IRC log of ws-ra on 2009-08-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:54:31 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
15:54:31 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:54:33 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:54:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
15:54:35 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
15:54:35 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA(F2F)11:30AM scheduled to start 24 minutes ago
15:54:36 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
15:54:36 [trackbot]
Date: 06 August 2009
15:55:37 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA(F2F)11:30AM has now started
15:55:44 [Zakim]
15:56:19 [Geoff]
Geoff has joined #ws-ra
15:58:44 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
16:00:10 [Bob]
rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight
16:00:50 [Sreed]
Sreed has joined #ws-ra
16:01:55 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
16:02:32 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
16:02:54 [Zakim]
16:03:18 [Tom_Rutt]
Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
16:03:55 [Zakim]
16:04:24 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
16:05:16 [Bob]
scribe: Ashok Malhotra
16:05:22 [Ashok]
scribenick: Ashok
16:05:38 [Ashok]
Topic: Convening on Thursday
16:05:57 [Bob]
16:07:05 [Ashok]
Bob: Letting eventing have a bit of a rest ... awaiting AIs
16:07:23 [Ashok]
Topic: 6411
16:07:36 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
16:07:43 [Ashok]
Doug: No wait to create metedata in MEX
16:08:25 [Ashok]
... MEX lets you access and manipulate metadata but not create it.
16:08:37 [Ashok]
... new operation createMetadata
16:09:09 [Ashok]
... adds to or overrides existing metadata
16:09:10 [dug]
16:10:06 [Ashok]
Geoff: Not clear we have a usecase for creating metadata
16:10:36 [Ashok]
... and then we will add delete?
16:10:47 [dug]
16:10:52 [Ashok]
... we are adding Transfer operations to MEX
16:11:08 [Ashok]
... two ways of doing the same thing
16:12:04 [Ashok]
... concerned about adding operations to service endpoint
16:12:20 [DaveS]
DaveS has joined #ws-ra
16:12:25 [Ashok]
... security considerations
16:13:18 [Ashok]
... we may need a separate endpoint
16:13:31 [Ashok]
... is this really necessary?
16:14:19 [Ashok]
Gil: Think abt a management tool
16:15:07 [Ashok]
Geoff: Don't think this meets the 80/20 cut ... security is a considertation
16:15:38 [Ashok]
Bob: Are you arguing for CNA?
16:15:51 [Ashok]
Geoff: I'm struggling to see the usecase
16:15:51 [Bob]
ack dug
16:16:13 [Ashok]
Dug: If you can get metadata why not allow update?
16:16:29 [Ashok]
... security is always a concern
16:17:49 [Ashok]
... there is no way to create metadata. Transfer create is different
16:18:05 [Ashok]
... there is no duplication
16:18:19 [Ram]
q+ asir
16:18:32 [Bob]
ack asir
16:19:21 [Ashok]
Asir: Dug wants to know how you associate metadata created with the endpoint
16:19:27 [dug]
16:19:32 [Ashok]
... the service will make the association
16:20:48 [Tom_Rutt]
16:20:57 [Bob]
ack dug
16:21:00 [Ashok]
... if I allow others to create metadata for me I will provide a metadata resource factory
16:21:53 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
16:23:26 [Ashok]
... and use transfer create on it.
16:23:36 [Ashok]
Dug: Where is that defined?
16:24:04 [Ashok]
... there is no notion of a matadata factory
16:24:18 [Ashok]
16:25:20 [Ashok]
Asir: We can add wording re. metadata resource factory
16:25:26 [Bob]
ack tom
16:25:30 [Tom_Rutt]
dug wants creation of metadata and linking it to an endpoint to be dedfined in this spec, while asir wants it to be outside the scope
16:26:20 [dug]
16:27:13 [Yves]
metadata is not data?
16:27:15 [Ashok]
Dug: Metadata factory is not the right solution
16:29:00 [Ashok]
Tom: How do you expose the facatory in a std way?
16:29:24 [Ashok]
16:29:52 [Ashok]
Dug: How do I get the factory?
