IRC log of ws-ra on 2009-06-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:02:31 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
16:02:31 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:02:33 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:02:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
16:02:35 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
16:02:35 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see WS_WSRA(3 day)11:30AM already started
16:02:36 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
16:02:36 [trackbot]
Date: 10 June 2009
16:02:56 [Bob]
rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight
16:04:33 [Zakim]
- +1.908.696.aaaa
16:04:52 [Zakim]
16:05:00 [Zakim]
+ +1.908.696.aabb
16:05:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.274.aacc
16:05:47 [Zakim]
16:06:02 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
16:06:15 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
16:06:15 [Geoff]
Geoff has joined #ws-ra
16:06:27 [Bob]
scribe: Ashok Malhotra
16:06:38 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
16:06:44 [Bob]
scribenick: Ashok
16:06:48 [Ashok]
scribe: Ashok Malhotra
16:07:00 [Ashok]
scribenick: Ashok
16:07:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.860.aadd
16:07:46 [Ashok]
Starting on Monday June 10, 2009
16:08:09 [PrasadY]
PrasadY has joined #ws-ra
16:08:09 [Ashok]
16:08:23 [gpilz]
16:08:29 [Ashok]
Resuming yesterday.s meeting
16:08:44 [Ashok]
Bob: I sent out a mail about 'mode'
16:09:18 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra
16:09:27 [Bob]
my mail this am
16:10:26 [Ashok]
Bob: I tried to define what were called 'problems' yesterday
16:10:51 [Zakim]
- +1.703.860.aadd
16:11:13 [BobN]
BobN has joined #ws-ra
16:11:25 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.860.aaee
16:11:38 [Ashok]
First, compositipn on 'mode' ... it is done as an attribute
16:12:03 [Ashok]
... extensions were suggested
16:12:52 [Ashok]
... proposal is that extensions could be named as QNames
16:13:27 [Ashok]
Bob: Do we agree that this is a way forward?
16:13:35 [Ashok]
No disagreement
16:14:07 [Ashok]
Bob: So we agree that a list of QNames would be a way to handle composability
16:14:46 [Ashok]
Second problem is scope of the extensions
16:16:53 [Ashok]
... extensions apply to parent and children of element
16:18:46 [Ashok]
Asir: So, in general, put extension where it belongs
16:19:37 [Ashok]
Bob: ... as child of the thing it extends
16:20:55 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
16:21:16 [Ashok]
Geoff: I'm concerned about this ... re.DeliveryMode
16:21:56 [Ashok]
.... you will agrue that all extensions go in NotifyTo or Subscribe and we don't need DeliveryMode
16:22:06 [Yves]
trackbot, start telcon
16:22:08 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:22:10 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
16:22:10 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see WS_WSRA(3 day)11:30AM already started
16:22:11 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
16:22:11 [trackbot]
Date: 10 June 2009
16:22:59 [Ashok]
Bob: In aggregate the delivery mode you get is the result of the composition
16:24:27 [dug]
16:24:41 [Ashok]
... that's the mode
16:24:49 [Ashok]
Geoff: disagrees
16:25:40 [Ashok]
Geoff: I accept that "we shd put things where they belong"
16:25:58 [Ashok]
... I'm worried about the second-last problem
16:26:12 [Ashok]
Bob: Let's wait till we get there
16:26:47 [Ashok]
Bob: Third, mode-not-supported fault ... waht do we do abt that
16:27:15 [Ashok]
16:27:56 [gpilz]
16:27:59 [Ashok]
... also the usecase 'I want to create a subcription only if all extensions are there"
16:28:02 [gpilz]
16:28:53 [Ashok]
... so I created boolean called 'strict' which says only create subscription if all extensions supported
16:29:35 [Ashok]
Asir: I not sure all features you are trying to realize are useful
16:29:48 [Geoff]
16:29:56 [Ashok]
... you are trying to tighten the faulting mechanism
16:30:55 [Bob]
ack gpi
16:30:56 [Ashok]
Bob: Sorta like mustUnderstand
16:31:23 [Ashok]
Gil: Strict does not allow you to say these extensions are vital and these are optional
16:31:37 [Geoff]
16:32:07 [Geoff]
16:32:20 [Wu]
16:32:52 [Ashok]
Ashok: Policy can be used to say what's required and what's optional
