IRC log of ws-ra on 2009-03-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:28:43 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
19:28:43 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-ws-ra-irc
19:28:56 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
19:29:20 [Bob]
rrsagent, make logs pubic
19:29:38 [Bob]
hoe nobody saw that LOL
19:29:48 [Bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
19:30:00 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
19:30:53 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
19:31:55 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-ra
19:32:00 [Katy]
Katy has left #ws-ra
19:32:14 [dug]
yet another bogus government idea trying to "do good"
19:32:33 [gpilz]
blame it on Franklin
19:32:58 [Bob]
meeting: WS-Resource Access WG distributed meeting
19:33:06 [Bob]
chair: Bob Freund
19:33:07 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-ra
19:33:24 [dug]
yes, and I like franklin too - depressing
19:33:39 [Bob]
agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Mar/0072.html
19:33:53 [Sumeet]
Sumeet has joined #ws-ra
19:34:06 [DaveS]
DaveS has joined #ws-ra
19:38:29 [Bob]
scribe: Sumeet Vij
19:38:39 [Bob]
scribenick: Sumeet
19:40:13 [Sumeet]
TOPIC: Go over the Agenda
19:40:38 [Sumeet]
TOPIC: Approve Minutes of F2F meeting
19:41:08 [Bob]
RESOLUTION: minutes of f2f last week approved without objection
19:41:45 [dug]
is zakim not detecting new callers?
19:41:49 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:42:52 [dug]
Geoff - we just really really wanted that issue :-)
19:43:11 [Sumeet]
TOPIC: Any objections in accepting new issues
19:43:40 [Sumeet]
RESOLUTION: All new issues are accepted and will be assigned to their reporters
19:43:59 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
19:44:14 [Bob]
TOPIC: Issue-6666 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6666
19:45:34 [TRutt]
q+
19:45:43 [Bob]
zakim, who is making noise?
19:45:43 [Zakim]
sorry, Bob, I don't know what conference this is
19:46:00 [Bob]
zakim, this is #WS_WS-RA
19:46:00 [Zakim]
sorry, Bob, I do not see a conference named '#WS_WS-RA' in progress or scheduled at this time
19:46:10 [Bob]
zakim, this is #WS-WS-RA
19:46:10 [Zakim]
sorry, Bob, I do not see a conference named '#WS-WS-RA' in progress or scheduled at this time
19:46:15 [Bob]
zakim, this is WS-WS-RA
19:46:15 [Zakim]
sorry, Bob, I do not see a conference named 'WS-WS-RA' in progress or scheduled at this time
19:46:22 [Bob]
zakim, this is WS_WS-RA
19:46:22 [Zakim]
sorry, Bob, I do not see a conference named 'WS_WS-RA' in progress or scheduled at this time
19:46:40 [gpilz]
zakim, this is ws_ws-ra
19:46:40 [Zakim]
sorry, gpilz, I do not see a conference named 'ws_ws-ra' in progress or scheduled at this time
19:46:43 [Bob]
ack tru
19:46:53 [dug]
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wsmex.html
19:47:18 [Sumeet]
Tom: asked Doug to clarify AbstractProperties
19:47:47 [Ashok]
Zakim, this is ws-ra
19:47:47 [Zakim]
sorry, Ashok, I do not see a conference named 'ws-ra' in progress or scheduled at this time
19:48:03 [dug]
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wsrt.html#get
19:48:26 [gpilz]
q+
19:48:43 [Bob]
ack gp
19:49:37 [gpilz]
this resolves 6681
19:50:17 [Sumeet]
RESOLUTION: 6666 resolved with the proposal contained in the description
19:50:44 [dug]
q+
19:50:49 [Sumeet]
Gill: Issue 6681 might be resolved with the Resolution to 6666
19:50:55 [Bob]
TOPIC: Issue-6681 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6681
19:51:42 [Bob]
ack dug
19:52:34 [Bob]
Use InfoPath style notation
19:52:42 [dug]
+1
19:52:48 [Bob]
as in Issue-6666
19:53:17 [dug]
[Body]/wse:Subscribe/wse:EndTo
19:55:12 [Bob]
Geoff: This looks like an issue with the "*"
19:55:15 [dug]
that's my understanding as well
19:55:36 [Bob]
... the idea is to expand all of the *'s with what they should be
19:55:49 [asir]
what does [Body] mean? Infoset or XML Element?
19:56:07 [asir]
q+
19:56:08 [dug]
its an abstract proprety
19:56:23 [Bob]
ack asir
19:56:34 [Sumeet]
Asir: Wants clarification on the square brackets
19:56:38 [dug]
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wsrt.html#conven
19:57:43 [Bob]
Use pseudo-InfoPath style notation as in Issue-6666
19:57:45 [Bob]
expand all of the *'s with what they should be
19:58:41 [Sumeet]
RESOLUTION: Issue 6681 resolved by using pseudo-InfoPath style notation as in Issue-6666
19:58:54 [VikasV]
VikasV has joined #ws-ra
19:59:28 [Sumeet]
TOPIC: Issue 6431 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6431
20:00:08 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
20:00:34 [Bob]
proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Mar/0081.html
20:02:00 [Geoff]
q+
20:02:01 [Sumeet]
Li: added clarifications for issue 6431
20:02:10 [Bob]
ack geoff
20:02:31 [Sumeet]
Geoff: Need more time to go over the proposal
20:03:36 [Sumeet]
Geoff:Wants clarification about Pause and Resume
20:03:53 [Bob]
Geoff: Is queuing part of transport or is it part of eventing?