16:30:10 [Ashok]
Asir: Out of band
16:31:09 [Ashok]
Dug: My proposal makes it part of the standard ... in band
16:33:21 [Ashok]
Gil: Where is this factory discussed
16:34:33 [Geoff]
16:34:41 [dug]
16:34:46 [Ashok]
Asir: Section 4 of Transfer
16:34:58 [Ashok]
Gil: There are a lot of dotted lines
16:36:02 [Ashok]
16:37:06 [Bob]
ack geo
16:37:52 [Ashok]
Geoff: Reminds us of implict operations. We would be adding another implicit operation
16:38:03 [Ashok]
... theis has side effects
16:38:19 [Ashok]
... separate EPR provides security
16:38:27 [Ashok]
16:39:19 [Ashok]
16:40:09 [Ashok]
Dug: Not the same as a Transfer create
16:40:37 [Ashok]
... Transfer create creates a brand new resource
16:40:58 [Ashok]
... my usecase associates metadata with an existing resource
16:41:15 [Ashok]
Bob: Would a Transfer PUT do it for you?
16:41:58 [Ashok]
... you are looking for an in band solution
16:42:44 [Ashok]
Dug: Could work if PUT was decorated with appropriate flags
16:42:50 [asir]
16:43:14 [Bob]
ack asir
16:44:27 [asir]
As always, a service endpoint can be a metadata resource, metadata resource factory, etc.
16:44:30 [DaveS]
16:47:27 [Ashok]
Bob: If we provided handles to the factory would that be sufficient
16:47:36 [Ashok]
Asir: optional handles
16:49:23 [Ashok]
Gil: I go to the Endpoint, gate the factory EPR then do a Transfer PUT on that
16:50:23 [Ashok]
Dug: I want to see the details
16:50:51 [Ashok]
Bob: Consider a proposal where we have an operation to get Metadata factory
16:51:05 [Yves]
always the same issue, link between resource and metadata on the resource. sharing the same URI or EPR is a solution, as it creates an implicit link, but it's suboptimal exactly because of the conflicts of verbs used to manipulate resource and the metadata
16:51:51 [Ashok]
Gil: I want to see the proposal
16:52:25 [asir]
16:52:43 [Ashok]
Dug agrees to write a new proposal along these lines. Extend MEX to add operations to get appropriate EPRs
16:52:45 [DaveS]
1) Resource is: www.res
16:52:45 [DaveS]
2) The metedata EPR is: www.res.meta
16:52:45 [DaveS]
3) There is also a factory EPR: www.res.metafactory
16:52:46 [DaveS]
4) To create a meta data at www.res.meta I send a T-Create to www.res.metafactory with args (www.res, www.res.meta, metadata).
16:53:25 [Bob]
ack dave
16:54:01 [Ashok]
Asir: That's how it works today
16:54:09 [Ashok]
Dug: It is not defined
16:54:19 [Ashok]
Asir: We can add more words
16:55:48 [Ashok]
Dave: I want to see the proposal
16:57:10 [Ashok]
Asir: I am not aware of any implementations of GET METADATA method
16:57:27 [Ashok]
... who would implement such a method
16:57:40 [Ashok]
.... they always have another EPR
16:57:50 [Ashok]
Dave: That's a separate issue
16:58:12 [Ashok]
Asir: If we add these operations who will implement?
16:58:27 [Ashok]
Dug/Bob: That's premature
17:00:55 [Ashok]
Bob: Agreement on direction. Add operations to MEX to expose factory EPR so that TRANSFER operations may be used on the factory EPR to create/modify metadata
17:02:29 [asir]
s/operations/optional operation/
17:03:10 [Ashok]
Asir: There ia a single operation on factory ... CREATE
17:03:18 [Ashok]
Dug: May also allow PUT
17:03:38 [asir]
As always, a service endpoint can be a metadata resource, metadata resource factory, etc.
17:04:31 [dug]
Add optional operation to mex to expose factory EPR so that Transfer operations (e.g. create, put) may be used on the factory EPR to create/modify metadata.
