IRC log of ws-ra on 2009-04-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:57:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
18:57:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to
18:57:43 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
18:57:43 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
18:57:45 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
18:57:45 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 33 minutes
18:57:46 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
18:57:46 [trackbot]
Date: 21 April 2009
18:57:54 [Yves]
Chair: Bob
19:21:15 [Bob]
Bob has joined #ws-ra
19:21:38 [Bob]
trackbot, begin conference
19:21:38 [trackbot]
Sorry, Bob, I don't understand 'trackbot, begin conference'. Please refer to for help
19:22:07 [Bob]
trackbit, status
19:22:14 [Bob]
trackbot, status
19:23:00 [Bob]
trackbot, start telcon
19:23:03 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:23:05 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
19:23:05 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
19:23:06 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
19:23:06 [trackbot]
Date: 21 April 2009
19:24:05 [fmaciel]
fmaciel has joined #ws-ra
19:25:20 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
19:25:42 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has now started
19:25:43 [Zakim]
19:26:55 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra
19:27:11 [Geoff]
Geoff has joined #ws-ra
19:27:46 [Zakim]
19:27:48 [Zakim]
19:27:48 [Zakim]
19:27:54 [DaveS]
DaveS has joined #ws-ra
19:28:43 [Zakim]
19:28:44 [DaveS]
Hi Bob, I on line and will dial in in a few minutes. I'll tell you when I connect.
19:29:05 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.970.aaaa
19:29:12 [fmaciel]
zakim, aaaa is fmaciel
19:29:12 [Zakim]
+fmaciel; got it
19:29:13 [TRutt]
TRutt has joined #ws-ra
19:29:16 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:29:23 [Bob]
19:29:30 [Zakim]
+ +1.908.696.aabb
19:29:36 [Bob]
zakim, [Micro is Geoff
19:29:36 [Zakim]
+Geoff; got it
19:29:46 [Bob]
zakim, Geoff has Asir
19:29:46 [Zakim]
+Asir; got it
19:30:55 [Zakim]
19:31:01 [Zakim]
+ +1.571.262.aacc
19:31:05 [Zakim]
19:31:20 [Bob]
zakim, aacc is Vikas
19:31:20 [Zakim]
+Vikas; got it
19:31:57 [Zakim]
19:32:01 [li]
zakim, aabb is li
19:32:01 [Zakim]
+li; got it
19:32:09 [Zakim]
19:32:52 [Bob]
scribe: Asir
19:33:17 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
19:33:43 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
19:34:26 [DaveS]
DaveS has joined #ws-ra
19:34:59 [asir]
Scribe: Asir S Vedamuthu
19:35:05 [asir]
ScribeNick: air
19:35:12 [asir]
ScribeNick: asir
19:35:20 [Bob]
19:35:23 [asir]
Meeting: WS-RA WG Conference Call
19:35:26 [asir]
Chair: Bob Freund
19:35:32 [dug]
zakim, who is talking?
19:35:32 [Zakim]
I am sorry, dug; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now
19:36:01 [asir]
Topic: Opening
19:36:30 [asir]
Agenda approved!
19:37:02 [asir]
Resolution: unanimously approved the minutes at
19:37:18 [asir]
Topic: New Issues
19:37:30 [Zakim]
19:37:38 [asir]
Resolution: accept all
19:37:56 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-ra
19:37:59 [asir]
Topic: Review of Closable Issues incorporated in 2009-03-31 snapshots
19:38:40 [asir]
Bob: Geoff - did Doug address your comments?
19:38:54 [asir]
Geoff: yes
19:39:16 [asir]
Geoff: has anyone else reviewed the editors' snapshots
19:39:50 [asir]
Bob Freund, Geoff Bullen and Doug Davis
19:39:54 [asir]
Anyone else?
19:40:02 [asir]
19:40:26 [Zakim]
19:40:54 [DaveS]
Davd Snelling joined the audio.
19:41:17 [asir]
Resolution: close issues incorporated in the Mar 31st snapshots (that is, bug list in the editors' snapshot change logs)
19:41:58 [asir]
Topic: Task Team 6413 Progress
19:42:13 [Geoff]
We have worked on our goals.
19:42:13 [Geoff]
We have had a con-call, but did not reach consensus.
19:42:13 [Geoff]
Geoff has an action item to come back soon with new thoughts on how to move forwards.
