IRC log of ws-ra on 2009-07-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:21:34 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
19:21:34 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:21:36 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:21:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
19:21:38 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
19:21:38 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
19:21:39 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
19:21:39 [trackbot]
Date: 07 July 2009
19:21:48 [Bob]
Bob has joined #ws-ra
19:23:29 [Bob]
trackbot, start telecon
19:23:31 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:23:33 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
19:23:33 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
19:23:34 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
19:23:34 [trackbot]
Date: 07 July 2009
19:24:40 [Geoff]
Geoff has joined #ws-ra
19:25:42 [Bob]
19:25:54 [Bob]
chair: Bob Freund
19:26:19 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra
19:26:40 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has now started
19:27:25 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
19:27:29 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
19:27:43 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
19:29:17 [dug]
does anyone else hear an echo?
19:29:28 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:29:34 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
19:30:29 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has joined #ws-ra
19:31:32 [dug]
he who smelt it dealt it ;-)
19:31:42 [DaveS]
DaveS has joined #ws-ra
19:35:04 [Tom_Rutt]
Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
19:35:05 [Bob]
19:35:06 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has left #ws-ra
19:35:48 [Bob]
scribe: Vikas
19:37:21 [Vikas]
Agenda: Agenda accepted without objection.
19:37:35 [Vikas]
RESOLUTION: No objections. The minutes from 2009-06-30 meeting has been approved.
19:37:59 [Vikas]
Topic : 6401
19:38:19 [gpilz]
19:39:12 [Vikas]
Wu: Requirment document published in group.
19:39:22 [Bob]
ack gp
19:39:42 [dug]
19:39:45 [Geoff]
19:39:52 [gpilz]
19:40:14 [Bob]
ack dug
19:40:17 [Vikas]
Gil: Why do we need a seperate BP compliant issue.
19:40:26 [Vikas]
Wu: Clarified
19:40:56 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
19:41:38 [Bob]
ack geo
19:41:52 [Vikas]
Dug: Ask for clarification on the uddi compliance part of the requirement.
19:42:23 [Bob]
ack gp
19:43:07 [Vikas]
Geoff: BP compliance should be fine.
19:43:29 [asir]
19:43:40 [Bob]
ack asir
19:44:17 [Vikas]
Asir: Allow everyone some time to look at the requirement.
19:45:09 [Vikas]
Bob: If any one has issue.
19:45:47 [Vikas]
Bob: Wu and Gil work offline to resolve the issue on the requirement part.
19:46:24 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
19:46:25 [Vikas]
Action: Wu and Gil. Work on the requirment clarification.
19:46:25 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-79 - And Gil. Work on the requirment clarification. [on wu chou - due 2009-07-14].
19:46:33 [Ram]
Proposal for issues 6413+6975+7014:
19:46:56 [Vikas]
Topic: 6413+6975+7014
19:46:57 [dug]
the mother of all issues!
19:47:04 [dug]
19:48:37 [Vikas]
Dug: (and Ram) Quick walk though the proposal.
19:49:07 [Vikas]
19:53:26 [Vikas]
Bob: Do any one need more time to review the proposal
19:54:11 [dug]
19:54:56 [Bob]
ack dug
19:57:38 [asir]
19:58:03 [Tom_Rutt]
19:58:16 [Bob]
ack asir
19:58:32 [Ashok]
19:58:42 [Tom_Rutt]
so why not change "Use of this URI indicates that the contents of the Delete element should be processed as specified by the WS-Fragment [WS-Fragment] specification. to "Use of this URI indicates that the contents of the Delete element MUST be processed as specified by the WS-Fragment [WS-Fragment] specification."
19:58:44 [gpilz]
19:58:50 [Bob]
ack tom
19:59:29 [dug]
+1 - for all OPs
20:00:21 [Bob]
ack ashok
20:00:32 [Vikas1]
Vikas1 has joined #ws-ra
20:01:05 [Bob]
ack gpi
20:02:30 [Vikas1]
Bob: Any objection to the adoption to the change TomR suggested in IRC
20:02:47 [Vikas1]
No objection raised
20:02:49 [asir]
q+ to ask a question
20:03:35 [Vikas1]
Bob: Any objection to the other three parts in the proposal
20:04:20 [dug]
20:04:25 [dug]
"The Working Group may organize the structure of the specifications into one or more documents."
20:05:09 [Bob]
ack asir
20:05:09 [Zakim]
asir, you wanted to ask a question
20:05:28 [dug]
20:05:52 [Vikas1]
Bob: Clarify with Yves on the WS-Frag within the charted of the group.
20:06:10 [Bob]
ack dug
20:06:11 [Vikas1]
Yves: Should be fine
20:07:26 [asir]
Vow, that is a big one!
20:07:38 [Vikas1]
No objection on the proposal 6413+6975+7014
20:07:49 [gpilz]
3 issues in one day, I think that's a WS-RA record
20:08:20 [Geoff]
should we just finish now? It can't get any better can it?
20:08:22 [Vikas1]
Resolution: No objection on the proposal 6413+6975+7014 proposed by Dug/Ram
20:08:29 [Tom_Rutt]
Resolution: proposal as amended by Tom Rutt's text, to be applied to all operation types
20:09:53 [Vikas1]
Action: Dug : Open a new issue initial workign WS-Frag spec.
20:09:53 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-80 - : Open a new issue initial workign WS-Frag spec. [on Doug Davis - due 2009-07-14].
20:10:10 [DaveS]
Dave S will alos help draft the Frag spec.
20:10:18 [dug]
thanks Dave
20:10:18 [Vikas1]
Action: Ram and Dug: Generate a proposal for WS-frag Spec
20:10:18 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-81 - And Dug: Generate a proposal for WS-frag Spec [on Ram Jeyaraman - due 2009-07-14].
20:10:55 [Vikas1]
Tpoic: Issue
20:11:11 [Vikas1]
20:11:17 [Geoff]
20:11:39 [Bob]
ack geo
20:11:58 [Vikas1]
Asir: Ask for another week.
20:12:09 [dug]
20:12:12 [dug]
(last week)
20:12:26 [asir]
s/Asked/last week, Asked/
20:12:48 [Vikas1]
Bob: Any objection on the proposal 1
20:13:11 [asir]
4 issues in 43 minutes
20:13:13 [Vikas1]
Resolution: No objection, Issue 7039 resolved with proposal 1
20:13:31 [Vikas1]
20:14:10 [Bob]
20:14:37 [Geoff]
20:14:40 [gpilz]
20:15:00 [Bob]
additional comments by Wu
20:15:29 [Bob]
ack geo
20:16:02 [Vikas1]
Bob: Are we ok with the slicing of the issue.
20:16:29 [Vikas1]
Geoff: Concern with use of extension point.
20:17:07 [dug]
20:17:14 [Wu]
20:18:39 [Vikas1]
Geoff: Concern specifically with the semantics a possible pull mode.
20:21:08 [Bob]
ack gpi
20:22:24 [dug]
+1 the wse:NotifyTo is the "default extension"
20:23:44 [asir]
what is out of scope for this WG?
20:23:57 [dug]
asir - so?
20:24:11 [dug]
if wse:NotifyTo works for both then that's fine - nothing more is needed to be said
20:25:07 [Bob]
ack dug
20:27:16 [Bob]
ack wu
20:27:35 [Vikas1]
Gil: Support the proposal.
20:27:43 [Vikas1]
Dug: Just required some tweaking to delivery element description.
20:27:52 [dug]
20:28:02 [Vikas1]
Wu: Support Geoff concern...
20:29:05 [gpilz]
20:30:40 [Vikas1]
...semantically structure extension using policy.
20:30:46 [dug]
....the wse:NotifyTo element MUST be present and be the EndpointReference to which notifications are sent.
20:30:52 [Bob]
ack dug
20:31:37 [Wu]
20:31:39 [gpilz]
20:32:28 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
20:33:04 [dug]
bob - I'd like to ask him a follow on
20:33:10 [Tom_Rutt]
20:34:29 [Geoff]
20:35:15 [Geoff]
what is the point of this question?
20:35:16 [Tom_Rutt]
20:36:08 [Bob]
ack gpi
20:36:54 [Bob]
ack wu
20:37:27 [Bob]
ack tom
20:38:12 [Vikas1]
Wu: ....if you allow arbitrary xml, it can be issue.
