead of mine?
21:18:02 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
21:18:07 [asir]
21:18:14 [Katy]
21:18:20 [Bob]
ack asir
21:18:24 [gpilz]
21:19:09 [li]
asir: not sure the proposal is adequately explained
21:19:20 [Bob]
ack katy
21:19:34 [marklittle]
+1 to Katy
21:19:45 [li]
katy: thought voting for both
21:19:51 [Bob]
ack gpi
21:19:55 [gpilz]
21:20:05 [li]
gil: object to microsoft proposal
21:20:15 [asir]
where is the consensus?
21:21:01 [li]
bob: we have two proposals: geoff's and dug's. is dug's up to date?
21:21:42 [Geoff]
21:21:52 [Bob]
ack geoff
21:21:58 [dug]
here it is:
21:22:18 [Bob]
that is the one in the bugzilla
21:22:35 [li]
geoff: voting on it is too soon, need more time to discuss
21:22:48 [jeffm]
maybe we all think we understand the differences
21:23:25 [Wu]
21:23:31 [Bob]
ack wu
21:23:33 [li]
bob: more questions about both proposals?
21:23:48 [gpilz]
21:23:51 [li]
wu: we need more time until next week
21:24:04 [TRutt1]
keyboard clacking, please mute
21:24:06 [Bob]
ack gpi
21:24:10 [li]
bob: we need to clear this.
21:24:21 [jeffm]
21:24:32 [Bob]
ack jeff
21:24:42 [li]
gil: two camps: back-comp vs. bp compliant, we should vote now
21:24:45 [Katy]
+1 to voting and moving on
21:24:53 [marklittle]
21:24:53 [asir]
-1 to vote without discussion
21:25:24 [li]
bob: more discussion won't help change decision
21:26:04 [li]
bob: will anyone change mind with more discussion?
21:26:54 [gpilz]
FWIW I've read Geoff's proposal - I understand it and I object to it
21:27:12 [dug]
21:27:17 [gpilz]
I don't think any further discussion of it would change my opinion
21:27:59 [li]
bob: no one will change decision, will call vote on A and B proposals
21:28:12 [li]
A=geoff, B=dug
21:28:30 [marklittle]
let's just say ibm or msft?
21:28:36 [dug]
a=Jan43=IBM b=feb128=MSFT
21:29:27 [li]
will vote on ibm vs. microsoft
21:29:39 [li]
oracle: ibm
21:29:42 [li]
ms: ms
21:29:48 [li]
hitachi: ibm
21:29:59 [li]
avaya: abstain
21:30:03 [li]
redhat: ibm
21:30:16 [li]
software ag: abstain
21:30:38 [li]
ibm: ibm
21:31:24 [li]
bob: any formal objection
21:31:25 [Geoff]
Micsrosoft objects to proposal a from IBM
21:31:45 [jeffm]
21:31:50 [marklittle]
21:31:56 [Bob]
ack jeffm
21:32:09 [marklittle]
21:32:35 [marklittle]
+1 to Oracle. Has been pushed around for 3 weeks.
21:32:41 [li]
jeffm: enough time for people to make up their mind
21:32:44 [dug]
actually more - since the f2f
21:34:17 [li]
bob: disentangling windows...
21:34:29 [Zakim]
21:34:33 [li]
21:36:05 [li]
geoff: ok with the proposal, come up with suggestions
21:36:46 [li]
should we include wsa:To in the infoset?
21:37:22 [li]
wu: it is for infoset, not redefine wsa
21:37:46 [Bob]
21:37:48 [dug]
+1 to Geoff
21:38:11 [dug]
its very confusing - it looks like we're either restating what's already in WSA or worse possibly changing it
21:38:14 [li]
geoff: is wse wsa:to different from other usage of wsa:To?
21:39:37 [li]
wu: it can support different usage
21:39:57 [li]
geoff: more discussion offline
21:41:10 [li]
dug: like it because it's simple and gives xml authority
21:41:44 [li]
dug: geoff suggests more text in standard?
21:42:21 [li]
geoff: infoset is also normative
21:43:01 [li]
wu: we provide infoset and xml binding, implementations must conform to xml
21:43:12 [gpilz]
21:43:27 [Bob]
ack gp
21:43:41 [asir]
agree - both normative does not answer the question
21:44:28 [dug]
21:44:35 [li]
gil: both being normative can create problem
21:45:27 [li]
wu: no requirement to produce xml from infoset, rather the mapping is defined by the standard
21:46:05 [li]
wu: infoset and xml should be consistent, in case conflict, xml wins
21:46:28 [li]
dug: normative != authoritive
21:46:33 [asir]
what environment?