16:33:11 [Bob]
ack geo
16:34:13 [Ashok]
Geoff: There is the fault business that returns all this stuff ... we need fault to say that a delivery mode is not supported
16:34:28 [Wu]
16:35:53 [Ashok]
Bob: We agree that we want a fault that the delivery mode cannot be supported
16:36:44 [Ashok]
... we also agree there may be a usecase where a portion of the delivery mode is supported and that's acceptable
16:37:09 [Wu]
16:38:46 [Ashok]
Asir: Differentiate between not understood and not accepted
16:40:14 [Ashok]
Bob: You could use mustUnderstand faults in addition
16:40:50 [Ashok]
Geoff: There is a concept of delivery and a fault that say I did not agree with how you want it delivered
16:41:00 [Tom_Rutt]
16:41:35 [Ashok]
... if we has lot's of delivery modes we must also have lot's of faults
16:41:57 [Ashok]
16:42:21 [dug]
16:42:34 [Ashok]
... I did not understand how you wanted me to deliver stuff
16:44:57 [asir]
16:45:01 [Ashok]
Bob: We agree we need fault-tightening behaviour which also deals with composition problem
16:45:10 [Bob]
ack wu
16:45:31 [Ashok]
Wu: We want default of delivery mode as in the current spec
16:45:53 [Bob]
ack tom
16:46:16 [Ashok]
Tom: I'm trying to grasp the requirements
16:46:38 [Ashok]
... I hearing strong attachment to this concept called "delivery"
16:47:19 [Ashok]
... I want a fault that gives you the info yiu want
16:47:46 [Ashok]
... Does not matter if it not called delivery
16:47:48 [Bob]
ack dug
16:48:21 [Ashok]
Dug: All will agree with fault that says 'I cannot meet yiur needs"
16:48:42 [Ashok]
... but what is a dlivery need and what is a subscription need
16:48:53 [Ashok]
16:49:46 [Ashok]
... why do you want a fault that says 'cannot meet delivery needs' and not just cannot meet your needs
16:50:41 [Ashok]
... delivery need vs. subscription need
16:51:25 [Wu]
16:51:51 [Ashok]
Dug: Do not calssify faults .. we need we need a fault
16:52:09 [Ashok]
16:52:24 [gpilz]
16:53:05 [Wu]
16:53:34 [Ashok]
Asir: Agree we ned to tighten faulting mechanism. We can define detailed faults later.
16:54:39 [Ashok]
Bob: We also need to talk abt contents subscribe/response
16:55:24 [Ashok]
... need to specify waht you got
16:55:40 [Ashok]
Bob: Let's talk abt Delivery Mode
16:55:52 [Ashok]
... may be affected by more than one extension
16:57:34 [Ashok]
Bob draws Subscribe box NotifyTo and EndTo children
16:57:49 [Ashok]
s/box/box with/
16:59:36 [Ashok]
Bob: The concept of delivering stuff is NotifyTo + extensions plus other extensions that affect delivery (Delivery Concept)
17:00:13 [Ashok]
Dug: Filter can also be part of delivery mode
17:00:24 [Ashok]
Bob: Is EndTo part of delivery mode
17:00:55 [Bob]
17:01:02 [Zakim]
- +1.408.274.aacc
17:01:22 [Ashok]
Dug: If you cannot tell me why subscription eneded prematurly that part of delivery mode
17:02:24 [Ashok]
Bob: Delivery concept is everything subscription mgr know to fulfill it's contract with you
17:02:40 [Ashok]
c/know/must know/
17:02:54 [Ashok]
17:04:16 [gpilz]
17:04:20 [gpilz]
17:04:24 [Ashok]
Tom: Delivey is in the eyes of the beholder
17:05:03 [Ashok]
Asir: 2 cycles ... subscribe then response and end subscription and response
17:05:17 [Wu]
17:05:44 [dug]
17:06:40 [Ashok]
Wu: Separate delivery from subscription
17:06:53 [Bob]
ack wu
17:06:55 [Bob]
ack gp
17:08:07 [Ashok]
Gil: Trying to callisy extension as deliry extension or subscription extension is not useful
17:08:25 [Ashok]
17:09:15 [Ashok]
17:09:24 [Wu]
We can view WS-E with three semantics components: Event subscription, Event Generator and Delivery engine
17:10:16 [Ashok]
Dug: Suppose we kept the <delivery> element and decided that <frog> was a delivery extension
17:10:48 [Ashok]
... now we put <frog> outside delivery ... waht what happen ... would system fall apart
17:11:14 [Wu]
17:11:45 [Ashok]
Asir: Folks said WS-MAN put in extensions here that there, we need better guidelines
17:12:24 [Ashok]
Dug: We have extension points and can put extensions in different places
17:13:02 [Ashok]
Bob draws generic diagram of event source
17:15:52 [Ashok]
... six boxes all involved in my delivery
17:18:19 [Ashok]
... do we need wrapper around extensions to each of the six bozes?
17:20:32 [Ashok]
... Should it be possible to put an extsion at the subscribe level and affect everything?
17:20:42 [Ashok]
Dug: Yes
17:21:40 [gpilz]
17:22:37 [Ashok]
Wu: Need to provide structure and people add etensions in a strctured manner
17:23:15 [Ashok]
... I like current spec. Each element has an extension point
17:23:24 [Geoff]
17:23:32 [Ashok]
Bob: Are talking abt delivery element
17:23:58 [Bob]
ack dug
17:24:16 [Ashok]
Dug: I diagree that elements inside map to implementation bits
17:25:13 [Ashok]
... need to tell what each extension applies to ... so put in appropriate element
17:26:46 [Ashok]
Gil: We only talk abt EPS to EPR communication ... not abt implementation structure
17:27:01 [dug]
17:27:16 [Bob]
acl wu
17:27:24 [Bob]
ack gp
17:27:30 [Bob]
ack wu
17:27:37 [Bob]
ack geo
17:28:05 [Ashok]
Geoff: But we talk abt event source and a subscription manager in spec. So we separate them
17:28:36 [Ashok]
... 2 separate concepts
17:29:06 [Ashok]
Bob: EndTo is not related to delivery
17:29:58 [Ashok]
... is there anything abt delivery concept not inherenetly connected to NotifyTo?
17:31:15 [Ashok]
... is there any need to have an element associated with concept of delivery?
17:31:36 [Ashok]
... NotifyTo EPR is essential
17:33:25 [Ashok]
You specify 'push', 'push-with-acks' in the NotiFyTo EPR
17:34:01 [Ashok]
Asir: Today PUSH is built into the spec as default
17:34:26 [Ashok]
... if something is specified then that's the delivery mode
17:34:52 [Ashok]
... today you can ignore evrything other than the address of the EPR
17:36:05 [Ashok]
... If we say delivery mode needs to be inferred we need to say whare it is inferred from
17:36:57 [Ashok]
... today if you say mode='something' then you must understand the mode
17:37:38 [Ashok]
Bob: Anything in the scope affects its parent
17:38:22 [Ashok]
.... somesubset of the element you want to call a Delivery Concept
17:38:33 [Ashok]
Asir: Delivery and NotifyTo
17:39:36 [Ashok]
Geoff: Default is the 'push' mode. If we delete mode there is no way to say that
17:40:33 [Ashok]
Bob shows how to do that ... put PUSH as final child of Subscribe
17:40:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.202.aaff
17:41:26 [Ashok]
... Format and Filter are separate elements
17:42:00 [Ashok]
... I don't think Delivery element it dangerous. May not be necessary
17:42:08 [Ashok]
.... Mode is dangerous
17:43:50 [Ashok]
Gil questions need for delivery element
17:44:23 [Ashok]
Dug: Cannot classify extensions
17:45:13 [Ashok]
... is Format a Delivery extension or a Subscription extension
17:45:29 [Ashok]
Asir: It's an implementation problem
17:45:51 [Ashok]
Gil: Supports Dug
17:46:20 [Ashok]
... cannot classify extensions ... distinction does not affect anything
17:47:07 [Ashok]
Bob: Asks if the delivery wrapper elemnt is removed is that a lie-down-in-road issue?
17:47:13 [Ashok]
Wu: Yes
17:47:18 [Ashok]
Geoff: Yes
17:48:03 [Ashok]
Bob: If delivery element is not removed is that a lie-down-in-road issue?
17:48:19 [Ashok]
Dug, Gil, Tom: Yes
17:48:33 [Ashok]
Mark: Yes
17:49:45 [Ashok]
Asir: Maybe we shd focus on delivery element some more to try and get consensus
17:50:02 [Ashok]
17:50:11 [Zakim]
- +1.703.860.aaee
17:50:13 [Zakim]
17:51:47 [Zakim]
- +1.408.202.aaff
17:59:09 [Bob]
gathering the flock
18:00:43 [Zakim]
18:02:38 [Ashok]
18:03:14 [Ashok]
Geoff: Where shd people send slides
18:03:31 [Ashok]
Bob: To be public list
18:03:39 [Ashok]
18:04:26 [Zakim]
+ +1.949.926.aagg
18:05:38 [asir]
His name is Hemal Shah
18:06:06 [Ashok]
That's the speaker coming up
18:08:24 [Ashok]
Topic: WS-Man issues
18:10:46 [Ashok]
In 2003 customers meet with hardware vendores and asked for facilities to manage hardware independent of specific hardware
18:11:13 [Ashok]
DMTF took on this challenge with SMASH and DASH
18:11:33 [Ashok]
Intial feeling was Web Services stack was too heavy
18:12:51 [Ashok]
We now have 3 specs with Web Services profiles and features
18:13:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.970.aahh
18:15:22 [Ashok]
Hemal: I work for Broadcom
18:15:38 [Ashok]
I started with WS-MAN in 2005
18:16:25 [Ashok]
... folks were sceptical because spec was heavyweight and resources limited
18:18:11 [dug]
18:18:16 [Ashok]
... Start with WS-Eventing issue on removing 'mode'
18:18:55 [Ashok]
Hemal: We are using 'mode'. We have defined several modes in WS-MAN
18:19:26 [Ashok]
... If you remove mode you lose function which is in many implementations
18:19:50 [Ashok]
Bob: As a single attribute is not composable
18:20:22 [Ashok]
... proposal to replace mode with a set of QNames so they cam be composed
18:20:51 [Ashok]
... you look for an extension QName
18:21:09 [Ashok]
.... there would be a set of elements rather than one attribute
18:21:53 [Ashok]
Josh: Are there other elements also? Asks scope question
18:22:16 [Ashok]
Bob: The scope of extension is the parent and its children
18:22:39 [Ashok]
... the faulting behaviour needs to be tightened up
18:22:53 [Ashok]
... it is optional so not reliable
18:23:10 [Ashok]
.... has unbounded list of elements and namespaces
18:23:37 [Ashok]
.... need to generate fault saying waht cannot be honored
18:24:04 [Ashok]
... Folks divided in whether we need a delivery element and what shd be in ti
18:24:12 [Ashok]
18:25:15 [Ashok]
Bob: We have not decided on categories, whether we need them, what they are?
18:26:24 [Ashok]
Hemal: We have implementations. If the info is in another element it will break the implementations.
18:26:46 [Ashok]
Bob: Other changes we have agreed on will break wire protocols
18:27:20 [Ashok]
Hemal: Keepthe mode and also provide other facilities and allow both mechanisms
18:27:38 [Ashok]
s/Keep/Keep /
18:27:53 [Ashok]
Bob: Mode as it is currently non-composable
18:28:32 [Ashok]
.... you would add elements e.g. Push-with-acks
18:29:05 [Ashok]
Jeff: You will have to change becuse namespace will change and there will be other changes
18:29:23 [Ashok]
18:29:31 [Zakim]
- +1.408.970.aahh
18:29:42 [Ashok]
... we shd shift to how to migrate
18:30:04 [Ashok]
.... you could map extensions to modes
18:30:47 [asir]
we should not worry about namespace name changes because wire compat is not a requirement .. feature-wise backward compat is a requirement
18:31:10 [Ashok]
Gil: Extensibility model in WS-Eventing has change. Now ignore what you don't recognize not fault
18:31:47 [Ashok]
Bob: We have moved <format> out and moved it higher up
18:32:19 [Ashok]
Hemal: What possible extensions?
18:32:37 [Ashok]
Gil: Relaible messaging or security for example
18:32:40 [asir]
18:33:02 [Wu]
18:33:05 [Ashok]
.... argues composability requirements
18:33:37 [Ashok]
Asir: We shd not talk abt security and reliability as extensions
18:33:49 [Ashok]
Bob: Cannot anticipate extensions
18:34:12 [Wu]
18:34:39 [Ashok]
... also need to be flexible abt scale of implementations
18:35:27 [Wu]
18:35:30 [Ashok]
Hemal: If you add RM, and security that's not WS-Eventing.
18:35:44 [Ashok]
Bob: We need to support composability
18:36:48 [Ashok]
Hemal: People can extend values of mode attribute
18:37:28 [Ashok]
Bob: E.g. push-with-acks is defined as specific URI value that can be used as value of mode.
18:37:29 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
18:37:50 [Wu]
18:38:20 [Ashok]
... equivalent is a push-with-acks element. This could combine with other features such as queue management
18:38:20 [Ram]
18:39:02 [Ashok]
Wu: Yiu several good points. We are still discussing.
18:39:21 [Ashok]
18:39:37 [Ashok]
Hemal: My concern is removal of 'mode'
18:40:04 [Ashok]
... if you remove it I worry about existing implementations and transition path
18:40:05 [Tom_Rutt]
18:41:05 [Ashok]
Asir: Keep RM and Security out of mode discussion. They are different.
18:41:12 [Ashok]
Bob: Disagrees
18:42:03 [Bob]
ack asir
18:42:17 [Wu]
18:42:26 [Ashok]
Jeff: Mode does not compose and MS has been pushing 'composable specifications'
18:42:35 [Ram]
18:42:40 [Wu]
18:42:59 [Ashok]
Bob: I would like to hear all of Hemal's concerns
18:43:43 [Ashok]
Jeff: We are trying to ensure reasonable clean migration path but we don't have an absolute requirement to have backwards compatibility
18:44:00 [Ashok]
Tom: The mode that has been defined is 'push'
18:44:18 [Ram]
18:44:28 [Ashok]
... WS-Man ahs added others and they can define 'push-with-ack'
18:44:45 [Ashok]
18:45:13 [Ashok]
Hemal: Next point 6413 - T/RT merge
18:45:41 [dug]
18:45:51 [Ashok]
... didn't completely understand prooosal. Is it trying combine Enum functionality
18:46:52 [Ashok]
Bob: Current proposal is to move framnet support from RT and make that an optional paty of T or possibly a separate spec.
18:47:11 [Ashok]
... or possibly another form of fragment support
18:47:25 [Ashok]
... still open on details
18:47:38 [Ashok]
... no agreement yet
18:48:15 [dug]
18:48:20 [Ashok]
Hemal: Fragment level transfer poses signifact challenges in resource constrained envvironment
18:48:53 [Ashok]
... more we can deal with this in headers the better
18:50:14 [Ashok]
Bob: If frag level transfer is presented as a feature with a mustUnderstand type feature that would work for you?
18:50:24 [Ashok]
Hemal: We can gennerate a fault
18:50:44 [Ashok]
Bob: We are propsing it as an optional feature
18:51:04 [Ashok]
Heaml: Is it going in body or header?
18:51:19 [asir]
18:51:29 [Ashok]
Dug: Currently in body but being worked on
18:52:01 [Bob]
ack tom
18:52:13 [Ashok]
Bob: You want to be able figure with minimal processing if you don't support it
18:52:28 [Bob]
ack ram
18:52:34 [Geoff]
18:52:36 [Bob]
ack asir
18:52:54 [Bob]
ack geo
18:53:12 [Ashok]
Asir: We say it is optional but current proposal is not optional. We have raised an issue on this.
18:53:43 [asir]
s/on this/against the current proposal/
18:54:34 [Ashok]
Moving to 6724
18:55:06 [Ashok]
Geoff: Subscribe as a Resource
18:56:11 [Ashok]
Hemal: You can get to instances once you have subscribe.
18:56:41 [Ashok]
Bob: We will not remove GetStatus and Renew. Those are off the table
18:57:31 [Ashok]
Dug: Eveting spec defines minimum function. Implementaions can extend
18:58:25 [Ashok]
This would allow you get full properties of the subscription and even update subscription properties
18:58:51 [Ashok]
Hemal: For the SIM case this will not provide any more information
18:59:29 [Ashok]
Dug: Are you talking abt enumeration instances?
19:00:08 [Ashok]
... this allows you reterive subscription properties. GET may not give you back what you need.
19:00:31 [Ashok]
Bob: Has SIM extended Transfer to get this info
19:01:11 [Ashok]
... what spec defines represenation of the subscription
19:02:09 [Ashok]
Josh: With any SIM class you can manipulate subscription info
19:02:35 [Ashok]
Bob: There is no conflict with that.
19:02:57 [Ashok]
Josh: We want to make sure it is aligned with SIM or SIM can be put in it
19:04:09 [Ashok]
Dug: I think we are talking abt something different. Please send mail so we don't lose your idea of possible conflict
19:04:53 [Ashok]
Josh: We can followup with emal.
19:05:02 [dug]
19:05:17 [Ashok]
Bob: Someone shd open an issue. Very interested in follwing up with you.
19:05:36 [Zakim]
- +1.949.926.aagg
19:05:38 [Zakim]
19:05:48 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
19:05:57 [Ashok]
19:06:10 [Zakim]
- +1.908.696.aabb
19:47:52 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
19:48:29 [Zakim]
20:00:04 [Zakim]
+ +1.908.696.aaii
20:00:17 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
20:00:25 [Bob]
link to Josh's slides
20:00:28 [Bob]
20:00:53 [PrasadY]
scribe PrasadY
20:01:02 [PrasadY]
scribeNick PrasadY
20:01:12 [PrasadY]
Starting the afternnon session
20:01:27 [Bob]
scribenick: PrasadY
20:01:48 [Bob]
scribe: Prasad Yendurli
20:02:08 [PrasadY]
20:02:46 [PrasadY]
Bob: Doug sent his write up on 6712 to the list
20:02:55 [Bob]
20:02:55 [Zakim]
+ +0207827aajj
20:03:42 [PrasadY]
Bob: That was proposed resoloution to Issue 6712
20:04:41 [PrasadY]
20:04:41 [PrasadY]
When this OPTIONAL attribute is present it conveys additional information that can be used by the service to correctly process this message. If the service can determine the correct actions to take it MAY choose to ignore this attribute, even if the URI provided is not known. However, if the service needs this information, for example to determine if the child elements of the wst:Create are the literal resource representation or an instruction, but the a
20:05:11 [gpilz]
zakim who is making noise
20:05:36 [Bob]
zaki, who is making noise?
20:05:43 [li]
zakim, aaii is li
20:05:43 [Zakim]
+li; got it
20:05:45 [Bob]
zakim, who is making noise?
20:05:57 [Zakim]
Bob, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: li (5%), ??P13 (33%)
20:06:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.970.aakk
20:12:29 [PrasadY]
Ashok: Why not call the "implied" value "default" value
20:12:52 [PrasadY]
Dug: I have seen both used but, ok
20:12:58 [PrasadY]
Geoff: What does the default/implied value mean?