20:04:10 [Wu]
q+
20:04:23 [Bob]
ack wu
20:05:54 [Geoff]
q+
20:05:57 [gpilz]
q+
20:06:17 [Ashok]
q+
20:06:25 [Bob]
ack geo
20:06:51 [gpilz]
q-
20:07:22 [Wu]
q+
20:08:47 [Geoff]
not sure we should add optional features to base spec
20:08:54 [gpilz]
q+
20:09:00 [Geoff]
is it not something that should be in a higher level spec
20:09:03 [Wu]
Wu: pause/resume is to control event delivery, not about queue
20:09:37 [Geoff]
we are talking about composing with other specs, this seems to be another example of that
20:09:43 [Sumeet]
Ashok: Policy might be required to determine whether the endpoint supports it or not
20:09:46 [Bob]
ack ashok
20:09:48 [Bob]
ack wu
20:10:02 [Bob]
zakim, this is WS_WSRA
20:10:02 [Zakim]
ok, Bob; that matches WS_WSRA()3:30PM
20:10:45 [dug]
Junior!
20:10:48 [Bob]
ack gp
20:11:34 [dug]
+1 to that! (bob's comment)
20:12:24 [Sumeet]
Gill: Pause/Resume pertains more to queuing
20:13:45 [gpilz]
pause/resume has two parts (a) an optimization of cancel/subscribe and (b) the idea that you have access to the Notifications that were transmitted inbetween the Pause/Resume
20:14:00 [gpilz]
(b) starts to wander into queuing
20:14:07 [gpilz]
(a) is premature
20:14:40 [gpilz]
one could easily extend Subscribe/SubscribeResponse to indicate that additional Pause/Resume operations were in effect
20:15:17 [Bob]
Bob: Are folks proposing to clos with no action?
20:16:14 [Geoff]
q+
20:16:20 [Bob]
ack geo
20:16:34 [svij]
svij has joined #ws-ra
20:16:38 [dug]
q+
20:16:49 [Bob]
Geoff: General sentiment is that the base level spec should be kept simple
20:16:55 [Bob]
q+
20:17:24 [Bob]
scribenick: svij
20:18:03 [svij]
Wu: Pause/Resume as an option
20:18:22 [Bob]
ack dug
20:18:41 [asir]
:-)
20:18:55 [gpilz]
+1 to Doug
20:19:10 [Bob]
Dug: Folks questioned as to need for functionality at this time or considered it a premature optimisation
20:19:10 [svij]
Doug: Whether this functionality is required, maybe this could be added later in a compasable fashion
20:19:16 [Bob]
ack bob
20:19:22 [dug]
its not about multiple specs, rather its more of a statement about whether this function is needed at this time
20:19:45 [Geoff]
+1 to Bob about hating optionality
20:19:52 [Wu]
We are fine with pause/resume as optional feature or put into Appendix to clearly indicate it.
20:19:58 [dug]
LOL we should remove all xs:any's :-)
20:20:12 [Geoff]
that is extensibility...
20:20:19 [Geoff]
vey different
20:20:22 [Geoff]
very
20:20:28 [asir]
Different nation
20:20:41 [Bob]
q?
20:21:01 [Wu]
pause/resume has its critical applications, e.g. presence services, location servies, etc.