21:47:09 [li]
authoritive can overwrite the other
21:47:10 [jeffm]
21:47:51 [li]
wu: they are free of inconsistency and xml is authoritative
21:48:19 [Bob]
ack jeffm
21:48:24 [Geoff]
21:48:31 [Bob]
ack geo
21:48:35 [li]
21:48:40 [gpilz]
21:49:15 [li]
geoff: cardinality is a potential consistency problem
21:49:35 [li]
geoff: need to specify xml is authoritative
21:50:42 [li]
geoff: infoset may cause inconsistency between different mappings
21:50:55 [Bob]
ack gpi
21:51:03 [li]
wu: infoset rules in that case
21:51:58 [li]
gpilz: infoset is interesting but is theoretic and makes standard larger
21:52:04 [dug]
21:52:27 [Bob]
ack dug
21:52:32 [li]
wu: infoset helps on compression, works with other standards
21:53:17 [li]
dug: ok with proposal, but object to adding more text to explain issues such as consistence
21:53:43 [asir]
21:53:50 [li]
bob: is this proposal bad?
21:53:54 [dug]
w/o the full description in the infoset section I think we'd reduce the chance of inconsistency
21:54:04 [gpilz]
21:54:07 [Bob]
ack asir
21:54:08 [li]
gil: not bad proposal but a bad idea
21:55:00 [dug]
21:55:07 [Bob]
ack gpi
21:55:22 [li]
??: need more text to explain
21:55:28 [Bob]
ack dug
21:56:07 [li]
dug: add one sentence is sufficient
21:56:43 [Wu]
21:57:07 [dug]
could we perhaps have Wu redo the proposal with Geoff's edits and see what it looks like?
21:57:07 [li]
bob: general poll on if we should use infoset
21:57:18 [asir]
+1 to dug
21:57:26 [jeffm]
21:57:42 [Bob]
ack wu
21:57:45 [dug]
if he wants - I don't think there are a lot of changes but they might be important to help people decide.
21:57:54 [Bob]
ack jeffm
21:58:00 [li]
wu: infoset extends applicability of wse in a non intrusive way, urge group to leverage infoset
21:58:33 [li]
??: where are infoset used?
21:58:45 [Bob]
21:59:19 [jeffm]
21:59:22 [li]
jeffm: practical use?
21:59:33 [li]
wu: compression uses infoset
22:00:02 [li]
bob: encourage wu to make next version or not?
22:00:16 [li]
oracle: no
22:00:22 [li]
hitachi: abstrain
22:00:37 [li]
ibm: yes if minimal work
22:00:57 [li]
microsoft: yes
22:00:59 [li]
avaya: yes
22:01:17 [li]
redhat: ?
22:01:26 [li]
software ag: ?
22:01:47 [li]
bob: do next version of infoset by voting
22:01:49 [Bob]
action: Wu to refine proposal for 6424
22:01:49 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-23 - Refine proposal for 6424 [on wu chou - due 2009-03-03].
22:02:03 [Zakim]
22:02:04 [Zakim]
22:02:11 [Zakim]
22:02:12 [li]
bob: bye
22:02:12 [Zakim]
22:02:13 [Zakim]
22:02:14 [Zakim]
22:02:14 [Zakim]
22:02:17 [Zakim]
22:02:18 [Zakim]
22:02:18 [Zakim]
22:02:20 [Zakim]
22:02:22 [Bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
22:02:22 [Zakim]
22:02:31 [prasad]
prasad has left #ws-ra
22:02:43 [fmaciel]
fmaciel has left #ws-ra
22:02:52 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra
22:03:08 [Bob]
zakim, who was here?
22:03:08 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, Bob.
22:05:10 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:05:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
22:07:21 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, Bob_Freund, in WS_WSRA()3:30PM
22:07:23 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
22:07:26 [Zakim]
Attendees were Don_Wright, Bob_Freund, +1.408.876.aaaa, SVij, prasad, +1.408.274.aabb, Tom_Rutt, [Microsoft], fmaciel, [IBM], Mark_Little, dug, JeffM, Wu_Chou, gpilz,
22:07:28 [Zakim]
... Ashok_Malhotra, katy
22:51:55 [dug]
dug has left #ws-ra
22:54:28 [TRutt1]
TRutt1 has left #ws-ra