IRC log of ws-ra on 2009-05-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:14:48 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
19:14:48 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:14:50 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:14:50 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
19:14:52 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
19:14:52 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 16 minutes
19:14:53 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
19:14:53 [trackbot]
Date: 19 May 2009
19:17:04 [Bob]
19:18:39 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has now started
19:18:46 [Zakim]
19:19:00 [Bob]
zakim, [IP is Bob
19:19:00 [Zakim]
+Bob; got it
19:20:21 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
19:22:57 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:24:17 [Zakim]
+ +0208234aaaa
19:24:18 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has joined #ws-ra
19:24:55 [Geoff]
Geoff has joined #ws-ra
19:25:27 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-ra
19:26:28 [Bob]
zakim, katy is +0208
19:26:28 [Zakim]
sorry, Bob, I do not recognize a party named 'katy'
19:26:32 [Zakim]
19:26:53 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra
19:27:34 [Zakim]
19:28:17 [Zakim]
+ +0125669aabb
19:29:23 [Zakim]
19:30:11 [Zakim]
19:30:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.274.aacc
19:30:53 [Zakim]
19:31:04 [Zakim]
19:31:11 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
19:31:18 [fmaciel]
fmaciel has joined #ws-ra
19:31:34 [Zakim]
19:32:48 [Zakim]
+ +0759029aadd
19:34:26 [Bob]
Scribe: Li Li
19:35:13 [li]
TOPIC: current agenda
19:35:21 [Bob]
19:35:52 [Zakim]
- +0759029aadd
19:36:03 [li]
geoff has a new finished AI for the agenda?
19:36:13 [li]
agenda accepted
19:36:20 [dug]
If its Tuesday this must be Belgium
19:36:25 [li]
TOPIC: approval of minutes
19:36:39 [li]
... minutes approved w/o objection
19:36:39 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
19:36:57 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
19:37:11 [li]
TOPIC: f2f schedule
19:37:49 [Zakim]
+ +0759029aaee
19:38:08 [li]
geoff: when to indicate decision?
19:38:19 [li]
bob: we'll discuss it today
19:38:55 [li]
bob: hope to get one of mode and t/rt merge clean in f2f
19:39:45 [li]
TOPIC: snapshot
19:40:23 [li]
bob: how about next week for snapshot review?
19:40:27 [li]
geoff: yes
19:40:43 [li]
TOPIC: 6401 team
19:41:33 [li]
gil: consentrate on relation between raw and wrap notifications
19:41:50 [li]
try to schedule a call to go over it
19:42:08 [li]
bob: any fundamental issue?
19:42:39 [li]
gil: no, more one detail...
19:43:01 [li]
bob: estimate of time?
19:43:12 [li]
gil: we're still brainstorming
19:43:48 [li]
TOPIC: consolidation of mode proposals
19:44:05 [gpilz]
19:44:45 [li]
geoff: they are on wiki, runtime policy for doing mode?
19:44:54 [dug]
I think chris was talking about using a namedPolicy
19:45:51 [li]
chris: explain about how to use policy in subscribe
19:45:58 [Bob]
ack gpi
19:46:32 [li]
gil: wiki lists all choices so far - three options
19:47:36 [li]
...chris pointed out that there is a way to simplify policy intersection
19:47:53 [asir]
19:48:11 [li]
as a choice to make during deployment time, which may work for small devices
19:49:14 [dug]
scroll down to the PolicyReference stuff:
19:49:21 [li]
chris: we can profile policy to restrict its complexity, and use that policy to replace mode
19:49:22 [Bob]
ack asir
19:49:51 [li]
asir: someone needs to make a proposal and show how it works on small devices
19:50:25 [li]
dug: chris should create it on the wiki?
19:51:22 [Bob]
ACTION: Dug and Ashok to write up a constrained policy mode proposal
19:51:22 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-65 - And Ashok to write up a constrained policy mode proposal [on Doug Davis - due 2009-05-26].
19:51:43 [li]
TOPIC: new issues
19:52:43 [li]
any objection to openning them?
19:53:05 [li]
katy: 6920 missed
19:53:17 [li]
bob: objection to it?
19:53:22 [li]
no objections
19:56:02 [li]
19:56:09 [Bob]
Topic: Issue-6429
19:57:00 [Bob]
zakim, who is noisy?
19:57:12 [Zakim]
Bob, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Wu_Chou (44%)
19:57:56 [Wu]
6429 was updated with the agreement from Gil
19:58:53 [dug]
I think this is the latest:
19:59:28 [Wu]
Li: As far as we can see, we seemed reached concensus on issue 6429 on standard wrapped interface
20:00:54 [li]
bob: any objection
20:00:59 [asir]
20:01:10 [li]
bob: no object and 6429 is resolved
20:01:30 [asir]
Thanks to Li for driving consensus on 6429!!
20:01:34 [li]
20:03:01 [li]
bob: any objection
20:03:29 [li]
20:04:52 [li]
bob: objection to objection and resolved
20:05:20 [li]
20:06:10 [li]
gil: no proposal but it's obvious for editors
20:06:31 [li]
bob: do we need detail proposal?
20:07:00 [li]
geoff: ok with it
20:07:14 [li]
bob: objection to resolving object and resolved.
20:07:43 [li]
20:08:11 [gpilz]
20:08:19 [Zakim]
- +0759029aaee
20:08:51 [li]
20:08:54 [Geoff]
20:09:25 [Bob]
ack gpil
20:10:00 [Katy]
20:11:11 [Zakim]
+ +0759029aaff
20:11:15 [Wu]
Li: the purpose is to hide some operations from the tool. Can we have two set of WSDLs, one for advertise services, and one for generating code
20:11:31 [gpilz]
20:11:37 [Bob]
ack li
20:11:38 [li]
gil: agree with dug and explain some use cases regarding ws-e
20:11:41 [dug]
20:11:45 [Bob]
ack geoff
20:12:21 [li]
geoff: have concerns about losing info on operations by using policy
20:12:49 [li]
...such as security
20:13:38 [Bob]
ack katy
20:13:41 [li]
geoff: using transfer to get may have different security requirements
20:13:46 [asir]
q+ to ask a question of clarification (when appropriate)
20:13:51 [Zakim]
- +0759029aaff
20:14:16 [gpilz]
20:14:18 [li]
katy: implicit doesn't exclude explict
20:14:49 [li] may be addressed by ws-policy, some pattern may be created.
20:15:00 [Bob]
ack asir
20:15:00 [Zakim]
asir, you wanted to ask a question of clarification (when appropriate)
20:15:11 [gpilz]
20:15:14 [li]
asir: drop all wsdl but use policy?
20:15:45 [li]
dug: yes but not concrete yet
20:15:47 [asir]
Thank you recognizing a Microsoft use case!
20:15:52 [Zakim]
+ +0759029aagg
20:16:03 [li]
...geoff raises some valid use cases
20:17:12 [li]
...rm is indicated by policy assertions, which may be a pattern to follow, we can investigate them
20:17:15 [Bob]
ack gpi
20:17:24 [Zakim]
20:17:27 [Katy]
20:17:30 [dug]
20:17:34 [asir]
we lost bob
20:17:37 [dug]
oh no
20:17:43 [Bob]
20:17:46 [asir]
20:18:05 [Zakim]
20:18:17 [Bob]
I am back
20:18:21 [asir]
20:18:23 [asir]
20:19:04 [dug]
20:19:14 [li]
gil: attaching policy to operations worth more thinking...
20:19:59 [Bob]
ack katy
20:20:13 [asir]
20:20:23 [li]
katy: 6721 is related to find patterns to attach policy assertions
20:20:46 [Bob]
20:21:07 [li]
katy: RM can be used to study our approach
20:21:12 [Bob]
ack dug
20:21:55 [gpilz]
an app-level WSDL, a infrastructure WSDL, a Notification WSDL . . .
20:21:57 [gpilz]
20:22:23 [li]
dug: explore Li's idea, using mex to retrieve application wsdl
20:22:27 [Bob]
ack asir
20:22:58 [dug]
and retrieve implicit operation's wsdl
20:23:23 [gpilz]
20:23:36 [gpilz]
20:23:38 [li]
asir: our assertions define security features, define interrelation between domains
20:23:48 [li]
new policy has to consider such compositions
20:23:52 [gpilz]
20:24:42 [gpilz]
20:24:49 [asir]
Here is a link on how to think about RM as an example ....
20:24:50 [asir]
20:25:10 [Bob]
ACTION: Li and Dug to explore proposals and start a thread on this topic
20:25:10 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-66 - And Dug to explore proposals and start a thread on this topic [on Li Li - due 2009-05-26].
20:25:27 [Bob]
ack bob
20:26:24 [li]
daves: composing operations from different app into one port type
20:26:28 [asir]
20:26:38 [li]
...what is our strategy to deal with it?
20:26:46 [Bob]
ack asir
20:26:51 [li]
asir: wsdl doesn't mention any rules
20:27:17 [li]
...only ws-policy attachment has some rule, but only to wsdl 1.1 not wsdl 2.0
20:27:37 [gpilz]
20:27:56 [Bob]
ack gpil
20:28:12 [li]
gil: i caution using ws-rm because it has some constraints
20:28:22 [asir]
+1 to exercise caution!
20:28:59 [li]
... that do not apply to transfer
20:29:15 [li]
...we need to be careful not to over generalize
20:29:50 [dug]
20:29:53 [li]
20:31:08 [li]
dug: add an appendix to illustrate how to use transfer on subscription
20:31:12 [Geoff]
20:31:33 [Bob]
ack geoff
20:31:49 [li]
geoff: it's non-specific and good
20:32:14 [li]
...all properties returned by get?
20:32:24 [li]
dug: not necessary
20:32:42 [li]
geoff: what if you can't put all properties you get'ed
20:33:05 [li]
dug: that's valid but is generic to ws-t
20:33:20 [li]
geoff: is this a good use of ws-t?
20:33:23 [gpilz]
20:33:24 [li]
dug: i think so
20:34:06 [li]
geoff: need more careful design
20:34:53 [li]
dug: ws-e has read-only properties but should be left to ws-t to decide
20:36:21 [li]
geoff: what about optional headers and policy
20:36:36 [li]
... how to use ws-t to modify them?
20:36:52 [Bob]
ack gpi
20:37:27 [li]
gil: it's too simplistic to say not puttable is just a transfer issue
20:37:29 [dug]
20:38:19 [li]
...we are profiling ws-t if we define which field is writable?
20:38:39 [Bob]
ack dug
20:38:40 [li]'s an extension to ws-t
20:39:12 [li]
dug: it's up to the extension to decide which properties are writable
20:39:44 [li]'s not a profile but a use case of ws-t
20:39:55 [Zakim]
- +0759029aagg
20:40:07 [li]
...we need to improve ws-t to cover it if necessary
20:40:09 [gpilz]
zakim, who is noisy?
20:40:29 [Zakim]
gpilz, listening for 15 seconds I heard sound from the following: [IBM] (2%)
20:40:44 [li]
bob: leave it and move on?
20:41:17 [Geoff]
20:41:37 [Bob]
ack geof
20:41:39 [li]
geoff: still thinking and agree with gil
20:42:15 [li]
...not convinced yet and need more time to think
20:42:31 [li]
...need more words to clarify it
20:42:38 [gpilz]
20:42:45 [li]
bob: more time to think?
20:43:03 [Bob]
ack gpil
20:43:08 [dug]
q+ for a totally unrelated question - after this issue
20:43:32 [li]
gil: i create a new issue on what happend if server is unable to honor a put request
20:43:47 [li]
asir: action not supported?
20:44:49 [gpilz]
the problem is not the action
20:44:54 [gpilz]
it's what you tried to do with the action
20:45:05 [gpilz]
another put with different data may have succeeded
20:45:28 [li]
dug: format element should be optional
20:45:43 [Bob]
folks agreed
20:45:49 [li]'s forgotten by editors only
20:45:51 [dug]
20:47:05 [li]
20:47:44 [li]
AI 69 assigned to geoff
20:48:20 [li]
goeff: ...looking for his AI...
20:48:56 [Bob]
20:49:50 [li]
asir: geoff you submitted a proposal
20:49:57 [li]
...on may 5th
20:50:22 [Bob]
20:51:16 [li]
geoff: the latest discussion is that i still try to understand why we we need it
20:51:22 [dug]
20:52:10 [li]
...i think both are valid resoruce rep and i don't understand the issue
20:53:05 [li]
...i control what rep a resouce has and i don't understand what's missing
20:53:49 [Geoff]
20:53:54 [li]
dug: there is a baseline use of ws-t, you send xml to update resource
20:54:15 [Bob]
ack dug
20:54:30 [asir]
basic interop = first child element is service- or provider-specific; service or provider is in control
20:54:34 [li]
...the server needs to separate instruction from rep itself
20:55:03 [asir]
think about HTTP PUT or POST
20:55:08 [li]
...if using any, this valid use case is not supported
20:55:24 [Bob]
ack geoff
20:55:37 [dug]
20:55:38 [gpilz]
20:55:42 [li]
geoff: there is an assumption that rep is inside an wrapper element
20:56:24 [li]
...there is no place to say the wrapper is an instruction and the children is rep
20:56:39 [li]
...resoruce defines any level of wrappers
20:56:54 [li]
20:57:11 [Bob]
ack dug
20:57:16 [li]'s up to the resource to decide not the spec.
20:57:43 [li]
dug: literal resource rep is the key.
20:57:52 [Geoff]
20:58:39 [li]
dug: first-child element should be the rep
20:58:42 [asir]
am confused ... Transfer submission says, 'The first child element of the s:Body element MUST NOT be omitted. The contents of this element are service-specific, and MAY contain the literal initial resource representation, a representation of the constructor for the resource, or other instructions for creating the resource.'
20:59:00 [Bob]
ack gpil
20:59:31 [li]
gil: server is willing to accept anything as resource rep, in that case, there is no difference.
21:00:22 [dug]
Bob - e.g. provide an EPR to copy the resource from
21:00:30 [li]
...we need to add attribute or constraint to separate instruction from resource rep
21:00:43 [Bob]
ack geoff
21:01:01 [Zakim]
21:01:05 [li]
geoff: you define "literal" but spec doesn't define it
21:01:08 [Zakim]
21:01:20 [dug]
are people dropping on purpose?
21:01:39 [li]
...resource can define its rep
21:02:00 [li] can use xs:any if the resource can tell the difference
21:02:16 [li]'s the receiver's problem, not sender
21:02:30 [li]
asir: close with minor clarification
21:03:01 [li]
bob: please propose the clarification
21:03:17 [li]
dug: geoff please define "literal rep"
21:04:00 [li]
bob: any correction to irc?
21:04:04 [Zakim]
21:04:05 [li]
21:04:05 [Zakim]
21:04:06 [Zakim]
21:04:08 [Zakim]
21:04:08 [Zakim]
21:04:09 [Zakim]
21:04:10 [Zakim]
- +1.408.274.aacc
21:04:47 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra
21:04:56 [Zakim]
- +0208234aaaa
21:05:12 [Zakim]
- +0125669aabb
21:05:14 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
21:05:15 [Zakim]
Attendees were [IPcaller], Bob, +0208234aaaa, [Microsoft], [IBM], +0125669aabb, Tom_Rutt, Wu_Chou, +1.408.274.aacc, Gilbert, Ashok_Malhotra, Yves, +0759029aadd, +0759029aaee,
21:05:17 [Zakim]
... +0759029aaff, +0759029aagg
21:07:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Yves
21:10:48 [Bob]
Bob has joined #ws-ra
21:11:00 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:11:00 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
23:20:38 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has left #ws-ra