17:07:31 [asir]
Asir: need to wait for a proposal
17:08:34 [Ashok]
Bob: The above is a directional resolution to issue 6411. Dug will create proposal along these lines.
17:08:55 [Ashok]
Topic: Issue 7194
17:10:23 [Ashok]
Bob: make RFC 3986 a normative reference esp. Section 6.2 that defines comparison or URIs
17:10:57 [Ashok]
... 6.2.2 defines the simplest case --- string comparison
17:11:24 [Ashok]
Bob: Resolve by adding the above as normative reference
17:11:34 [dug]
MUST use RFC3986 section 6.2.1 for the comparison
17:12:31 [Bob]
URI comparisons are performed according to RFC3986 section 6.2.1
17:12:34 [Ashok]
17:13:56 [Ashok]
RESOLUTION: Issue 7194 resolved by adding "URI comparisons are performed according to RFC3986 section 6.2.1" and adding normative reference
17:15:16 [Ashok]
BREAK for 15 minutes
17:15:28 [Zakim]
17:26:57 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
17:27:41 [Zakim]
17:29:45 [Ashok]
17:29:56 [Ashok]
Topic: Issue 6679
17:30:18 [Zakim]
17:30:33 [Zakim]
17:31:41 [Bob]
17:32:59 [Ashok]
Gil: Is the text in Bugzilla accurate? If so, we should add it
17:33:20 [Zakim]
17:33:43 [Zakim]
17:37:03 [Ashok]
Gil: Add text as 3rd para to section 5
17:37:12 [Bob]
17:37:28 [Bob]
ack asir
17:39:29 [dug]
When the metadata for an endpoint is not available or is unknown and there is no information on how to retrieve it (e.g. an endpoint reference to a [WS-Transfer] resource representing the metadata), a requester MAY send a Get Metadata request message to that endpoint to retrieve its metadata.
17:42:05 [dug]
To retrieve metadata about an endpoint, a requester MAY send a GetMetadata request message to the endpoint to retrieve its metadata.
17:43:00 [dug]
To retrieve metadata about an endpoint, a requester MAY send a GetMetadata request message to the endpoint to retrieve metadata about the endpoint.
17:43:24 [dug]
A requester MAY send a GetMetadata request message to the endpoint to retrieve metadata about the endpoint.
17:43:29 [gpilz]
To retrieve metadata about an endpoint, a requester MAY send a GetMetadata request message to the endpoint to retrieve the metadata associated with the endpoint.
17:43:52 [gpilz]
A requester MAY send a GetMetadata request message to the endpoint to retrieve the metadata associated with the endpoint.
17:44:21 [dug]
A requester MAY send a GetMetadata request message to an endpoint to retrieve the metadata associated with that endpoint.
17:45:12 [Zakim]
17:48:15 [Ashok]
RESOLUTION: Issue 6679 resolved with wording in Comment #1 in Bugzilla
17:49:23 [Ashok]
Topic: Issue 7068 What is the Schema of the Resource
17:49:49 [Ashok]
Dug: Can we skip this one for now ...
17:50:07 [Ashok]
Bob: I will connect to implicit operations issue
17:50:21 [Ashok]
... 6694
17:51:25 [Ashok]
Topic: Issue 6403
17:51:37 [Bob]
17:52:10 [Ashok]
Asir: High-level proposal is at
17:54:01 [Ashok]
... creates a WS-Policy assertion for filter dialects in Enum
17:54:15 [Ashok]
... has Endpoint scope
17:55:03 [Ashok]
... can specify multiple dialects supported
17:55:37 [Wu]
17:55:42 [Geoff]
17:55:49 [Bob]
ack wu
17:55:54 [dug]
17:56:07 [Ashok]
.... if people agree we can use this as a template to create further assetions
17:56:44 [Bob]
ack geo
17:56:54 [Ashok]
Wu: We needf namespace to put the assertions
17:57:13 [Ashok]
Geoff: What about optional operations?
17:57:34 [Ashok]
... how would they be represented in policy?
17:57:44 [Ashok]
Asir: We need to look at that
17:57:56 [Bob]
ack dug
17:58:04 [Ashok]
... on a case-by-case basis
17:58:42 [Ashok]
Dug: We need to consider how easy or hard we want policy interesection to be
17:59:07 [Ashok]
... these proposals require domain-specific logic for intersection
18:00:13 [asir]
18:00:31 [Ashok]
Wu: Asks abt domian-specific logic
18:00:58 [Ashok]
Dug: This assertion is specific to enum.
18:01:33 [Ashok]
Gil: Explains use of assertion
18:03:25 [Ashok]
Asir: We shd try and avoid domain-specific processing.
18:06:09 [Bob]
ack asir
18:06:31 [asir]
18:06:46 [Bob]
ack asir
18:07:28 [Ashok]
Asir: Shd the dialect be parameter or nested assertion
18:07:57 [dug]
18:09:45 [Wu]
18:10:07 [Ashok]
.... nested assertion with QNames for each dialect would allow domain independent processing
18:10:34 [dug]
18:12:20 [Bob]
18:12:39 [jeffm]
jeffm has joined #ws-ra
18:13:09 [Ashok]
Gil: Discusses use of optional on the filter dialect ... use case to test only if enum is supported or not
18:14:25 [Bob]
ack dug
18:14:45 [asir]
18:15:01 [Ashok]
Dug: My proposal uses nested assertion and uses non domian-specific logic
18:15:18 [Bob]
ack wu
18:15:38 [Ashok]
Wu: Combine assertions into one
18:16:05 [Bob]
ack asir
18:16:23 [dug]
18:16:44 [Ashok]
Asir: Let's avoid talking abt domain-specific because it is complicated
18:17:23 [Ashok]
Straw poll: We need to match on filter dialects
18:17:44 [asir]
18:18:02 [Ashok]
.... also strong preference to aviod domian-spefic processing
18:18:11 [Bob]
ack dug
18:18:43 [Ashok]
Dug: we need to be abls to says
18:18:57 [Ashok]
1. Enum supported or not
18:19:10 [Ashok]
2. What features supported
18:19:28 [Yves]
if you go the route of describing all the capabilities, then you will end up with a lengthy one and not usable in implementations anyway
18:19:34 [Ashok]
3. Nested vs. siblings
18:19:45 [Yves]
(like Accept: headers in http to list all the mime types, but even worse :) )
18:20:41 [Bob]
ack asir
18:21:05 [Ashok]
3 (amended) support clients who do not care about the features
18:21:28 [Ashok]
Asir: Put assertions in namespace owned by this WG
18:22:19 [Ashok]
Gil: By I can define by own dialect in my namespace
18:22:32 [Ashok]
18:23:24 [Ashok]
Dug: We already poach on other namespaces e.g. XPath
18:23:56 [Ashok]
Dave: If we define it we shd own it
18:24:57 [Ashok]
Asir: QNames for assertions we define shd be in our namespace
18:25:27 [DaveS]
18:25:44 [Bob]
1. Enum supported or not
18:25:46 [Bob]
2. What features supported
18:25:47 [Bob]
3 support clients who do not care about the features
18:25:49 [Bob]
4. QNames for assertions we define shoud be in our namespace
18:26:43 [Ashok]
Wu: Do we have one namespace or one per document
18:27:15 [Bob]
5. assertions shall be concrete
18:28:14 [Ashok]
Directional decision to create proposal based on above 5 principles.
18:28:35 [DaveS]
18:28:48 [Ashok]
ACTION: Dug and Asir to prepare proposal for issue 6403
18:28:49 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-90 - And Asir to prepare proposal for issue 6403 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-08-13].
18:29:41 [Ashok]
Topic: Issue 7192
18:30:21 [dug]
If the oversize item is the last item to be returned for this enumeration
18:30:23 [dug]
context and the data source skips it, it MUST include the wsen:EndOfSequence
18:30:25 [dug]
item in the Pull response and invalidate the enumeration context; that is, it
18:30:26 [dug]
may not return zero items but not consider the enumeration completed.
18:31:06 [dug]
18:34:08 [Ashok]
Dug: Ersae text after ; ?
18:34:46 [Ashok]
Geoff: Have to be careful when invalidating enum context
18:35:07 [Ashok]
... thats what the end of the sentence is saying
18:36:10 [Ashok]
18:38:53 [Ashok]
... clarifies client and servers versions of the enum context
18:40:57 [Bob]
prosed: strike"; that is, it may not return zero items but not consider the enumeration completed. See the discussion of wsen:EndOfSequence below"
18:41:20 [Ashok]
18:41:26 [Bob]
and . s/oversise/oversized
18:41:53 [Bob]
18:42:09 [Ashok]
RESOLUTION: Issue 7192 resolved with above resolution
18:42:53 [Zakim]
18:43:00 [Ashok]
BREAK fot 1 hour ... return at 12:42
18:43:00 [Zakim]
18:43:09 [Zakim]
19:50:29 [dug]
19:51:07 [asir]
Scribe: Asir S Vedamuthu
19:51:10 [asir]
ScribeNick: asir
19:51:22 [Bob]
ack dug
19:51:53 [Zakim]
19:52:13 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:52:38 [asir]
Topic: issue
19:53:26 [asir]
Action: Wu (and Ashok) to prep infoset proposals for all the WS-RA specs
19:53:26 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-91 - (and Ashok) to prep infoset proposals for all the WS-RA specs [on wu chou - due 2009-08-13].
19:54:03 [asir]
Bob: these should not introduce any functional changes
19:54:40 [asir]
... okay to process this work post-Last Call
19:55:38 [asir]
Topic: update references
19:56:45 [asir]
Issues - 6568-6572
19:58:16 [asir]
Action: Ram to prep concrete proposals for issues 6568-6572 (due - 4 weeks before last call or Hursley F2F)
19:58:16 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-92 - Prep concrete proposals for issues 6568-6572 (due - 4 weeks before last call or Hursley F2F) [on Ram Jeyaraman - due 2009-08-13].
19:58:45 [asir]
Topic: 2119 related issues
19:59:15 [asir]
Bob: please review these proposals before the August 18th meeting
19:59:37 [Ram]
Action: Ram to check the latest drafts including RFC 2119 terms.
19:59:37 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-93 - Check the latest drafts including RFC 2119 terms. [on Ram Jeyaraman - due 2009-08-13].
20:00:06 [asir]
q+ to talk about infosets
20:00:14 [asir]
Topic: define policy issues
20:00:47 [asir]
Topic: 15 RT issues
20:01:14 [asir]
Bob: these are pending decision on ws-fragment
20:01:39 [asir]
... what is the impact of WS-Fragment on RT
20:01:46 [asir]
Doug: have not done any analysis
20:02:37 [Bob]
ack asir
20:02:37 [Zakim]
asir, you wanted to talk about infosets
20:03:30 [asir]
Asir: concerned about the amount of work on infosets
20:03:41 [asir]
Bob: classify infoset related issues as Last Call issues
20:03:48 [Geoff]
20:03:57 [Bob]
ack geo
20:04:01 [asir]
Returning to RT issues ...
20:04:19 [Zakim]
20:04:44 [asir]
Geoff: can Doug and Ram articulate what RT issues are related to WS-Frag and what remaining issues are related to RT
20:07:18 [asir]
Action: Ram to review RT issues and re-classify the targets - WS-Frag | RT | Moot
20:07:18 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-94 - Review RT issues and re-classify the targets - WS-Frag | RT | Moot [on Ram Jeyaraman - due 2009-08-13].
20:08:01 [asir]
[Conspiracy to assign all PM actions to Ram :-)]
20:09:07 [asir]
Topic: issue 7015
20:09:14 [asir]
Agreed to defer this issue to the next F2F
20:10:28 [asir]
Topic: 6632
20:10:58 [asir]
Geoff: add a new fault to indicate that the result is too large
20:11:33 [asir]
Bob: too large, whose point of view (sender | requestor | etc)
20:11:54 [asir]
Geoff: too large for the receiver to handle
20:12:19 [asir]
Doug: is this for all the Transfer operations?
20:12:23 [dug]
code, subcode,reason
20:13:10 [asir]
Doug: if the group can agree on the three bits - code, subcode and reason, then I can take a stab at this
20:13:33 [asir]
... ResultTooLarge
20:13:41 [asir]
20:14:58 [asir]
[discussing whose fault this is ...]
20:15:53 [asir]
sender fault?
20:16:29 [Bob]
ack asir
20:16:40 [asir]
Asir: result is not a keyword in transfer
20:16:54 [asir]
20:17:44 [asir]
20:18:35 [asir]
20:18:46 [asir]
20:19:50 [asir]
20:20:12 [asir]
Applies to Get, Put and Create operations
20:20:52 [Yves]
every method returning something might generate that. Even delete (as the limit might be different than from get or put)
20:21:58 [asir]
May apply to any SOAP message
20:22:51 [asir]
Proposal: CWNA
20:23:40 [asir]
Resolution: closed issue 7015 with no action
20:24:00 [asir]
20:25:13 [asir]
Topic: 6430
20:27:08 [asir]
this issue is superceded by 6401
20:27:41 [asir]
Proposal - superceded by the direction that the WG agreed for 6401
20:28:11 [asir]
Resolution: superceded by the direction that the WG agreed for 6401 - closed issue 6401
20:28:59 [asir]
issue 7127
20:29:35 [asir]
Tom prefers to keep it open
20:30:22 [asir]
s/issue 7127/Topic: 7127/
20:30:51 [asir]
Topic: 6633
20:31:24 [asir]
Applies to put and create
20:31:33 [asir]
Doug: may be implementation detail
20:31:47 [asir]
Dave: do you get into trouble for omiting the namespace
20:32:01 [asir]
Bob: who would figure that out: Transfer or a resource?
20:32:27 [asir]
.. could be server based implementation
20:32:52 [asir]
emerging proposal - cwna - head in the sand
20:35:05 [asir]
Resolution: close issue 6633 with no action
20:35:18 [asir]
20:36:22 [asir]
Topic: 6675
20:38:25 [asir]
emerging proposal - cwna
20:38:42 [asir]
Transfer/@dialect attribute accomodates the use case
20:38:56 [asir]
Resolution: close 6675 without any action
20:39:20 [asir]
Topic: 6435 and 6436
20:39:57 [asir]
20:40:21 [asir]
Gil: workload is smaller than the RM work\
20:44:12 [asir]
client-side, server-side, etc. kind of discussion in-progress
20:46:01 [Bob]
20:46:06 [Bob]
ack asir
20:46:17 [Bob]
ack bob
20:46:40 [asir]
asir: from a timing point of view, this could be done during LC
20:47:01 [asir]
... from a readability point of view, this could be a great piece of work in the primer
20:47:11 [asir]
Bob: agrees on timing
20:47:16 [Wu]
20:47:18 [asir]
... prefer to see in the spec
20:47:27 [jeffm]
20:47:51 [Bob]
ack wu
20:48:05 [Bob]
ack je
20:48:13 [asir]
jeff: agrees with Jeff
20:48:19 [asir]
Wu: perhaps, in an appendix
20:51:58 [asir]
20:52:05 [Bob]
ack asir
20:52:51 [asir]
Asir: when can we see these drafts
20:53:12 [asir]
Gil: second week of September
20:53:27 [asir]
Gil agrees to produce state tables in the second week of September
20:54:05 [asir]
Action: Gil to draft state tables for Eventing and Enumeration no later than the second week of September
20:54:05 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Gil
20:54:32 [asir]
Action: Gilbert to draft state tables for Eventing and Enumeration no later than the second week of September
20:54:32 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-95 - Draft state tables for Eventing and Enumeration no later than the second week of September [on Gilbert Pilz - due 2009-08-13].
20:54:57 [asir]
Need both clien-side and server-side state tables
20:55:12 [asir]
Topic: 6635
20:56:48 [asir]
Bob: close 6635 without any action?
20:57:09 [asir]
... resources are in the eyes of the beholder
20:57:24 [asir]
Resolution: close 6635 without any action
20:59:56 [Geoff]
20:59:59 [asir]
Topic: 6694
21:00:01 [Bob]
ack geo
21:00:08 [asir]
Dave S introduced a proposal
21:00:16 [Wu]
21:01:04 [asir]
Geoff: can someone define 'application developers'
21:02:26 [asir]
Doug: we don't have to decide what role
21:03:07 [li]
21:04:17 [Bob]
ack wu
21:04:27 [Bob]
q+ gil
21:04:42 [asir]
Wu: this is confusing .. who is an app dev or inf dev, they could play both
21:05:32 [Bob]
acl li
21:05:35 [Bob]
ack li
21:05:52 [Yves]
warnings like that may be primer material
21:05:59 [asir]
+1 to Yves
21:06:05 [Yves]
but we should also add "thou shall not write bugs"
21:06:22 [Bob]
ack gil/me ;-)
21:07:44 [Bob]
s/ack gil//
21:07:55 [Wu]
A web service standard should not impose implementation preference in nomartive specs to enforce one implementation against another
21:08:05 [Bob]
ack gil
21:08:34 [asir]
Gil: both parties use policy assertions
21:08:39 [asir]
... then everyone is happy
21:08:52 [asir]
... say someone is using a primitive stack
21:09:28 [asir]
... they don't have support for policy or policy assertions
21:11:29 [asir]
... what does it mean to say I support eventing?
21:11:29 [Wu]
21:12:02 [asir]
21:12:57 [Bob]
ack wu
21:13:08 [asir]
wu: use policy assertion to indicate that you are using implicit operations
21:14:02 [dug]
21:14:07 [li]
21:14:09 [asir]
.. should not constrain implementations
21:14:55 [Bob]
ack asir
21:15:27 [jeffm]
21:17:35 [Wu]
+1 asir
21:18:07 [Bob]
ack dug
21:19:14 [DaveS]
21:20:47 [Bob]
ack li
21:22:20 [asir]
li: interop is at the message level, wsdl to bootstrap
21:22:22 [asir]
21:22:23 [Geoff]
21:22:56 [Bob]
ack jrff
21:22:58 [asir]
jeff: forgot
21:23:03 [Bob]
ack jeff
21:23:08 [Bob]
ack dave
21:23:46 [Wu]
21:24:30 [jeffm]
21:24:36 [jeffm]
i remember now ;-)
21:24:50 [asir]
dave: want some means to not see implicit operations
21:25:43 [li]
1) there must be a way for a service to expose its wse wsdl
21:25:50 [Bob]
ack asir
21:26:19 [li]
2) two different wsdls creates interoperability issues
21:33:43 [Bob]
ack geo
21:33:55 [gpilz]
what do you want if you don't have policy?
21:34:06 [asir]
geoff: want to understand the issue on the tooling side
21:35:06 [gpilz]
w/out policy any indication of support infrastructure is an out-of-band assertion
21:35:09 [Yves]
a good tool would ignore things in WSDL if they ever appear
21:35:40 [gpilz]
considering that the actual name of the operation is not significant - what do I look for?
21:35:56 [asir]
or as I explained .. if an assertion is used then ops would never show up in a wsdl
21:36:17 [Bob]
ack wu
21:36:25 [Yves]
the time used to discuss that issue is far more that what is needed to code ignoring things in WSDL in available tools
21:36:46 [asir]
21:37:17 [Bob]
+1 to yves
21:37:22 [li]
gil can write you a xslt in no time to remove implicit operations
21:37:38 [Bob]
ack jeff
21:37:41 [gpilz]
only if you agree to name them exactly the way they occur in the spec
21:37:45 [dug]
not this year - he already wrote one this year
21:37:49 [asir]
jeff: what are you defending against
21:37:59 [gpilz]
not next year either
21:38:06 [gpilz]
1 every 2 years
21:38:40 [asir]
s/+2/+2 to yves/
21:38:53 [Ram]
21:39:43 [Wu]
+1 yves
21:41:05 [asir]
Ram: is there any reason why we are prohibiting app dev to not use wsdls
21:41:21 [asir]
Bob: one man's infrastructureis another man's app
21:41:23 [gpilz]
21:41:52 [Yves]
also if you have a MUST NOT, and it's not respected by the other party, what should we do? (ie: let's not define universal error-recovery mechanisms here)
21:42:23 [gpilz]
if you violate the MUST NOT you have put yourself outside of our spec
21:42:34 [gpilz]
and we can't make any promises about what may or may not happen
21:42:40 [gpilz]
it may work - it may not
21:42:46 [gpilz]
but its not our problem
21:42:58 [Yves]
right it's not our problem, with or without that text
21:43:18 [asir]
Ram: folks may want to use stacks and may implement their own eventing stack
21:43:25 [gpilz]
if we don't say MUST NOT, then we have to address what happens in our spec
21:43:44 [Bob]
21:43:51 [Bob]
ack ram
21:44:45 [asir]
Bob: can we agree that if we use a ws-ra policy assertion then we can claim what operations are supported
21:46:03 [Bob]
ack gil
21:49:44 [Ram]
21:50:36 [Bob]
How about: When WS-RA behavior is indicated by the use of policy assertion(s) then WS-RA operations have been implicitly defined.?
21:50:59 [Ram]
21:51:37 [Bob]
ack gp
21:51:51 [asir]
Agree with Gil and Wu that this is product documentation
21:52:19 [Wu]
There is no interoperable issue without forcing all operations to be implicit, because either it decorated by WS-Policy or through your platform documentation.
21:52:42 [asir]
21:54:25 [asir]
Bob: got to specify things that are testable and interoperable
21:55:00 [asir]
[Recessed for 15 minutes]
21:55:29 [li]
the only way to increase interop at message level is to use the same wsdl
22:16:43 [gpilz]
define "the same wsdl"
22:17:32 [asir]
Bob: hear that some folks say that this is an interop issue and some that this is not an interop issue
22:17:44 [asir]
... suggest that if this is an interop issue then demonstrate that
22:18:41 [asir]
Gil: which spec to use to demo
22:18:48 [asir]
Bob: use one of ws-ra specs
22:19:19 [asir]
... if you were to use anotehr spec then it is a step away from WS-RA deliverables
22:20:12 [asir]
Asir: suggest that we use ws-ra specs
22:20:34 [asir]
Bob: use ws-ra specs
22:20:53 [asir]
Topic: too many AIs
22:21:28 [asir]
Bob: Aug 24th - will be away
22:22:02 [asir]
... 24th is still tentative for Bob
22:22:26 [asir]
... asks Yves to chair the call
22:22:36 [asir]
Yves: if available yes
22:22:49 [asir]
Bob: if not, the Aug 24th call will be cancelled
22:24:52 [asir]
Setting expectations .. Aug 18th
22:24:57 [asir]
2119 issues
22:25:25 [asir]
6568-6572 (before the sep F2F)
22:26:37 [asir]
[ai walk through ...]
22:27:13 [asir]
6401 for the next con call
22:28:00 [asir]
WS-Fragment - Doug and Ram will try their best to have it for the next call
22:28:32 [asir]
Topic: AOB
22:28:56 [asir]
Bob: thanks for the lovely facility, for supporting the wg, for the lovely breakfast and lunch ...
22:29:02 [asir]
Round of applause
22:29:08 [li]
any leftover?
22:29:21 [Zakim]
22:29:30 [Zakim]
22:29:33 [Zakim]
22:29:35 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA(F2F)11:30AM has ended
22:29:36 [li]
22:29:36 [Zakim]
Attendees were [Microsoft], li, Yves, Vikas
22:29:40 [Yves]
rrsagent, draft minutes
22:29:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Yves
22:37:56 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra