15:54:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
15:54:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-ws-ra-irc
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> +[Microsoft]
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> +li
16:03:18 <Tom_Rutt> Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
16:03:55 <Zakim> +Yves
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> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Aug/0028.html
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> s/wait/way/
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> q+
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> q+
16:19:32 <Ashok> ... the service will make the association
16:20:48 <Tom_Rutt> q+
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> s/matadata/metadata/
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> q+
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> s/facatory/factory/
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> q+
16:34:41 <dug> q-
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> q+
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> s/theis/this/
16:39:19 <Ashok> q-
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> q+
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> q+
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> q+
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> s/6.2.2/6.2.1/
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> -li
17:26:57 <Vikas> Vikas has joined #ws-ra
17:27:41 <Zakim> +Vikas
17:29:45 <Ashok> RESUMING after BREAK
17:29:56 <Ashok> Topic:  Issue 6679
17:30:18 <Zakim> -Vikas
17:30:33 <Zakim> +Vikas
17:31:41 <Bob> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6679
17:32:59 <Ashok> Gil: Is the text in Bugzilla accurate?  If so, we should add it
17:33:20 <Zakim> -Yves
17:33:43 <Zakim> +Yves
17:37:03 <Ashok> Gil:  Add text as 3rd para to section 5
17:37:12 <Bob> q?
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> +li
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> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jul/0085.html
17:52:10 <Ashok> Asir: High-level proposal is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jul/0085.html
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> q+
17:55:42 <Geoff> q+
17:55:49 <Bob> ack wu
17:55:54 <dug> q+
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> q+
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> q+
18:06:46 <Bob> ack asir
18:07:28 <Ashok> Asir:  Shd the dialect be parameter or nested assertion
18:07:57 <dug> q+
18:09:45 <Wu> q+
18:10:07 <Ashok> .... nested assertion with QNames for each dialect would allow domain independent processing
18:10:34 <dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6403
18:12:20 <Bob> q?
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> q+
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> q+
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> q+
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> s/By/But/
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> q+
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> q-
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> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wsenum.html
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> s/Ersae/Erase/
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> s/prosed/proposed/
18:41:26 <Bob> and . s/oversise/oversized
18:41:53 <Bob> s/oversise/oversized
18:42:09 <Ashok> RESOLUTION:  Issue 7192 resolved with above resolution
18:42:53 <Zakim> -li
18:43:00 <Ashok> BREAK fot 1 hour ... return at 12:42
18:43:00 <Zakim> -Vikas
18:43:09 <Zakim> -Yves
19:50:29 <dug> q+
19:51:07 <asir> Scribe: Asir S Vedamuthu
19:51:10 <asir> ScribeNick: asir
19:51:22 <Bob> ack dug
19:51:53 <Zakim> +Yves
19:52:13 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:52:38 <asir> Topic: issue http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6701
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> q+
20:03:57 <Bob> ack geo
20:04:01 <asir> Returning to RT issues ...
20:04:19 <Zakim> +li
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> q+
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> silence
20:17:44 <asir> MessageTooLarge
20:18:35 <asir> Receiver
20:18:46 <asir> code=Receiver
20:19:50 <asir> ResponseTooLarge
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> s/7015/6632/
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> s/close/closed/
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> q+
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> q+
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> q+
20:47:18 <asir> ... prefer to see in the spec
20:47:27 <jeffm> +q
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> q+
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> q+
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> q+
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> q+
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> q+
21:12:02 <asir> q+
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> q+
21:14:07 <li> q+
21:14:09 <asir> .. should not constrain implementations
21:14:55 <Bob> ack asir
21:15:27 <jeffm> +q
21:17:35 <Wu> +1 asir
21:18:07 <Bob> ack dug
21:19:14 <DaveS> q+
21:20:47 <Bob> ack li
21:22:20 <asir> li: interop is at the message level, wsdl to bootstrap
21:22:22 <asir> q+
21:22:23 <Geoff> q+
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> q+
21:24:30 <jeffm> +q
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> +2
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> q+
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> q+
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> q?
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> q+
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> q-
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> yep
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> -Yves
22:29:30 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
22:29:33 <Zakim> -li
22:29:35 <Zakim> WS_WSRA(F2F)11:30AM has ended
22:29:36 <li> bye
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 http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-ws-ra-minutes.html Yves
22:37:56 <gpilz> gpilz has left #ws-ra