IRC log of ws-ra on 2009-09-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:16:59 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
19:16:59 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:17:01 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:17:01 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
19:17:03 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
19:17:03 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
19:17:04 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
19:17:04 [trackbot]
Date: 08 September 2009
19:17:20 [Yves]
19:24:53 [Paul]
Paul has joined #ws-ra
19:25:42 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
19:26:38 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has now started
19:26:45 [Zakim]
19:27:44 [fmaciel]
fmaciel has joined #ws-ra
19:27:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.208.234.aaaa
19:28:40 [Zakim]
- +1.208.234.aaaa
19:28:53 [Zakim]
19:28:53 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
19:29:02 [Paul]
Zakim, aaaa is Paul
19:29:02 [Zakim]
sorry, Paul, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
19:29:04 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
19:29:09 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
19:29:36 [Tom_Rutt]
Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
19:29:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.571.262.aabb
19:29:49 [Zakim]
+ +984999aacc
19:29:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.970.aadd
19:30:04 [Paul]
Zakim, aa is Paul
19:30:04 [Zakim]
sorry, Paul, I do not recognize a party named 'aa'
19:30:32 [Zakim]
19:31:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.642.aaee
19:31:18 [Zakim]
19:31:36 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
19:31:50 [gpilz]
zakim, aaee is gpilz
19:31:53 [Zakim]
+gpilz; got it
19:32:19 [dug]
zakim, aacc is Paul
19:32:19 [Zakim]
+Paul; got it
19:32:28 [dug]
(Paul - is that right?)
19:32:46 [Zakim]
19:33:25 [Zakim]
+ +1.208.234.aaff
19:36:24 [Yves]
Scribe: Dug
19:36:25 [dug]
scribe: Dug
19:36:29 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
19:36:33 [Yves]
19:36:46 [dug]
Topic: approval of agenda
19:36:54 [dug]
approved w/o
19:37:01 [dug]
Topic: approve minutes from last week
19:37:03 [Yves]
19:37:10 [Ram]
19:37:10 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:37:32 [Sreed]
Sreed has joined #ws-ra
19:37:46 [dug]
Ram: sent in a note about "updated references" - would like to review on today's call
19:37:47 [Zakim]
19:37:52 [dug]
Yves: will add to the agenda
19:38:15 [dug]
minutes approved w/o
19:38:33 [dug]
Topic: UK F2F Logistics
19:38:48 [dug]
Yves: complete the questionnaire
19:38:58 [dug]
... everyone find docs/hotel info... ok?
19:39:14 [dug]
Wu: info on how to take the train from London would be nice
19:39:27 [dug]
Paul: will send info to the group - from LHR
19:39:28 [Ram]
19:39:59 [dug]
Ram: best way to get from LHR to Winchester? Taxi? Train?
19:40:28 [dug]
Paul: train is a lot of trouble -need to take a bus - taxi is the easiest
19:41:21 [dug]
... name of taxi company is in the doc I sent
19:41:25 [dug]
... will make sure it does
19:41:37 [dug]
Topic: 2009-09-02 Snapshot review
19:41:50 [dug]
Yves: anyone reviewed?
19:41:53 [Ram]
19:42:22 [dug]
Ram: would like more time - by next week's call
19:42:38 [dug]
Yves: would like to make these a Working Group Draft
19:42:46 [dug]
... everyone please review for next week
19:42:57 [dug]
Topic: Schedule
19:43:15 [dug]
Yves: # of open AIs might cause us to slip
19:43:52 [dug]
... proposal is to open new issue if they are substantive
19:43:59 [dug]
... please send new issue before Sept 18th
19:44:06 [dug]
... just a way to try to focus on the schedule
19:44:11 [dug]
19:44:19 [Ram]
19:44:57 [dug]
Dug: ok with pushing but I'm not sure about Sept 18th
19:45:00 [gpilz]
19:45:34 [dug]
Yves: not a black-n-white thing about opening new issue - will be a judgement call
19:45:36 [dug]
19:45:57 [dug]
... won't allow people to fight for hours just to open an issue - just used to push people to make progress
19:46:12 [dug]
Gil: deadline after the F2F might make more sense
19:46:20 [asir]
19:46:33 [dug]
... 2nd week of Oct
19:46:46 [dug]
Yves: f2f's are different and the pace is much faster
19:47:21 [dug]
Asir: At last f2f that we would go to LC on Oct 12
19:47:52 [dug]
Yves: please raise issues ASAP
19:47:59 [dug]
Topic:AI review
19:48:34 [Yves]
19:48:37 [dug]
AI10 - on Geoff
19:48:48 [dug]
proposal for 6549
19:49:22 [dug]
AI11 - on Geoff - 6550
19:49:57 [dug]
Asir: RT issues - Ram will scrub those issues - is dependent on ws-frag
19:50:34 [gpilz]
q+ to discuss AI 99
19:50:49 [dug]
AI67 - Yves - partial put - not done yet - week after next
19:51:06 [dug]
AI81 - Ram/Dug proposal for ws-frag
19:51:17 [dug]
Ram: still working on it - by next call
19:52:00 [dug]
AI92 - proposal for 6568-6572 - Ram
19:52:24 [dug]
Ram: those are about the references
19:52:35 [dug]
... proposals are in the email he sent
19:53:34 [Zakim]
+ +7.894.80.aagg
19:53:40 [dug]
AI94 - pending ws-frag approval - Ram
19:54:24 [dug]
AI97 - Yves- proposal for 7426 - done
19:54:44 [Zakim]
gpilz, you wanted to discuss AI 99
19:55:28 [dug]
AI99 - proposal on 7478
19:55:58 [dug]
Gil: negotiation around expiration time
19:56:29 [dug]
... want subscriber to be able to say: a) don't care, b) at least this amount of time, or c) don't expire
19:56:46 [dug]
... in current spec expiration time can be a duration or a dateTime
19:57:08 [dug]
... source can say "can't support duration" or "can't support dateTime". Asking for a profile.
19:57:25 [dug]
... sink can't tell, in advance, which is supported
19:57:31 [Zakim]
+ +7.590.29.aahh
19:57:48 [dug]
... could get into a situation where the two sides never agree
19:57:56 [DaveS]
DaveS has joined #ws-ra
19:58:05 [dug]
... seems we should get rid of one of the two options
19:58:12 [DaveS]
Dave S. Joined the cal.
19:58:14 [dug]
Yves: to mandate one and get rid of the other?
19:58:21 [Ram]
19:58:21 [dug]
Gil: yes - how do people feel?
19:58:48 [dug]
Ram: why shouldn't we have that flexibility?
19:59:13 [dug]
Gil: multiple ways of doing the same thing will create an interop problem. We don't gain anything by having both. You can easily convert between the two.
19:59:35 [dug]
Ram: would like more time to think about it
20:00:08 [dug]
... if they are interchangeable it would require clock-syncing
20:00:20 [dug]
... duration starts from the time the source receives the msg
20:00:35 [Ram]
20:00:38 [dug]
Gil: sink doesn't know when it really starts -it could take a long time for the quest to get there
20:00:43 [dug]
20:01:16 [dug]
Yves: dateTime requires resolving issues around timezones - duration doesn't have that concern
20:01:27 [dug]
... would prefer duration
20:02:09 [dug]
Ram: want more time to think about it
20:02:24 [dug]
... if we can convert then it might not be a big deal
20:02:28 [dug]
20:03:22 [dug]
... acks Gil's issue
20:03:33 [dug]
... what is the usecase that is driving the need?
20:03:58 [Zakim]
- +7.894.80.aagg
20:04:10 [dug]
... subscriber asks for 5 hrs, source only wants to allow for 30 mins
20:04:19 [dug]
... subscriber could send a renew to ask for more
20:04:47 [dug]
... want to understand why renew isn't good enough
20:05:59 [dug]
Gil: subscriber can renew - that's not the issue. But it might not want to do it that frequently
20:06:09 [dug]
20:06:39 [dug]
... perhaps min amount of time between renew's is 30 mins - source could come back and say "renew every 5 mins"
20:06:58 [dug]
... subscriber might not be happy with that
20:07:25 [dug]
... resources could have been allocated in advance based on the assumption that the subscription would be longer-lived
20:07:55 [dug]
... would like to check constraints in advance
20:08:04 [Ram]
20:08:05 [li]
20:09:23 [dug]
Dug: renew might not be accepted
20:09:27 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
20:09:49 [dug]
Ram: Gil's concern is valid
20:10:08 [DaveS]
20:10:37 [dug]
... if we allowed people to ask for "min amount of time" source will reject it
20:11:04 [dug]
... subscriber would like to know what the source will accept
20:11:58 [dug]
... subscriber has a choice - go with best attempt, or be willing to accept a rejection
20:12:18 [dug]
... in the real world do we expect subscribers to put demands on the src? or accept what they get?
20:12:50 [dug]
... most lean towards "best attempt"
20:13:22 [dug]
Gil: there are cases where the subscriber doesn't care or ok with the what the src offers
20:13:38 [dug]
... but not everyone works this way
20:15:07 [dug]
Li: this issue is trying to add a level of guarantee by the src
20:15:35 [dug]
... specifying finite vs infinite is already there - but guarantee isn't
20:16:04 [dug]
Gil: "guarantee" is an orthogonal issue
20:16:32 [dug]
... problem isn't the guarantee - its the inefficiency of the negotiation
20:17:20 [dug]
Li: in proposal - ask for 5, if src can't give at least 5 then fault
20:17:28 [dug]
... that's a kind of guarantee
20:18:01 [dug]
Gil: in the current spec, the SubscribeResponse contains the guarantee
20:18:34 [dug]
Li: ask for 5 mins (or fault) - src gives back 5 min, can it send a SubscriptionEnd in less than 5?
20:18:43 [dug]
Gil: yes - SubEnd is for "unexpected" failure
20:19:02 [dug]
... this is about "normal" course of events
20:19:09 [dug]
Li: src can still end prematurely
20:19:19 [dug]
... distinction appears to be very small
20:20:21 [dug]
Dave: subscription processing needs to be crisp - not overloaded with discovery/negotiation protocols - use policy
20:20:40 [dug]
... "I didn't do what you wanted, is this ok instead?" kind of thing would be bad.
20:21:27 [dug]
Gil: diff between expires and other reasons to terminate is sort of like faulting behavior
20:22:14 [dug]
... could be lots of reasons to terminate early - but expiration time is about scheduled shutdown
20:22:37 [dug]
... not "abnormal" - just normal lifecycle of subscription
20:23:00 [dug]
Li: will take off-line
20:23:05 [dug]
Topic: progress on ws-frag
20:23:26 [dug]
Dug: Ram already covered this - by next week
20:23:30 [dug]
Topic: new issues
20:23:37 [dug]
20:24:28 [dug]
Dug: issue around what to do with optional elements during a Put
20:24:31 [dug]
issue accepted w/o
20:24:43 [dug]
Topic: Issues with proposals
20:24:56 [dug]
Topic: 7127:
20:26:08 [dug]
Tom: related to 6401
20:26:25 [dug]
... accomodated by 6401
20:26:39 [dug]
resolution: close w/no action - accommodated by 6401
20:26:40 [Wu]
20:27:07 [dug]
Topic: 6411
20:27:11 [dug]
20:27:24 [dug]
20:27:56 [gpilz]
scribe: gpilz
20:28:12 [gpilz]
Doug: (describes latest profile)
20:28:47 [gpilz]
... GetMetadataFactory to get an EPR that works with WS-T
20:29:37 [gpilz]
... WS-T operations have additional attributes (@mex:Dialect, @mex:Identifier, @mex:Content)
20:30:17 [gpilz]
... interesting is the use of wst:Create to create a brand-new metadata resource
20:30:52 [Zakim]
20:30:54 [gpilz]
... creates a brand-new resource and gives you back the EPR as well as updating the set of "all metadata" to inlcude the newly created metadata
20:30:59 [DaveS]
20:31:31 [gpilz]
Yves: you mean all the metadata that is specified as being an attribute?
20:31:35 [Zakim]
+ +
20:32:04 [gpilz]
Doug: you use the attributes to tell the factory endpoint what it is that you want to create
20:32:15 [gpilz]
... I tried to create an example.
20:32:25 [gpilz]
... the second example uses wst:Put
20:33:17 [gpilz]
DaveS: why wouldn't you do this with something like WS-Frag?
20:33:37 [gpilz]
... you're trying to identify parts of the whole metadata document, why not just identify the part you want to modify?
20:33:46 [gpilz]
... are you trying to do a similar kind of thing?
20:34:16 [gpilz]
Doug: I don't think so. I don't view this as a single, massive "metadata document". I view it as a collection of separate resources.
20:34:36 [gpilz]
... you may not have a separate resource per metadata document
20:34:42 [asir]
20:35:01 [gpilz]
DaveS: I need to go away and think about this some more
20:35:26 [gpilz]
... either there are separate documents, each with their own EPR, or there is one complete "metadata document"
20:35:41 [gpilz]
... I need a picture
20:36:11 [gpilz]
Asir: I'm as confused as Dave is by the proposal
20:36:39 [gpilz]
... my recollection from the F2F is that we agreed to add an operation that gets an EPR to the metadata factory
20:36:48 [gpilz]
... this seems to go beyond that.
20:36:53 [Zakim]
- +1.408.970.aadd
20:37:00 [asir]
20:37:24 [dug]
20:37:26 [dug]
Agreement on direction. Add operations to MEX to expose factory EPR so that
20:37:28 [dug]
TRANSFER optional operation may be used on the factory EPR to create/modify
20:37:29 [dug]
20:37:31 [dug]
Action on Doug to create proposal along these lines
20:37:31 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - on
20:38:19 [gpilz]
Doug: it might be better to wait until the F2F to discuss this
20:38:54 [gpilz]
Asir: based on the direction we agreed to it doesn't look like we need more that up to 6.2
20:39:04 [gpilz]
Doug: for explanatory reasons we need 6.3?
20:39:07 [dug]
Topic: 5724
20:39:14 [gpilz]
Topic: 5724
20:39:24 [Yves]
20:39:30 [dug]
yes sorry
20:39:33 [Ram]
20:39:38 [dug]
Dug: no new proposal yet - still being worked on
20:39:48 [dug]
scribe: Dug
20:39:54 [dug]
Dug: no new proposal yet - still being worked on
20:39:56 [asir]
20:40:53 [dug]
Ram: want to go over the references
20:41:01 [dug]
Topic: discuss references update
20:41:10 [Yves]
20:41:39 [Yves]
20:41:52 [dug]
Ram: doc has all of the refs across all the docs
20:42:03 [dug]
.. for each one - is this the latest?
20:42:16 [dug]
... a number of them needed to be updated
20:42:53 [dug]
... rfc2119 - added IETF to the anchor same for RFC 3986
20:43:04 [dug]
... and some textual changes to the refs
20:43:48 [Tom_Rutt]
20:44:06 [dug]
... soap1.1 - needed to be more descriptive
20:44:26 [dug]
Yves: could be good to look at the impact this will have
20:44:54 [dug]
... latest revision of some specs could impact our specs
20:46:05 [dug]
Tom: ref to BP1.1 - why the ref to keith?
20:46:15 [dug]
20:46:37 [dug]
20:46:48 [dug]
Yves: normal process for w3c
20:47:02 [dug]
Ram: BP is just ref'd from RT
20:47:16 [dug]
... do we need this reference?
20:47:23 [Ram]
BP reference in RT:
20:47:24 [Ram]
20:47:33 [Ram]
This specification intends to meet the following requirements:
20:48:08 [dug]
"Define WSDL 1.1 portTypes, for the Web service methods described in this specification, compliant with WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 "
20:49:24 [dug]
Yves: ref to policy could be an impact on our specs
20:49:32 [dug]
Ram: already covered by a previous issue
20:50:18 [dug]
Ram goes thru each ref
20:51:14 [dug]
Ram: how do cross-refs work in w3c?
20:51:48 [Tom_Rutt]
20:52:08 [dug]
Yves: cross refs are handled on - soap did this between part1 and part2
20:52:28 [dug]
... only link to specs at the same level or one level below
20:52:39 [asir]
Yves: can cross refs be automated?
20:52:39 [dug]
PR level can point to CR but not WD - for normative refs
20:53:06 [dug]
Yves: (to asir) yes can be automated
20:53:15 [dug]
... should be - less issues that way
20:53:28 [dug]
Asir: new issue for editors?
20:54:01 [dug]
Yves: action to editors to automate the cross-links
20:54:07 [Tom_Rutt]
with all the hard work in the industry to align the "v.Next" specs, lets be sure we have the correct references to the properly aligned V.Next ws* specs
20:54:23 [dug]
action: editors to automate the cross-links
20:54:23 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - editors
20:54:39 [asir]
Action: Doug to automate cross-links among WS-RA specs
20:54:39 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-100 - Automate cross-links among WS-RA specs [on Doug Davis - due 2009-09-15].
20:54:56 [dug]
Tom: is worried that the automation might not work in all cases
20:55:03 [dug]
Yves: should like to dated versions
20:55:52 [li]
20:55:54 [dug]
Asir: we've done this before
20:57:05 [dug]
Ram: will double check the refs/authors...
20:57:30 [dug]
... any comments before the final proposal?
20:57:50 [dug]
+1 to ending ;-)
20:58:09 [dug]
20:58:19 [Zakim]
- +
20:58:20 [Zakim]
- +1.571.262.aabb
20:58:21 [Zakim]
20:58:22 [Zakim]
20:58:23 [Zakim]
- +1.208.234.aaff
20:58:25 [Zakim]
20:58:25 [Zakim]
20:58:25 [Zakim]
- +7.590.29.aahh
20:58:26 [Zakim]
20:58:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Yves
21:11:27 [Zakim]
21:11:37 [Yves]
21:15:43 [Zakim]
21:15:44 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
21:15:45 [Zakim]
Attendees were Doug_Davis, +1.208.234.aaaa, Wu_Chou, +1.571.262.aabb, +984999aacc, +1.408.970.aadd, Tom_Rutt, +1.408.642.aaee, Yves, gpilz, Paul, [Microsoft], +1.208.234.aaff,
21:15:48 [Zakim]
... Ashok_Malhotra, +7.894.80.aagg, +7.590.29.aahh, +
23:12:56 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra
23:29:45 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-ra