20:21:04 [svij]
Topic: Poll on this issue
20:21:22 [svij]
Wu: In favor
20:22:04 [Ashok]
We could mark it vNext
20:22:04 [gpilz]
let's try to just answer the question that the Chair asked
20:22:08 [dug]
There is a "LATER" field in bugzilla
20:22:11 [svij]
Microsoft: Not in favor of adding this functionality in this spec
20:22:20 [gpilz]
q+
20:22:25 [asir]
s/in this spec/to the base spec/
20:22:33 [Bob]
ack gp
20:23:31 [svij]
Nobody else in favor of adding this now
20:24:28 [Geoff]
if wu wants to work on a part 2 we are OK with that
20:24:46 [Geoff]
q+
20:25:04 [gpilz]
q+
20:25:24 [svij]
Wu: Sees advantage in Pause/Resume functionality
20:25:31 [Bob]
ack geo
20:26:08 [Bob]
ack gp
20:26:34 [Geoff]
we do not believe that at any time it implied that functionality like p/r would be in th ebase Eventing spec
20:27:05 [gpilz]
if some organizations really need this, they should join this WG and make their opinions known
20:27:22 [asir]
s/th ebase/the base/
20:27:28 [Geoff]
it was always envisaged that it would be part of a higher level spec
20:27:35 [li]
q+
20:27:41 [Bob]
ack li
20:27:53 [svij]
Bob: Asked whether this is a premature decision
20:28:28 [Geoff]
q+
20:29:45 [Zakim]
+marklittle
20:30:29 [Bob]
ack geo
20:31:03 [svij]
Geoff: Is there a consensus on whether we need a Higher level specification
20:31:19 [DaveS]
q+
20:32:15 [Bob]
ack dave
20:32:24 [svij]
Bob:New Specifications should not be taken lightly
20:34:10 [svij]
Bob: What would be our definition of "later" mean? Effectively pushing the feature to "time indefinite"
20:34:32 [svij]
Bob: Suggests we should close with no action
20:35:40 [dug]
q+
20:36:03 [dug]
q-
20:36:05 [Bob]
ack dug
20:36:32 [svij]
Bob: We should take a vote on whether we can "close with no action"
20:36:43 [asir]
q+
20:36:50 [Bob]
ack asir
20:37:40 [svij]
Asir:Bugzilla supports certain keywords like "FutureConsideration"
20:38:00 [asir]
it is "futureConsideration"
20:38:28 [svij]
MSFT:abstain
20:38:41 [gpilz]
Oracle: yes
20:38:43 [svij]
Fujitsu:Yes
20:39:01 [svij]
IBM:abstain
20:39:06 [svij]
Avaya:No
20:39:16 [svij]
SoftwareAG:abstain
20:39:21 [marklittle]
Red Hat: Yes
20:39:56 [svij]
RESOLUTION: Issue- 6431 Close with no action
20:40:29 [svij]
s/FutureConsideration/futureConsideration
20:41:01 [svij]
s/FutureConsideration/futureConsideration/
20:41:31 [svij]
TOPIC: Issue 6687 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6687
20:43:02 [svij]
RESOLUTION: Resolved as described
20:45:12 [Bob]
proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0154.html
20:45:17 [svij]
TOPIC: Issue-6594 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6594
20:45:21 [Geoff]
q+
20:45:30 [Bob]
ack geoff
20:46:52 [dug]
q+
20:47:04 [asir]
6594 is only about Transfer
20:47:40 [Bob]
ack dug
20:48:12 [Bob]
Geoff: * adds the posibility of nothing + means there is at least one
20:49:27 [DaveS]
+1
20:49:55 [Geoff]
q+
20:49:56 [Bob]
ACTION: Dug to describe the text the covers the empty case in issue-6594
20:49:57 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-52 - Describe the text the covers the empty case in issue-6594 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-03-24].
20:50:20 [Bob]
q?
20:50:29 [Bob]
ack geo
20:50:59 [Geoff]
we want to be clear that acceptance of a way forwards on this issue does not mean we accept transfer wrappers
20:51:33 [svij]
TOPIC: Issue-6403 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6403
20:52:04 [Geoff]
q+
20:52:28 [Bob]
ack geoff
20:53:02 [dug]
q+
20:53:19 [svij]
Geoff:Implications of policy implicitly defining WSDL
20:53:23 [TRutt]
q+
20:54:28 [Bob]
ack dug
20:55:13 [Bob]
ack tr
20:56:01 [asir]
Tom ... i think we just started discussing here
20:56:27 [dug]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6403
20:56:31 [asir]
there is a nested policy assertion
20:56:31 [gpilz]
q+
20:56:38 [svij]
Tom:Raised a query about sub-assertions based on experience with WS-Addressing
20:56:51 [gpilz]
q-
20:56:53 [Bob]
ack gp
20:56:58 [Geoff]
q+
20:57:10 [Bob]
ack geoff
20:57:38 [dug]
q+
20:58:10 [Bob]
ack dug
20:59:08 [svij]
dug: Enumeration operations are optional
20:59:37 [Zakim]
-??P7
21:00:13 [svij]
Bob: Please make corrections/comments on the IRC/mailing list
21:00:17 [Zakim]
-marklittle
21:00:19 [Zakim]
- +1.408.642.aaaa
21:00:20 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
21:00:21 [Zakim]
-Wu_Chou
21:00:22 [Zakim]
-??P2
21:00:22 [Zakim]
-Bob_Freund
21:00:24 [Zakim]
-Tom_Rutt
21:00:27 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra
21:00:31 [Zakim]
- +1.571.262.aabb
21:00:34 [Zakim]
- +0125660aacc
21:00:51 [Zakim]
-Ashok_Malhotra
21:00:52 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
21:00:53 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bob_Freund, Tom_Rutt, [Microsoft], +1.408.642.aaaa, Wu_Chou, +1.571.262.aabb, +0125660aacc, Ashok_Malhotra, marklittle
21:01:14 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:01:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-ws-ra-minutes.html Bob
21:01:19 [TRutt]
TRutt has left #ws-ra