19:43:03 [asir]
Geoff: no ETA yet
19:43:21 [asir]
Topic: Action Items
19:43:59 [asir]
Bob motivated members to close actions
19:44:16 [Bob]
whip whip
19:44:23 [asir]
Topic: Issue-6739 All: Compliance section mismatch
19:44:38 [asir]
19:44:54 [asir]
Doug: use boiler plate to ensure consistency
19:44:59 [asir]
... across specs
19:45:08 [asir]
... retain the current wording to ensure that nothing is lost
19:45:33 [Geoff]
19:45:35 [Zakim]
19:45:35 [asir]
... hoping this is editorial
19:45:45 [Bob]
ack geo
19:45:51 [asir]
Geoff: no objections to the proposed direction
19:46:01 [asir]
... but it is only half finishing work
19:46:31 [asir]
... some of these specs need specific wording
19:47:07 [asir]
Doug: open to members to raise additional bugs
19:47:21 [asir]
19:47:26 [asir]
Doug: yes, yes
19:48:26 [asir]
I missed the action
19:49:31 [asir]
Action: Doug to (upon completion of 6739) highlight the differences across WS-RA conformance sections
19:49:31 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-58 - (upon completion of 6739) highlight the differences across WS-RA conformance sections [on Doug Davis - due 2009-04-28].
19:50:50 [asir]
Doug: apply the boilerplate, move spec specific contents to after the boiler plate text
19:51:32 [asir]
Resolution: closed issue 6739 as proposed at
19:51:52 [asir]
Topic: Issue-6712 Transfer: Create is ambiguous
19:52:00 [asir]
19:52:07 [asir]
[Doug is walking through the issue]
19:53:03 [asir]
Doug: based on last night thinking, wants a flag to indicate whether the body is a rep or something else
19:53:10 [Geoff]
19:53:14 [asir]
... not much feedback
19:53:26 [Yves]
well, you have the URI (well EPR) and the Action, why do you need more?
19:53:26 [asir]
[I am specifically not recording that fragment]
19:53:30 [Bob]
ack geo
19:53:46 [asir]
Yves got a good question
19:54:15 [asir]
Geoff: anyone of the content is okay, upto the resource to figure out, rather than Doug's interpretation
19:54:41 [asir]
... resource can support more than one type
19:54:52 [dug]
19:55:00 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:55:13 [asir]
... one simple way to resolve would be - clarify one and upto the resource to figure out which one
19:55:22 [asir]
... willing to provide some clarification text
19:55:22 [Zakim]
19:55:31 [asir]
... is that a reasonable approach
19:55:31 [Katy]
19:55:39 [asir]
... are there any use cases for IBM interpretation
19:55:50 [Bob]
ack yves
19:55:50 [asir]
... has anyone implemented the IBM interpretation
19:56:11 [Zakim]
19:56:13 [asir]
Yves: create is similar to HTTP PUT and URI, we have an action URI and body
19:56:38 [asir]
... not sure I understand what Doug wants to do with additional flags
19:56:42 [Bob]
ack dug
19:56:48 [asir]
Doug: Yves is right
19:57:02 [asir]
... passing in an EPR to copy the contents
19:57:08 [asir]
... passing in fragement stuff
19:57:10 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
19:57:16 [asir]
... does not matter what the instruction set is
19:57:26 [asir]
... add the ability to provide multiple constructors
19:57:40 [asir]
... MS interpretation, full representation | nothing
19:57:49 [asir]
... but not allow other constructors
19:57:57 [asir]
... Transfer spec allows that
19:58:16 [asir]
... forcing the users to choose one or the other translating to removing features
19:58:19 [Zakim]
19:58:23 [jeffm]
jeffm has joined #ws-ra
19:58:52 [asir]
... What about the 'Content-Type' header?
19:58:58 [asir]
... how to interpret the data
19:59:08 [asir]
... no hint
19:59:16 [DaveS]
19:59:19 [Geoff]
19:59:20 [asir]
what about the QName of the element?
19:59:24 [Bob]
ack katy
19:59:58 [asir]
Katy: full representation or partial representation ("fragment")
20:00:09 [asir]
... pity to restrict the scope
20:00:11 [Bob]
ack dave
20:00:19 [Yves]
why not doing a null 'create' then a 'put' from a template service?
20:00:45 [Yves]
seems like an optimization that has impact on the complexity of handling create
20:00:46 [asir]
DaveS: if we have a resource that has exactly one behavior then okay. the problem is want to build in pieces
20:01:08 [dug]
yves - why force people to jump thru hoops when transfer says you can do this today
20:01:10 [dug]
20:01:12 [asir]
... in theory, that is supported by the current transfer spec
20:01:28 [Zakim]
20:01:29 [Bob]
ack geof
20:01:41 [Katy]
Dialect (or something like) enables creation of resources in other ways, for example via command if resource is very big (large policy docs)
20:02:08 [Yves]
create from template looks more like a POST to me
20:02:13 [asir]
Geoff: don't need a flag or dialect or something else to accomplish this
20:02:22 [Yves]
so specific action
20:02:26 [asir]
... many of the comments are irrelevant to the issue
20:02:29 [dug]
yves - talk in Transfer terms please :-)
20:02:34 [Yves]
dug :)
20:02:45 [Yves]
like a "other action" to me
20:02:51 [asir]
... put allows message and defers interpretation to the resource
20:02:57 [dug]
20:03:22 [asir]
Bob: don't have a real crisp view of what to do?
20:03:51 [Bob]
ack dug
20:03:59 [asir]
Doug: regardless of the point of view, we are not talking about adding new features .. no real differences
20:04:26 [asir]
... can a resource support multiple types?
20:04:31 [Geoff]
20:04:39 [Bob]
ack geo
20:04:44 [dug]
I'd like to point out that I'm talking about adding any features - just allowing for more than one type of create at the same time
20:04:57 [DaveS]
DaveS's Use case summary for the minutes: A resource may need to be constructed through several steps where the resource needs to respond differently to different invocations. Dialect addresses this. The current spec is vague. A boolean (however implemented) is not rich enough.
20:05:01 [asir]
Geoff: upto the resource to decide, not the client
20:05:10 [Yves]
in WebDAV, COPY or MOVE are in fact doing the same thing as a PUT. Same thing here, creation of a resource is not always linked to a wst:create
20:05:16 [asir]
[just like HTTP/REST]
20:05:45 [dug]
but the service should be allowed to choose how many ways to expose
20:06:09 [asir]
Geoff: add clarification text to better explain this
20:06:32 [DaveS]
It is important that the existing implementations do not get restricted by changes we make.
20:07:41 [asir]
Action: Geoff to propose CLARIFICATION text to resolve issue 6712
20:07:42 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-59 - Propose CLARIFICATION text to resolve issue 6712 [on Geoff Bullen - due 2009-04-28].
20:08:04 [asir]
Geoff: not restriction, clarification and would like to move to consensus and not vote one versus the other
20:09:02 [asir]
Issue 6712 - waiting for Action-59
20:09:17 [asir]
Topic: Issue-6403 Enumeration - define policy
20:09:29 [asir]
[Doug walks through the issue/proposal]
20:10:21 [asir]
Doug: interesting stuff is the filter dialectg nested assertion
20:11:04 [Geoff]
20:11:13 [Bob]
ack geo
20:11:16 [Katy]
20:11:51 [asir]
Geoff: no objections to using WS-Policy ... want to understand
20:12:04 [asir]
... how we use policy assertions and its implications
20:12:13 [asir]
... unclear been beat around for a while
20:12:20 [asir]
20:12:38 [asir]
... policy as a substitute for WSDL constructs
20:12:50 [asir]
... used for instrastructure specification
20:13:05 [asir]
... are these specifications infrastructure specs (leaving that aside)
20:13:08 [dug]
20:13:14 [asir]
... there are some trade-offs
20:13:49 [asir]
... OTOH, want to make sure that we thought through the use cases to ensure success
20:14:01 [asir]
... how does this compose with other policy assertions defined else where
20:14:07 [asir]
... what happens?
20:14:30 [asir]
... say security assertions, per operation basis, per message basis, how would we solve that problem?
20:14:40 [asir]
Doug: agrees with everything Geoff said
20:15:11 [asir]
... opened a separate issue to discuss the impact on operations | messages
20:15:48 [asir]
Geoff: but these issues are overlapping, what happens when I specify the enum policy assertion
20:16:15 [asir]
... what is the relationship between the assertion and the WSDL constructs
20:16:30 [asir]
Doug: agrees again!!!
20:17:04 [asir]
Doug: ... may need to tweak this, want to avoid what it means to support enumeration
20:18:33 [asir]
Geoff: need to clearly articulate the overlapping point and then move forward
20:18:47 [asir]
... come up some wording
20:19:03 [asir]
... that clearly articulates what needs to be resolved
20:19:18 [dug]
20:19:19 [Bob]
ack geo
20:19:25 [Bob]
ack kat
20:19:28 [asir]
Katy: agrees with Geoff!!
20:19:53 [dug]
no no no, Geoff agrees with Doug and Katy :-)
20:19:53 [asir]
... problem space is quite simple
20:20:06 [asir]
... policy assertion indicates that enum MUST be used
20:20:23 [asir]
... may be it says, may be used
20:20:38 [asir]
... simple solution might be s/MUST/MAY/
20:20:39 [asir]
20:22:04 [asir]
... want to discuss implicit/explicit operations, how to associate policy expressions to implicit operations and messages
20:22:37 [dug]
6694: which operations are implicit
20:22:58 [asir]
Katy: overlapping issues 6721 and 6694
20:23:08 [asir]
s/6721/are 6721/
20:23:12 [Katy]
20:23:17 [Bob]
ack asir
20:24:02 [dug]
Asir agrees with Doug
20:25:05 [asir]
Asir: elaborate on filter dialect policy assertion?
20:26:30 [asir]
Doug: uses a QName = uri of the filter dialect, local name filter dialect
20:26:47 [dug]
20:26:48 [Bob]
ack katy
20:26:51 [asir]
... to leverage policy intersection specified in WS-Policy
20:27:14 [Bob]
ack dug
20:27:31 [asir]
[katy, may i request you to type your comment]
20:27:44 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
20:28:24 [asir]
Doug: started with basic functionality, made sure that the proposal can be augmented
20:28:53 [asir]
Bob: where are we?
20:28:54 [DaveS]
20:29:04 [asir]
q+ Geoff
20:29:09 [Bob]
ack dave
20:29:23 [asir]
DaveS: move forward
20:29:25 [Bob]
ack geo
20:29:46 [asir]
Geoff: refine some language around what we are resolving and what we are not resolving
20:29:58 [asir]
... doug took an action to describe the situation
20:30:11 [dug]
The resolution of this issue does not preclude us from modifying this policy based on issue 6694.
20:30:24 [asir]
... would like to work together
20:30:26 [dug]
+1 bob
20:30:27 [DaveS]
20:30:58 [asir]
[Bob is typing a proposal]
20:31:24 [Bob]
resolve 6403 with the proposal in bugzilla subject to future consideration as may be required in the resolutions for issues 6721 and 6694
20:32:18 [Katy]
20:32:36 [Bob]
ack katy
20:32:40 [asir]
Geoff: not ready yet, there are a couple of issues outstanding, move forward, solving 6403 does not resolve those open issues
20:33:34 [asir]
Katy: issue 1 - how to associate policy expressions to implicit operations | messages
20:34:16 [Geoff]
20:34:31 [Katy]
A endpoint should include a filterdialect policy assertion for each of the filter dialects that it supports.
20:34:46 [dug]
20:34:50 [asir]
[where is this being inserted?]
20:35:00 [dug]
end of: /wsenp:WSEnumeration/wsp:Policy/x:FilterDialect
20:35:37 [dug]
20:36:13 [Bob]
ack geo
20:36:43 [asir]
Bob: are we open to resolve issue 6403 with the amendment from Katy and Bob's statement (need to resolve other issues)
20:37:02 [asir]
Geoff: request another week to review the proposal
20:37:25 [DaveS]
20:37:40 [asir]
[Bob is inserting Katy's amendment to 6403 proposal]
20:37:41 [DaveS]
To the insertion into bugzz...
20:38:33 [asir]
everyone is playing with BugZilla!
20:38:42 [asir]
Collision .. oops oops oops
20:38:52 [asir]
Doug messed up Bob's entry :-)
20:39:48 [asir]
Bob baptizes 6403 with an #
20:40:08 [asir]
Topic: Issue-6401 WS-Eventing Notifications violates WS-I BP
20:40:45 [asir]
Gil is absent
20:40:49 [asir]
20:41:20 [asir]
Bob: any questions on the proposal, has been marinating (but not ready for grill)
20:41:25 [asir]
... let's start next week
20:41:45 [asir]
Topic: Issue-6432 WS-Eventing Push delivery mode does not work when the
20:41:45 [asir]
subscriber is not addressable
20:42:02 [asir]
20:42:10 [asir]
'THIS' proposal
20:42:38 [asir]
Doug: re-baptizes 'PUSH' as 'EPR' it is
20:43:01 [asir]
s/'EPR' it is/'EPR IT IS'/
20:43:11 [Geoff]
20:43:18 [asir]
Bob: where are we?
20:43:19 [Bob]
ack geo
20:43:45 [asir]
Geoff: wearing a non-conflationary hat (what is that?)
20:44:31 [asir]
... proposal uses an EPR mode, that is not specific enough
20:44:42 [asir]
... gone backwards and forwards
20:44:47 [dug]
20:44:51 [asir]
... you need to parse the EPR to figure out what is going on
20:45:14 [asir]
... parsing an EPR in an eventing code bit is the right thing to do
20:45:22 [dug]
I have not added any new requirements for parsing the EPR by changing the name of the Mode
20:45:25 [Bob]
20:45:33 [Bob]
ack dug
20:45:38 [asir]
s/is the right/is not the right/
20:46:04 [Geoff]
20:46:08 [Bob]
ack bob
20:46:27 [asir]
Doug: changing the mode from push to epr based does not say that you need to parse EPRs
20:46:53 [DaveS]
20:47:41 [asir]
Bob: what does asynchronous mean?
20:47:44 [Bob]
ack geo
20:48:18 [asir]
Geoff: by using an EPR rather than something more specific, you are actually loosing important semantics
20:48:31 [dug]
20:48:51 [asir]
... no need to look into an EPR
20:49:16 [asir]
... Geoff claims written evidence on teh WG mailing list :-)
20:49:19 [dug]
name change alone doesn't do that
20:49:23 [asir]
20:50:47 [dug]
if the eventing layers need to know MC is being used then it can look at the EPR just as easily as the Mode URI.
20:50:51 [asir]
... relying on EPR means the eventing layer is left behind, does not know what delivery semantics are used
20:50:57 [asir]
or requested by a subscriber
20:51:41 [asir]
Bob: which parts of the proposal conflates?
20:51:59 [asir]
Geoff: renaming is the concern
20:52:05 [Bob]
ack dave
20:52:53 [asir]
DaveS: nothing in the proposal changes the semantics of the submitted eventing
20:53:05 [asir]
... use the default semantics
20:53:11 [asir]
... use the push mode
20:53:31 [Bob]
ack dug
20:53:47 [asir]
Doug: what if we rename it to default mode
20:54:07 [Geoff]
20:54:07 [asir]
I heard Dave S support that
20:54:53 [asir]
Bob: Antoine asked - what happens a subscriber behind a firewall is using that
20:55:07 [DaveS]
20:55:19 [asir]
... we need to dev a proposal for that
20:55:21 [Bob]
ack geo
20:55:37 [li]
20:55:43 [asir]
Geoff: push mode need to retained, create a new mode, perhaps Pull MC
20:55:55 [asir]
... that woulld be a more viable solution
20:56:15 [Bob]
ack dave
20:57:38 [Bob]
acl li
20:57:41 [asir]
DaveS: two choices - (a) get lost (b) change pushmode -> eprmode
20:57:42 [Bob]
ack li
20:58:21 [asir]
Li: correctly describe the mode and then let the users figure out what to do
20:58:32 [Geoff]
20:58:37 [asir]
... could use MC even with addressible EPRs
20:58:54 [asir]
... would like to define a new mode
20:59:08 [asir]
[Bob is auctioning the last 60 seconds]
20:59:26 [asir]
... would like to retain the current Push mode and define a new mode
20:59:29 [Bob]
ack geo
20:59:40 [asir]
Geoff: is tied with 6692, no doubts
20:59:49 [DaveS]
Daves Clarification for the minutes: Option A) close with no action and tell Antoine to use WS-Addressing to do it, or B) provide guidance in the specification and clarify the name of PushMode to be something less specfic.
20:59:58 [asir]
... the current proposal conflates both push and pull
21:03:25 [dug]
Geoff - you on IM?
21:04:17 [Zakim]
21:04:18 [Zakim]
21:04:19 [Zakim]
21:04:20 [Zakim]
21:04:20 [Zakim]
21:04:21 [Zakim]
21:04:22 [Zakim]
21:04:29 [Zakim]
21:04:37 [Bob]
Bob adminishes folks to correct test scribed now while it is still fresh in their minds
21:04:42 [Zakim]
21:04:51 [Yves]
rrsagent, draft minutes
21:04:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Yves
21:04:52 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:04:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
21:04:54 [Zakim]
21:09:54 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, Doug_Davis, in WS_WSRA()3:30PM
21:09:56 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
21:10:00 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bob_Freund, Doug_Davis, [Microsoft], +1.408.970.aaaa, fmaciel, +1.908.696.aabb, Asir, Gilbert_Pilz, +1.571.262.aacc, katy, Vikas, Ashok_Malhotra, li, Tom_Rutt, Yves,
21:10:02 [Zakim]
... Dave_Snelling, JeffM