20:38:33 [dug]
tom:AltNotifyTo would need to say how it works with wse:NotifyTo - no biggie
20:38:43 [Bob]
ack geo
20:39:08 [gpilz]
This specification defines only a default asynchronous method of delivery for notifications from the event source to event sink.  Other methods or combination of methods may be defined through the use of delivery extensions.
20:39:15 [dug]
20:39:50 [gpilz]
20:41:46 [Tom_Rutt]
20:42:10 [dug]
"...the EndpointReference to which notifications are sent."
20:42:17 [Bob]
ack dug
20:42:31 [Geoff]
not necessarily
20:42:47 [Geoff]
indeed :-)
20:43:27 [Vikas1]
Geoff: When you add new element…it may change behavior altogether…not clear how these elements interact with other.
20:44:41 [Wu]
20:44:55 [Vikas1]
Dug: This is not a delivery specific problem. Need to be handled by subscription manager.
20:45:39 [Bob]
ack gp
20:46:43 [Vikas1]
Gil: Every spec defines extensibility point…idea of having arbitrary xmls…is common across any ws* spec.
20:47:13 [li]
20:47:40 [Tom_Rutt]
The semantics of including notifyTo along need to be clarified
20:47:43 [Bob]
ack tom
20:48:21 [Geoff]
yes there might
20:48:28 [dug]
wse:NotifyTo is just the default extension
20:48:57 [asir]
Both SOAP and WS-Policy processing models did not introduce any default semantics for extensions, everything is explicit
20:49:13 [dug]
so.. s/default/well-defined/
20:49:43 [Bob]
ack wu
20:50:01 [dug]
20:50:08 [asir]
Doug - not sure why you are modifying my statements :-)
20:50:17 [dug]
I didn't - i was clarifying mine
20:50:41 [asir]
but the sed script applies to the most recent one :-)
20:50:53 [Ashok]
20:51:17 [Tom_Rutt]
we need ot clarify the semantics of having a notifyTo along in the delivery element. Any extension has to explain how it differs from the default semantics
20:51:41 [Vikas1]
Wu: default is push, and xml is added to modify it….need to know when the default is off.
20:52:02 [Tom_Rutt]
20:52:15 [Ashok]
20:52:20 [gpilz]
20:52:51 [Vikas1]
Bob: To Wu are you proposing all implementer should support policy.
20:53:11 [Bob]
ack li
20:55:12 [Bob]
ack dug
20:55:32 [asir]
F2F agreement is at
20:55:44 [dug]
<wse:NotifyTo/> + <tomsPush/> + <pull/> + <pushWithAck/> + <pullWithAck/>
20:57:03 [Geoff]
if there is no PUSH then pushWithAck can fail
20:57:14 [asir]
well .. subscriber shall not lie!
20:57:19 [Geoff]
because it knows that that it is no longer push
20:58:16 [Geoff]
<wse:NotifyTo/> + <tomsPush/> + <Ack/>
20:58:17 [asir]
well .. one of the concerns that we addressed to avoid combinatorial explosion is not to use compund names
20:58:28 [asir]
instead of Pushwithack .. you all wanted Push + Ack
20:58:33 [Geoff]
how does Ack know if it is a push or a pull?
20:58:38 [Wu]
20:59:38 [dug]
I don't see how we can close 6692 if there is such a basic disconnect between the two groups
21:00:02 [asir]
21:01:19 [Bob]
ack gp
21:01:25 [Bob]
ack wu
21:01:31 [Bob]
ack asir
21:01:54 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra
21:01:57 [li]
qnames is a refactoring of mode uri
21:02:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Yves
21:02:33 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:02:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
21:02:40 [asir]
asir explained that there is no basic disconnect. the outstanding issue is to figure out how to represent the default behaviour - explicit or implicit
21:02:51 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
21:02:53 [Zakim]
Attendees were
21:03:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Yves
21:03:05 [asir]
it appears that the implicit representation collides with the extensibility model
21:03:35 [Bob]
note that asir's last two comments were made after the conclusionoof the conference call
21:03:39 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:03:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
21:05:13 [test]
test has joined #ws-ra