20:13:18 [PrasadY]
Bob: As stated there is no way not to have a value
20:14:10 [PrasadY]
Agreement - Change the last sentence to say "no default value"
20:14:35 [PrasadY]
Asir: "Corretly" in 1st sentence should be drpped
20:15:05 [PrasadY]
Consensus: agreed
20:15:17 [Bob]
When this OPTIONAL attribute is present it conveys additional information that can be used by the service to process this message. If the service can determine how to process the message it MAY choose to ignore this attribute, even if the URI provided is not known. However, if the service needs this information, for example to determine if the child elements of the wst:Create are the literal...
20:15:19 [Bob]
...resource representation or an instruction, but the attribute is not present or the URI is not known, then the service MUST generate an invalidContentDescriptionURI fault. There is no default value.
20:16:33 [PrasadY]
Asir: Name is contentDescription the fault also should be called the same (no URI in the end)
20:16:39 [PrasadY]
20:17:40 [PrasadY]
Asir: wants to name the attribute, contentDescriptionHint
20:18:20 [PrasadY]
Dug: Does not think the word Hint is needed. The description conveys that
20:19:05 [PrasadY]
Yves: Hint also means it is not trustable
20:19:15 [PrasadY]
Bob: Hints can be wrong
20:19:52 [PrasadY]
Ashok: Server can send a fault it wants. It is explained in a complex way
20:20:26 [PrasadY]
.. Say, "if the server does not understand the att, it may send a fault'
20:20:46 [PrasadY]
Dug: we need to call out the two cases described explicitly
20:21:08 [PrasadY]
... if you needed the att to process the message
20:21:28 [PrasadY]
Ashok: does it matter to the client / user?
20:21:59 [PrasadY]
Dug: The spec needs to clr on when the fault is generated
20:22:09 [PrasadY]
s/to clr/to be clr/
20:23:02 [PrasadY]
Gil: if you get a fault, you need to be able to look up the spec to understand when the fault is generated
20:23:31 [PrasadY]
Ashok: I am not going to make a big issue. Just i would have written that way
20:24:05 [asir]
here is what we agreed yesterday
20:24:06 [asir]
OPTIONAL Hint that describes the content, CONTENT DESCRIPTION. If the service needs a hint and the CONTENT DESCRIPTION is not known, then service MUST generate a fault (to be defined). If the service does not need a hint then may ignore the CONTENT DESCRIPTION and MAY NOT generate a fault. Type(CONTENT DESCRIPTION) = xs:anyURI
20:25:01 [PrasadY]
Dug: does not think hint is well-defined
20:25:49 [PrasadY]
20:26:29 [PrasadY]
Bob: In the version I have I have not added the Hint language
20:26:40 [PrasadY]
Asir: We agreed to it yesterday
20:27:26 [PrasadY]
Bob: I am happy to leave it as is, even though we used that word yesterday
20:28:53 [Bob]
When this OPTIONAL attribute is present it conveys additional information that can be used by the service to process this message. If the service can determine how to process the message it MAY choose to ignore this attribute, even if the URI provided is not known. However, if the service needs this information, for example to determine if the child elements of the wst:Create are the literal...
20:28:54 [PrasadY]
Dug: I already added the fault to spec. I will change it to match above
20:28:55 [Bob]
...resource representation or an instruction, but the attribute is not present or the URI is not known, then the service MUST generate an invalidContentDescription fault. There is no default value.
20:29:29 [fmaciel]
fmaciel has joined #ws-ra
20:31:26 [Bob]
RESOLUTION: Issue-6712 resolved with text above along with parallel modifications to the associated fault
20:31:28 [PrasadY]
rrsagent, where am I?
20:31:28 [RRSAgent]
20:32:04 [PrasadY]
Bob: Back on Issue 6692, Delivery concept
20:33:26 [PrasadY]
Bob: describes where we stand
20:38:18 [Yves]
Yves has changed the topic to: GB.Frog
20:46:52 [gpilz]
20:47:12 [Bob]
ack gpi
20:51:56 [Ram]
20:52:39 [Bob]
ack ram
20:53:32 [dug]
20:54:05 [Bob]
ack dug
20:55:32 [asir]
20:58:31 [li]
21:03:35 [Wu]
21:03:45 [Wu]
21:07:10 [Bob]
ack asir
21:08:45 [Wu]
21:08:54 [Bob]
ack li
21:09:54 [PrasadY]
in depth discussion on different ways to place the delivery brack and if there is a value in having it or not
21:10:08 [PrasadY]
21:11:00 [Geoff]
21:11:21 [Bob]
ack wu
21:12:08 [PrasadY]
Bob: Suggests "stamp" element that qualifies the EPR (NotifyTo)
21:12:23 [PrasadY]
Wu: Stamp is equivalant to Delivery
21:12:51 [gpilz]
21:12:57 [Bob]
ack geoff
21:13:22 [dug]
21:13:56 [PrasadY]
Geoff: The Eventing spec saya there is a difference between subscription and event source. The arh boxes the cxoncepts
21:14:10 [PrasadY]
21:14:31 [li]
21:15:13 [PrasadY]
.. 2nd pt. Every one accpts push mode, yet we have no defined way to change it
21:15:26 [PrasadY]
21:16:38 [PrasadY]
Bob: We talked about Delivery.. Could you come-up with a concept of "Delivery"?
21:16:50 [dug]
21:17:56 [PrasadY]
Dug: As an extension writer, I should be able to tell if it goes in Delivery or not
21:18:02 [li]
21:18:14 [li]
21:18:31 [PrasadY]
Geoff: accept that
21:18:43 [li]
21:19:07 [PrasadY]
10 minutes Break...
21:19:19 [PrasadY]
q- li
21:19:23 [li]
21:19:29 [li]
21:19:44 [li]
21:20:39 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
21:20:50 [li]
21:21:02 [li]
21:22:33 [Geoff]
the definition for delievery we should start with can be found in an email sent by Asir
21:22:39 [Geoff]
the link is here:
21:33:37 [Zakim]
21:35:54 [Bob]
21:35:57 [Bob]
21:36:16 [gpilz]
21:37:27 [PrasadY]
Dug: does not think Pull does not fit the above (MEP part)
21:37:34 [PrasadY]
Asir: Thinks it does
21:38:08 [PrasadY]
s/does not fit/fits/
21:40:17 [jeffm]
jeffm has joined #ws-ra
21:40:41 [li]
21:40:57 [PrasadY]
Bob: Can we simply define: Delivery is rules for transportation of Notifications from source to sink
21:41:10 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
21:41:13 [PrasadY]
Dug: How about batching?
21:41:27 [PrasadY]
Asir/Bob: That is formatting not transportation
21:44:01 [Zakim]
21:44:20 [PrasadY]
Delivery is rules for conveyance of Notifications from source to sink
21:45:38 [PrasadY]
Ashok: Suppose we agree on this, how does it change things?
21:46:30 [PrasadY]
Tom: The from and To would be part of this
21:47:29 [PrasadY]
Gil: Thinks it is hard for people outsite this room to figure out whether an extension goes with delivery or not
21:48:24 [PrasadY]
Bob: With this definition Notify:to comes back into the bracket
21:48:38 [PrasadY]
Dug: Does not solve the EndTo problem
21:49:32 [Ashok]
Ashok has left #ws-ra
21:49:38 [PrasadY]
Bob: If no more arguments, we are going to decide
21:51:00 [PrasadY]
Asir: Not all directional proposals from this am have translated to concrete proposals
21:52:34 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
21:52:55 [PrasadY]
s/ted to/ted into/
21:54:39 [PrasadY]
Tom: Rules don't go into the "Stamp", the effects of rules do
21:55:02 [PrasadY]
Not all effects may go into stamp also
22:02:38 [li]
22:06:47 [PrasadY]
Bob: Within the subscribe Msg - a Yes vote supports the directional decision todefine an element that acts as a container for all extension QNames defined by this spec or externally, and data necessary fro conveyance of Notfications from Source to Sink
22:07:04 [PrasadY]
s/todefine/to define/
22:07:48 [PrasadY]
Dug: This is an incomplete soultion does not address EndTo
22:07:55 [li]
i'm on queue
22:08:23 [Bob]
ack li
22:09:00 [PrasadY]
Li: WS-Eventing a pt to pt protocol - establishing a channel from source to sink
22:10:12 [PrasadY]
s/a pt/is a pt/
22:10:55 [PrasadY]
Subscription establishes 2 links, between source and sink and subscription manager and client
22:11:52 [PrasadY]
Bob: Any other concerns before wew vote on the directional proposal?
22:12:10 [PrasadY]
Asir: Want to account for EndTo?
22:12:28 [PrasadY]
Dug/Gil: No need. May raise as a separate issue
22:12:59 [PrasadY]
Bob" Vote Yes - to support the wrapper
22:13:03 [PrasadY]
Avaya - Yes
22:13:11 [PrasadY]
Fujitsu - Yes
22:13:19 [PrasadY]
Hitachi - No
22:13:22 [PrasadY]
22:13:25 [PrasadY]
MS - Yes
22:13:30 [PrasadY]
Oracle - No
22:13:40 [PrasadY]
Redhat - No
22:14:07 [PrasadY]
Software AG - Yes
22:14:12 [PrasadY]
W3C - Yes
22:14:27 [PrasadY]
Yes - 5
22:14:35 [PrasadY]
No - 4
22:14:47 [li]
one link = one wrapper
22:15:30 [PrasadY]
Bob: yes carries => Directional proposal
22:15:42 [PrasadY]
Bob: We want to rest this for a bit
22:15:56 [PrasadY]
Bob: Need a concrete proposal
22:16:09 [PrasadY]
Geoff: Will do in couple of weeks
22:16:28 [PrasadY]
Bob: Need it before 23rd so that people can look at it
22:16:40 [PrasadY]
Break ..
22:17:25 [PrasadY]
Bob:I have notification that Redhat has given proxy to Oracle for the duration of F2F
22:17:53 [PrasadY]
back at 20 to 4pm
22:19:28 [Zakim]
- +0207827aajj
22:19:35 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
22:27:36 [li]
22:46:23 [PrasadY]
22:46:34 [PrasadY]
Topic: Issue 6401
22:47:01 [PrasadY]
Gil: Recaps where we are
22:52:08 [Wu]
22:52:47 [PrasadY]
Wu: Issue, WSDL in WS-E does not confrom to WS-I BP
22:53:04 [li]
22:53:46 [Wu]
22:54:02 [PrasadY]
Dug sent the above in March
22:55:53 [gpilz]
22:55:58 [PrasadY]
Wu: Using Policy to link out bound operations with source is a clean solution
22:57:07 [Wu]
22:58:09 [Geoff]
22:58:21 [Bob]
ack li
22:59:23 [PrasadY]
Li: Two proposals from Gil, (1) BP compliant (2) Make WSDL <....>
23:00:17 [PrasadY]
You link Event Source WSDL with Notification WSDL
23:01:51 [gpilz]
23:02:06 [Bob]
ack gpil
23:02:12 [Bob]
ack geoff
23:02:26 [PrasadY]
Geoff: Your proposal is centered around wrapped mode. Pls address why wrapped mode changes things
23:04:41 [PrasadY]
Gil: Details his proposal at the above URL
23:10:38 [Geoff]
23:10:45 [Bob]
ack geo
23:10:55 [PrasadY]
q+ li
23:11:18 [PrasadY]
Geoff: Why do need this rather than WSDL
23:11:25 [dug]
23:13:26 [PrasadY]
Gil: WSDL msg types etc define notification type - other parts are for raw notifications
23:13:51 [Bob]
q+ asir
23:14:16 [PrasadY]
ack li
23:14:29 [asir]
q+ to ask a question, what aspect of wrapped notifications did not fit into WSDL?
23:15:54 [gpilz]
23:16:12 [Bob]
ACTION: Geoff to write a concrete proposal to capture the decisions to-date on Issue-6692
23:16:13 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-70 - Write a concrete proposal to capture the decisions to-date on Issue-6692 [on Geoff Bullen - due 2009-06-17].
23:17:22 [Wu]
23:17:34 [Bob]
ack dug
23:17:54 [gpilz]
23:18:08 [PrasadY]
Dug: Describes why he found WSDL was not good enough
23:24:47 [li]
23:24:57 [Bob]
ack asir
23:24:57 [Zakim]
asir, you wanted to ask a question, what aspect of wrapped notifications did not fit into WSDL?
23:25:09 [li]
23:27:20 [PrasadY]
Asir: Wants concrete examples of why WSDL alone is not enough
23:27:29 [PrasadY]
Gil: Can provide
23:38:41 [Geoff]
23:38:48 [Bob]
ack wu
23:43:09 [asir]
q+ to ask a follow-on clarification question to Gil
23:45:32 [Bob]
ack asir
23:45:32 [Zakim]
asir, you wanted to ask a follow-on clarification question to Gil
23:46:49 [dug]
23:47:48 [PrasadY]
ack gp
23:48:40 [li]
23:49:17 [PrasadY]
ack li
23:57:30 [Bob]
Time warning
00:01:00 [PrasadY]
ack Ge
00:01:03 [PrasadY]
ack du
00:01:11 [dug]
00:05:27 [PrasadY]
Bob: Gil is ferminting the proposal and we have another proposal from Wu
00:05:59 [PrasadY]
Link to today's IRC log:
00:06:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Yves
00:07:40 [li]
good night
00:07:43 [PrasadY]
Bob: Recessed until tomorrow
00:07:54 [Zakim]
00:08:19 [Zakim]
- +1.408.970.aakk
00:09:40 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
00:09:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
00:11:39 [Zakim]
00:11:41 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA(3 day)11:30AM has ended
00:11:43 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.908.696.aaaa, +1.908.696.aabb, +1.408.274.aacc, Mark_Little, +1.703.860.aadd, +1.703.860.aaee, +1.408.202.aaff, [Microsoft], +1.949.926.aagg, +1.408.970.aahh,
00:11:45 [Zakim]
... +1.908.696.aaii, +0207827aajj, li, +1.408.970.aakk
00:15:19 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra
02:32:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-ra
03:57:13 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra
04:05:45 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra