IRC log of ws-ra on 2009-09-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:02:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
08:02:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to
08:02:14 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
08:02:14 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
08:02:16 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
08:02:16 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see WS_WSRA(F2F)3:30AM already started
08:02:17 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
08:02:17 [trackbot]
Date: 30 September 2009
08:02:34 [Bob]
chair: Bob Freund
08:03:53 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
08:03:56 [Zakim]
+ +0196281aaaa
08:05:57 [Zakim]
+ +39.331.574.aabb
08:06:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.361.aacc
08:07:08 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra
08:10:47 [Zakim]
- +39.331.574.aabb
08:11:56 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
08:18:36 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
08:32:21 [paul]
paul has joined #ws-ra
08:32:27 [paul]
08:32:29 [paul]
I'm on
08:32:50 [Bob]
scribe: Paul Fremantle
08:32:59 [Bob]
scribenick: paul
08:33:42 [paul]
chair: Bob Freund
08:33:53 [Zakim]
+ +39.331.574.aadd
08:34:00 [Bob]
PM scribe duty reserved for Jeff MM
08:34:13 [asoldano]
I'm on too
08:35:53 [paul]
bob: takes attendance
08:36:10 [asoldano]
is there an agenda? I did not get it thorugh email
08:36:21 [dug]
08:36:25 [asoldano]
thanks dug
08:43:02 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
08:43:22 [Sreed]
Sreed has joined #ws-ra
08:44:29 [paul]
bob: All issues are fair game for discussion. The agenda is my attempt to group them.
08:45:01 [paul]
ram: can we group the policy issues
08:45:44 [paul]
bob: agenda is acceptable
08:46:06 [paul]
bob: any objections? none - minutes are approved.
08:46:21 [asoldano]
(I get a lot of noise, might loose something in the conversation)
08:46:46 [paul]
jeff: Martin is going to be added as a member
08:47:27 [paul]
bob: logistics
08:48:35 [paul]
Katy: Paul is offering a tour of the Bell Tower in Winchester Cathedral. Don't be late. 6.55pm. The big entrance.
08:49:05 [paul]
Katy: Meal booked at the Old Vine around 8ish
08:51:05 [paul]
Bob: next item - November F2F. Please register.
08:51:31 [paul]
Bob: will we need a January F2F.
08:51:49 [paul]
Dave: January is close and we are far enough from finishing.
08:54:35 [paul]
bob: 2 people think Colombo is a good place
08:54:43 [paul]
bob: 7 people for the Bay area
08:55:49 [paul]
bob: 4 for Japan
08:59:58 [paul]
Bob: proposed dates Tues 26th-Thurs 28th Jan 2010
09:00:12 [Zakim]
09:00:24 [paul]
Bob: tentatively hosted by Fujitsu in Sunnyvale/Santa Clara
09:02:08 [paul]
Bob: sent drafts to potential reviewers
09:02:36 [paul]
Bob: cancel next Tuesday's telecon. No objections. Tues 6th October cancelled
09:02:42 [paul]
TOPIC: action item review
09:02:57 [jeffm]
jeffm has joined #ws-ra
09:03:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.914.066.aaee
09:03:35 [paul]
trackbot-ng, comment action-100 in process
09:03:35 [trackbot]
ACTION-100 Automate cross-links among WS-RA specs notes added
09:03:56 [paul]
close action-102
09:03:56 [trackbot]
ACTION-102 Create new proposal for 7553 closed
09:04:03 [paul]
close action-103
09:04:03 [trackbot]
ACTION-103 Create proposal for 7554 that considers 7553 closed
09:04:50 [paul]
trackbot-ng, comment action-104 still working
09:04:50 [trackbot]
ACTION-104 Produce proposal for 7589 notes added
09:05:13 [paul]
trackbot-ng, comment action-88 Dug still in discussions with Ram
09:05:13 [trackbot]
ACTION-88 Come back witth a new proposal for 6724 before next meeting. notes added
09:05:49 [paul]
trackbot-ng, comment action-85 Waiting until policy is done
09:05:49 [trackbot]
ACTION-85 7068 addressed by F2F notes added
09:06:17 [paul]
trackbot-ng, comment action-36 Deferring. Needs to be done before CR
09:06:17 [trackbot]
ACTION-36 Write a draft proposal for management of migration notes. notes added
09:06:43 [paul]
TOPIC: New issues
09:06:56 [Bob]
Issue-7716 Clairfy Enumerate operation
09:06:58 [Bob]
-Vedamuthu (has proposal)
09:08:02 [paul]
ASIR: explains the issue (reads from description)
09:08:39 [paul]
bob: no objection to opening issue. Issue is opened. Note there exists a proposal
09:09:13 [paul]
bob: Clarification seems straightforward
09:09:27 [paul]
Dug: why wasn't it like this to start with.
09:09:36 [paul]
Asir: Oversight (Oops)
09:10:20 [paul]
Bob: any objection to accepting this proposal as the resolution
09:10:31 [paul]
Bob: No objections. Resolved and accepted
09:10:50 [Bob]
09:11:14 [paul]
RESOLUTION: Issue-7716 as noted in bugzilla
09:11:58 [paul]
No objection to opening 7728
09:12:04 [paul]
issue is open
09:12:13 [Bob]
09:12:38 [paul]
bob: no objection to opening 7731
09:13:00 [paul]
TOPIC: Issues with proposals
09:13:04 [Bob]
09:13:25 [Bob]
09:14:25 [paul]
bob: accept this specification as the resolution of the 7088.
09:14:32 [paul]
bob: issues can still be opened
09:14:36 [dug]
09:14:39 [Sreed]
Sreed has joined #ws-ra
09:15:02 [paul]
bob: remove section 'Open Questions and Actions' and then raise these as new issues against this spec
09:15:10 [paul]
bob: any objection to doing these both?
09:15:51 [paul]
asir: why bold?
09:16:10 [paul]
bob: seems strange to bold stuff, when this is a new spec
09:17:32 [paul]
bob: proposal to move forward.
09:17:53 [paul]
bob: no objection
09:18:54 [paul]
RESOLUTION: issue-7088. Add new spec without section D. Raise all section D items as new issues against the spec.
09:19:23 [paul]
Dug: yes we can update the WSDL and XSD for WS-Fragment in the next couple of days
09:19:57 [Bob]
ack dug
09:20:18 [paul]
ACTION: Dug to Update WSDL and XSD for WS-Fragment due 2nd October 2009
09:20:18 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-107 - Update WSDL and XSD for WS-Fragment due 2nd October 2009 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-10-07].
09:21:00 [paul]
bob: Aim for FPWD of WS-Fragment by end of week
09:21:28 [paul]
bob: assumption is that with WS-Fragment RT will go away. Any objection to ceasing work on RT
09:21:32 [paul]
bob: none
09:21:55 [paul]
RESOLUTION: close RT and remove issues (mothball spec)
09:22:10 [MChapman]
MChapman has joined #ws-ra
09:22:30 [paul]
bob: ask permission of the group for Bob to work with Yves to identify the right approach for mothballing RT
09:22:47 [paul]
Dave: See if they have a proper way of doing this
09:22:52 [MartinC]
MartinC has joined #ws-ra
09:23:12 [paul]
bob: Is there permission to do this? Yes.
09:23:32 [paul]
TOPIC: Issues relating to RT
09:23:48 [MChapman]
MChapman has left #ws-ra
09:23:52 [Bob]
-Issue-6422 RT - Introduces An Ad Hoc Boxcarring Mechanism
09:23:53 [Bob]
09:23:55 [Bob]
-Issue-6549 RT - Create focused on resource fragments
09:23:56 [Bob]
09:23:58 [Bob]
-Issue-6550 RT - Support for XSLT and XQuery in PUT
09:23:59 [Bob]
-Bullen (Action-11)
09:24:01 [Bob]
-Issue-6552 RT - Lifecycle metadata for Create
09:24:02 [Bob]
09:24:04 [Bob]
-Issue-6576 RT - No Fault Defined for Mismatch between
09:24:05 [Bob]
ResourceTransfer header and message body
09:24:07 [Bob]
09:24:08 [Bob]
-Issue-6578 RT - SideEffects applies to other faults
09:24:10 [Bob]
09:24:11 [Bob]
-Issue-6579 RT - Bad fragment values with Create
09:24:13 [Bob]
09:24:14 [Bob]
-Issue-6603 RT - Inconsistencies in CreateResponse message
09:24:16 [Bob]
09:24:17 [Bob]
-Issue-6634 RT - Document algorithm for modify
09:24:19 [Bob]
09:24:21 [Bob]
-Issue-6636 RT - Add example of resource after the create
09:24:23 [Bob]
09:24:25 [Bob]
-Issue-6691 WS-T/RT - Reconcile faults
09:24:27 [Bob]
-Warr (Action-51)
09:24:36 [paul]
Wu: should open any against Fragment spec.
09:25:00 [paul]
Bob: proposal to close with no action all the above listed issues against RT
09:25:15 [paul]
Asir: believes these issues will not re-open against Frag
09:25:16 [Zakim]
09:25:33 [paul]
Bob: any objection to close these 10 issues?
09:25:49 [paul]
Asir: Issue-6691?
09:26:04 [paul]
Katy: Will look at these and raise issue if needed
09:26:11 [paul]
Bob: Any objection to closing?
09:26:57 [paul]
RESOLUTION: All 10 issues are closed.
09:27:15 [Bob]
09:27:34 [paul]
Bob: re-target 6407 to Frag
09:27:40 [Ram]
Are there 11 issues in the pack that was resolved?
09:27:54 [paul]
RESOLUTION: retarget 6407 to Frag
09:27:58 [Bob]
09:28:00 [paul]
TOPIC: Issue-6403
09:28:10 [paul]
ram - I didn't count.... I thought Dug did
09:28:47 [Ram]
I counted just now, it is 11.
09:28:50 [Ram]
09:28:55 [Bob]
09:29:15 [paul]
s/All 10 issues/All 11 issues
09:29:19 [paul]
s/All 10 issues/All 11 issues/
09:30:30 [paul]
katy: nested enumerate is no longer required. Simplified proposal.
09:31:04 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
09:31:45 [asir2]
asir2 has joined #ws-ra
09:32:56 [Zakim]
+ +0196270aaff
09:33:29 [Zakim]
- +39.331.574.aadd
09:33:41 [paul]
Dave: proposal is to remove last sentence on the first para. The sentence doesn't help, just confuses.
09:33:58 [dug]
text dave wants to remove: The wsenp:Enumeration policy assertion specifies a concrete behaviour whereas the wsdl:portType or wsdl20:interface is an abstract construct.
09:34:28 [PaulN]
PaulN has joined #ws-ra
09:34:51 [paul]
bob: no objection to remove: "The wsenp:Enumeration policy assertion specifies a concrete behaviour whereas the wsdl:portType or wsdl20:interface is an abstract construct."
09:35:07 [Katy]
09:35:07 [Katy]
<wsenp:EnumerateRequired wsp:Optional=true.../> ?
09:35:07 [Katy]
09:35:41 [paul]
Bob: no objection to remove ' <wsenp:EnumerateRequired wsp:Optional=true.../>'
09:35:49 [paul]
Dug: doing real-time edits.
09:36:02 [paul]
Dave: do we need to edit the first part of the para?
09:36:05 [paul]
Dug: nope
09:37:49 [paul]
Asir: need to remove 'with nested policy assertions' as well
09:38:09 [paul]
dug: Also further cascaded edits
09:38:28 [paul]
Asir: need a schema
09:39:23 [paul]
Martin: general question. When you get to the schemas do they need to list valid values? e.g. FilterDialect.
09:40:06 [paul]
Dug: in other specs (e.g. eventing). Schema does specify default value.
09:40:43 [paul]
Asir: references between specs?
09:41:08 [asir2]
s/between specs/within the spec/
09:42:42 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
09:43:04 [paul]
Asir: resolution to 7716 obviates need for nested policy assertions
09:43:32 [paul]
bob: first editorial note can be removed
09:44:14 [paul]
bob: second editorial note?
09:44:32 [paul]
Asir: suggestion - leave this note until we have resolved other related issues
09:44:40 [paul]
Dug: uncomfortable leaving the notes
09:44:50 [paul]
Asir: common approach in W3C
09:44:55 [Yves]
ednotes can stay until REC
09:45:00 [paul]
Dug: prefer an issue.
09:45:02 [Yves]
and even in some RECs you can find ednotes
09:46:12 [paul]
gpilz: Filter dialect is a parameter not a nested policy assertion. If I'm a consumer only supporting one dialect. I'd like to use a policy assertion matching algorithm. As a parameter, I need to understand the details.
09:46:50 [paul]
Katy: If you put as a nested assertion. It would need an attribute.
09:47:15 [paul]
gpilz: What about using a policy assertion in the namespace of the filter dialect. No attributes
09:47:30 [paul]
katy: problem: Couldn't establish list of filter dialects
09:47:48 [paul]
dug: every solution has a problem. Stealing someone elses namespace
09:48:10 [paul]
gpilz: don't have to use xpath's namespace. We can create our own namespaces for dialects.
09:48:21 [paul]
dug: that is true.
09:48:46 [paul]
dug: requires that anyone defining that ns doesn't use the name filter dialect
09:49:42 [paul]
gpilz: would like to see nested policy assertions for Filter Dialects.
09:49:46 [asir2]
09:50:14 [paul]
gpilz: sees this as policy matching
09:51:04 [paul]
09:51:27 [paul]
gpilz: don't have to write code. Just construct the policy and match
09:51:50 [paul]
dave: clarifies Gil's discussion
09:52:27 [Bob]
ack asir
09:53:03 [paul]
Asir: if you want to do policy matching. Nested policy assertion with a qname that matches the dialect.
09:53:28 [paul]
GPilz: the qname MUST be <our-xpath-ns:FilterDialect>
09:54:08 [paul]
GPilz: re-iterates that we shouldn't be using XPath's namespace.
09:54:29 [paul]
Asir: come up with our own qname
09:54:43 [Wu]
09:55:13 [paul]
gpilz: Need to define a new filter dialect, then you either need to create a URI or a QName
09:56:05 [paul]
gpilz: if you create a new dialect, here is a template assertion
09:58:04 [paul]
dug: answer why it needs to be a template. imagine a generic pub/sub client. Need to drop down potential dialects. Look for assertions with the tag "FilterDialect", then populate list with URIs
09:58:52 [Zakim]
- +1.914.066.aaee
09:59:20 [dug]
<urn:foo wsenp:filterDialect="xs:anyURI"/>
09:59:32 [paul]
asir: proposes a joint solution
10:00:06 [paul]
dug: do I still need to know urn:foo
10:01:00 [paul]
katy: Paul Nolan had a suggestion to combine these message assertions
10:01:35 [Bob]
ack wu
10:01:42 [asir2]
i would like an opp to respond to Katy
10:02:31 [Zakim]
10:02:33 [paul]
gpilz: I want to use policy matching to solve this problem
10:02:54 [dug]
10:03:04 [paul]
gpilz: If I don't dictate the template. Now I need to know the qname and the assertion
10:03:30 [paul]
gpilz: If you give a template, then its simpler/more straightforward.
10:05:01 [paul]
asir: respond to Katy. In the urn:foo example. In that case its just additional information. The real semantics is in urn:foo. Always pick up the addition semantics.
10:05:07 [Sreed]
Sreed has joined #ws-ra
10:05:13 [Bob]
ack paul
10:06:21 [Zakim]
10:06:28 [dug]
<foo:FilterDialect xmlns:foo="...xpath2.0"/> is gil's
10:07:34 [Bob]
ack dug
10:07:37 [paul]
paul: prefers the status quo, then asirs
10:08:12 [paul]
dug: can we mandate that you must provide that attribute.
10:08:28 [paul]
gpilz: we must
10:08:38 [paul]
bob: short break
10:09:02 [Zakim]
- +1.646.361.aacc
10:10:15 [Zakim]
10:18:57 [paul]
bob: bad joke. not worth repeating :p
10:19:19 [paul]
Bob: do we leave this in?
10:19:29 [paul]
Dave: prefer to raise this note as an issue
10:20:25 [paul]
ACTION: Asir to raise second and third editorial note as new issue and they will be deleted.
10:20:25 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-108 - Raise second and third editorial note as new issue and they will be deleted. [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2009-10-07].
10:20:52 [paul]
gpilz: happy to accept this and raise a new issue
10:21:17 [paul]
bob: accepting this proposal will not stop Gil raising issues
10:21:29 [gpilz]
ACTION: gpilz to raise issue about support for "generic enumeration clients"
10:21:29 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-109 - Raise issue about support for "generic enumeration clients" [on Gilbert Pilz - due 2009-10-07].
10:21:37 [paul]
dug: produces newly updated proposal out of hat
10:21:59 [dug]
word doc:
10:23:34 [paul]
Dug: produces edits
10:26:11 [dug]
10:26:23 [paul]
RESOLUTION: accept Dug's edited proposal:
10:26:59 [Bob]
ack dug
10:27:33 [paul]
dug: is the group ok with the editors applying this accepted policy doc as a template for the other policy docs
10:27:57 [paul]
RESOLUTION: yes the editors can go ahead with using this doc as a template for other specs
10:28:10 [paul]
Bob: take a look at Eventing Policy specs
10:28:39 [paul]
TOPIC: Issue 6402
10:28:53 [Bob]
10:29:44 [paul]
katy: introduces proposal
10:31:25 [Zakim]
+ +39.331.574.aagg
10:31:40 [paul]
Wu: proposes change to default ns shortname
10:32:13 [paul]
katy: there are mistakes in this. FormatName should be URI not duration
10:32:44 [paul]
katy: also - s/nested assertions/parameters/
10:33:10 [paul]
Asir: drop line saying "If DateTime..... MUST include this assertion"
10:33:25 [paul]
Dug: should we drop editorial note and raise issue?
10:33:51 [paul]
Bob: editorial note is already covered by Asirs new issue
10:34:14 [paul]
Asir: same issues apply to the SubsMgr policy too
10:34:22 [paul]
Dug produces attachment
10:35:35 [Bob]
10:37:15 [Zakim]
- +39.331.574.aagg
10:38:42 [Bob]
10:39:18 [Bob]
10:42:02 [paul]
wu: needs more time to review
10:42:19 [paul]
katy: could we accept now and then raise issues
10:42:28 [paul]
bob: wants to timebox to a day
10:42:54 [paul]
bob: revisit tomorrow.
10:43:43 [paul]
martin: in the format name, it doesn't offer the potential values.
10:44:57 [paul]
dug: the PT0S is a special value, hence in the policy. There is an issue to discuss this in the spec too
10:45:12 [paul]
Wu: similar discussion around delivery push
10:45:21 [paul]
Bob: should we do push first?
10:45:54 [paul]
martin: more concerned about overall consistency between policy and protocol
10:46:11 [paul]
bob: revisit tomorrow
10:46:54 [paul]
TOPIC: Transfer Policy 7731
10:47:01 [Bob]
10:48:55 [paul]
dug: explains proposal
10:49:34 [paul]
katy: the ? should be a *
10:50:55 [paul]
group: edits document
10:55:02 [dug]
link to proposal:
10:55:28 [paul]
11:02:16 [Bob]
11:02:21 [Bob]
ack paul
11:05:23 [Zakim]
11:07:19 [paul]
ACTION: paul to raise new issue - how does a resource factory say 'i will always create resources with a consistent policy and what is that policy'
11:07:19 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - paul
11:07:19 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. pnolan, pfremant2)
11:07:35 [paul]
ACTION: pfremant2 to raise new issue - how does a resource factory say 'i will always create resources with a consistent policy and what is that policy'
11:07:35 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-110 - Raise new issue - how does a resource factory say 'i will always create resources with a consistent policy and what is that policy' [on Paul Fremantle - due 2009-10-07].
11:07:50 [dug]
11:07:51 [dug]
11:07:56 [dug]
11:12:08 [paul]
group: edits document
11:14:29 [paul]
bob: break for lunch, resolve this issue after lunch
11:15:26 [paul]
bob: 1:15pm
11:17:41 [Zakim]
11:41:33 [dug]
Proposed new text: When present, this parameter indicates that attempts to change the representation that are read-only will generate a wst:PutDenied fault. If this parameter is not present, attempts to modify read-only portions of the resource representation will be ignored.
11:42:00 [Bob]
Bob has joined #ws-ra
11:42:01 [dug]
one more try: When present, this parameter indicates that attempts to change portions of the representation that are read-only will generate a wst:PutDenied fault. If this parameter is not present, attempts to modify read-only portions of the resource representation will be ignored.
11:55:09 [DaveS]
DaveS has joined #ws-ra
11:55:16 [DaveS]
11:55:22 [Bob]
Hi back
12:00:44 [Zakim]
- +0196281aaaa
12:04:10 [Zakim]
+ +0196281aahh
12:04:43 [asir2]
12:04:59 [Bob]
12:06:49 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
12:07:49 [asir2]
Hello Ashok!
12:08:01 [Ashok]
Good afternoon!
12:08:13 [MartinC]
MartinC has joined #ws-ra
12:10:53 [dug]
just for wu: When present, this parameter indicates that attempts to change portions of the representation that are read-only will generate a wst:PutDenied fault. If this parameter is not present, attempts to modify read-only portions of the resource representation will be ignored.
12:11:09 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
12:11:12 [Zakim]
12:12:11 [dug]
with an edit from Wu: When present, this parameter indicates that attempts to change portions of the representation that are read-only will generate a wst:PutDenied fault. If this parameter is not present, attempts to modify read-only portions of the resource representation will be ignored without any fault being generated.
12:13:08 [Bob]
scribe: Martin Chapman
12:13:10 [dug]
12:13:21 [Bob]
acribenick: MartinC
12:13:45 [Bob]
scribenick: MartinC
12:13:47 [MartinC]
Topic: continuing 7731
12:15:27 [Zakim]
12:17:31 [dug]
12:17:36 [dug]
12:17:56 [MartinC]
A few editorial changes in attchment 756
12:18:47 [MartinC]
Asir: what is the relation between this and 6721
12:19:04 [MartinC]
Katy: will make a proposal for 6721
12:19:08 [Zakim]
+ +
12:19:36 [MartinC]
12:20:40 [MartinC]
Asir: thinks 6721 is possibly a close no action
12:21:17 [MartinC]
Bob: consider 6721 separately as a different issue
12:22:07 [MartinC]
No objection to resolving 7731 with comment #5 (
12:22:22 [dug]
mex latest:
12:22:58 [MartinC]
12:24:17 [MartinC]
looking at the attachment
12:24:59 [MartinC]
Wu: should we remove the note
12:25:20 [MartinC]
Dug: it is there as a reminder
12:26:14 [dug]
12:28:11 [MartinC]
No objection to resolving 6406 with comment #2:
12:29:07 [MartinC]
12:29:52 [MartinC]
Topic: New issue
12:30:07 [MartinC]
Ashok introduces his issue
12:30:34 [Katy]
12:31:09 [asir2]
12:32:18 [MartinC]
Ashok: point 1 is what needs to be addressed, propbably 2. has been covered
12:32:33 [Katy]
12:32:36 [MartinC]
Katy: is this related to 6463
12:32:56 [MartinC]
Ashok: maybe, didn't look at it.
12:33:07 [MartinC]
Asir: dupl?
12:33:39 [MartinC]
Ashok: need to look at whether 6463 deals with point 1
12:34:07 [MartinC]
Mark as dependant on 6463, and will discuss in that order
12:37:50 [MartinC]
12:38:21 [paul]
12:39:37 [MartinC]
Katy: goes over the issue
12:39:56 [MartinC]
Paul: why are operations implicit?
12:40:58 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
12:41:12 [Bob]
ack katy
12:41:13 [MartinC]
Katy: this is policy applied to mex
12:41:50 [asir2]
12:42:13 [MartinC]
Dug: we agreed that the operation are implicit incl on transfer so might have to re-open ssue 6694
12:43:21 [MartinC]
Katy: designed not to be complicated if you didn't want to use it, hence the use of policy attachemnets
12:43:30 [MartinC]
12:43:48 [dug]
from transfer: An endpoint MAY indicate that it supports WS-Transfer, or its features, by including the WS-Transfer Policy assertion(s) within its WSDL. By doing so the endpoint is indicating that the corresponding WS-Transfer operations are supported by that endpoint even though they do not explicitly appear in its WSDL.
12:44:43 [MartinC]
Paul: is there a way we can point to the wsdl operation?
12:44:57 [MartinC]
Like an implicit import
12:45:25 [MartinC]
Katy: policy attachment is a way to do exactly this
12:46:00 [Zakim]
- +
12:46:20 [Zakim]
+ +39.331.574.aajj
12:46:28 [MartinC]
...provides more flexibility this way
12:46:43 [Bob]
ack asir
12:46:50 [Bob]
ack paul
12:46:52 [MartinC]
...especially if different policies in different directions
12:47:36 [MartinC]
Asir: What is the PolicyAttachement? An assertion?
12:48:04 [MartinC]
12:48:20 [MartinC] does this fit in the policy model if its a parameter
12:48:45 [MartinC]
...what is the subject of the uri
12:49:23 [MartinC]
Katy: what we define the uri to mean, in this case a uri expression of a subject
12:50:28 [MartinC]
....applies to the implicit operation/message
12:51:09 [MartinC]
Asir: so there are a range of subjects (input/output/faults)
12:52:20 [MartinC]
need a predefined way to identify the subjects
12:53:51 [Zakim]
- +39.331.574.aajj
12:53:52 [MartinC]
Paul: want to attach a policy to the imported policy
12:54:03 [MartinC]
12:54:43 [MartinC]
Gil: should we take it outside Enumeration?
12:54:54 [MartinC]
Katy: its related to a specific endpoint
12:55:43 [MartinC]
Paul:two sub issues: where does the policy live? and is there a standard way to refer to the subjects?
12:56:59 [asir2]
12:57:15 [MartinC]
Katy: we need this for the getmetadata
12:57:43 [MartinC]
Paul: seems complicated since we have hidden the operations
12:59:19 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
12:59:59 [gpilz]
13:00:00 [Zakim]
13:00:01 [Zakim]
- +0196270aaff
13:00:02 [gpilz]
13:00:22 [Bob]
ack asir
13:00:49 [MartinC]
Asir: Agrees with Paul, attach a policy expression to wsdl
13:01:27 [Katy]
13:02:16 [MartinC]
....attachment is not a policy assertion
13:03:17 [dug]
13:03:26 [Bob]
ack gp
13:04:13 [MartinC]
Gil: goes over the use-case for this feature
13:05:42 [MartinC]
...will be strange behaviour for current wsdl tools
13:06:31 [MartinC]
....if explicit tools will generate stubs
13:06:50 [Bob]
ack katy
13:07:17 [MartinC]
Katy: its a difficult problem and best for the spec to solve
13:08:26 [MartinC]
13:09:24 [Katy]
13:09:50 [MartinC]
Paul: will be hard to configure current stacks to support this without cut/paste implicit operations into the wsdl
13:10:18 [gpilz]
13:10:26 [paul]
13:10:38 [dug]
13:11:02 [MartinC]
Dug: The infrastructure supports these operations so they don't need to be made explicit
13:11:10 [Bob]
ack martin
13:13:07 [Bob]
ack katy
13:13:30 [MartinC]
Martin: is this spec the place to define a uri mechanism to identify wsdl parts
13:13:43 [gpilz]
q- gives back his stolen slot to Katy
13:13:56 [MartinC]
Katy: we need something like this for our specs
13:14:02 [gpilz]
13:14:04 [gpilz]
13:14:18 [Bob]
ack paul
13:15:19 [gpilz]
13:16:17 [MartinC]
Paul: implicit or not, a client just calls like any other wsdl operation, and policy should be attached as such
13:16:44 [MartinC]
...why should you hack the stack to do this
13:16:49 [dug]
its akin to saying "the only way RM would work is if you implement RM" - its circular
13:17:14 [Bob]
ack gpi
13:17:45 [dug]
13:17:59 [MartinC]
Gil: can all be hidden by an api
13:18:14 [MartinC]
13:20:15 [MartinC]
....different levels of users want different capabilities
13:21:00 [Bob]
ack dug
13:21:02 [MartinC]
....good reasons these are implcit
13:21:29 [MartinC]
Dug: only user defined operations should be exposed to the user
13:21:45 [dug]
13:22:08 [MartinC]
...should we standardise the way to expose the wsdl
13:22:25 [DaveS]
13:22:44 [Bob]
ack martin
13:23:09 [Bob]
ack dave
13:23:12 [Katy]
13:23:17 [asir2]
13:23:27 [MartinC]
Martin:client side view should be the same
13:24:29 [MartinC]
Dave: suggestion to embed the implicit wsdl in the meta-data of the epr (which can be done now)
13:24:46 [Bob]
ack katy
13:24:59 [MartinC]
Katy: will go away and re-think
13:25:02 [Bob]
ack asir
13:25:35 [MartinC]
Asir: doesn't understand the proposal, so re-work would be nice
13:26:15 [dug]
13:26:47 [MartinC]
Bob: asks which direction we should look for a solution
13:27:23 [dug]
13:28:34 [dug]
13:29:29 [Bob]
ack dug
13:29:48 [paul]
13:30:01 [Bob]
ack paul
13:30:50 [asir2]
13:31:15 [dug]
define a new mex Dialect to retrieve the WSRA WSDL docs - these WSDL docs can be annotated with policy as needed
13:34:14 [asir2]
zakim, pick a victim
13:34:14 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Yves
13:34:23 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose li
13:34:40 [Bob]
zakim, pass the buck
13:34:40 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'pass the buck', Bob
13:35:42 [MartinC]
Action: IBM to produce an updated proposal for 6721
13:35:42 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - IBM
13:36:19 [Bob]
ack asir
13:36:51 [MartinC]
Break until 14:50 local time
13:37:22 [Zakim]
13:37:35 [Zakim]
13:52:43 [Zakim]
14:01:32 [MartinC]
Resuming in 1 min
14:02:32 [MartinC]
14:03:20 [MartinC]
14:03:43 [MartinC]
14:05:13 [Zakim]
+ +0196270aakk
14:05:27 [MartinC]
Katy: can we postpone until the previous issue (6721) is progressed
14:06:58 [MartinC]
Topic: mundane business
14:08:33 [MartinC]
Topic: Exit Criteria
14:09:02 [MartinC]
Bob: Start with charter which says:
14:09:11 [DaveS]
Current Charter Says: "The Web Services Resource Access Working Group will define the specifics of their exit criteria before Last Call. The Working Group is expected to demonstrate at least two interoperable implementations of each deliverable during the Call for Implementations step of the set of features not marked as "at risk" for each Recommendation specification."
14:11:28 [MartinC]
Bob suggests: this must include ALL mandatory and optional features
14:11:39 [Zakim]
- +0196270aakk
14:14:09 [MartinC]
To be considered a valid implementation it must do the Mandatory and may do the Optional, but to pass exit there must be at least two of each optional feature
14:15:23 [MartinC]
Dug: whats the relationship between end-points and impls?
14:16:59 [asir2]
14:17:37 [MartinC]
Martin: should the impls come from different companies
14:18:20 [MartinC]
Bob: they must be from independent code bases.
14:19:21 [dug]
14:20:26 [dug]
14:20:41 [MartinC]
Jeff: different companies provide better coverage of spec debugging
14:22:50 [MartinC]
Martin: academic discusion if we have two imple from different companies
14:24:23 [MartinC]
Bob: the W3C mentatlity is to interpret and test the spec, so if can prove different people then its ok
14:27:46 [li]
14:29:06 [MartinC]
Bob: Minimum goal is two impls from two diff companies
14:29:23 [MartinC]
Doug: but surely two independent code bases is ok
14:33:18 [MartinC]
Jeff: an impl should do all optional features as well, since typically optional features rely on the others
14:33:43 [MartinC]
Bob: may be able to define sensible pairings
14:36:08 [li]
14:36:11 [MartinC]
Jeff: transitive is ok, but may miss some combinations
14:36:30 [MartinC]
...therefore easier to say do all optionals
14:40:18 [paul]
folks I have to go but its been fun.
14:40:23 [paul]
I hope to see you on Friday
14:41:22 [MartinC]
Bob: pairwsie testing has been acceptable in w3c
14:43:07 [li]
may i speak from the queue?
14:44:55 [MartinC]
Li: compliance is defined in each spec and should be obvious from the section
14:45:00 [MartinC]
14:45:26 [MartinC]
Li: if two teams never talk to each other then shouldnt matter if in same company
14:45:49 [Bob]
ack asir
14:45:53 [Bob]
ack li
14:45:57 [Bob]
ack martin
14:47:10 [Yves]
14:47:16 [Yves]
14:47:43 [MartinC]
Martin: is conformance related to exit criteria
14:47:56 [MartinC]
Bob/Jeff: seems like a necessary condition
14:49:08 [MartinC]
corollary is that this test the conformance criteria
14:49:59 [MartinC]
Jeff: not convinced the combinations will be covered, and suggest that at least two impls of all features
14:51:53 [MartinC]
Bob: cant go bellow w3c process requirements, but can go beyond it, which is what we are talking about
14:52:28 [MartinC]
Summary proposal is:
14:52:45 [MartinC]
two interop impls where
14:53:01 [MartinC]
1) all mandatory features implemented by all impls
14:53:47 [MartinC]
2) Each optional feature must be represented in at least two interoperable impls
14:54:14 [MartinC]
3) Any impl used to test an optional feature must implement all mandatory features
14:55:26 [MartinC]
4) Two interop impls means two different code bases from two different companies
14:56:00 [MartinC]
5) All implmentation used for testing must be conformant to the specification as defined by the spec
14:57:02 [asir2]
This is a proposal!
14:57:34 [asir2]
We would like to check what 5) entails ...
14:57:53 [MartinC]
Bob: first proposal on exit criteria, please think about and raise concerns
14:58:55 [MartinC]
We need to agree the exit criteria before last call
15:01:14 [Ram]
15:01:47 [asir2]
Two independent implementations are sufficient
15:04:21 [MartinC]
Asir: whats the rationale for two different companies
15:04:51 [MartinC]
Jeff: to minimise group thinking, you get better independent interpretations of the spec
15:05:26 [Bob]
ack ram
15:05:47 [MartinC]
Asir: we should define a minimum bar for success, but aim for more
15:05:47 [Wu]
15:05:51 [Yves]
what matters is two independant codebases, the fact that a company may hold two different codebases after a merger, or the fact that two companies are using the same codebase proves that "company" is not a good metric
15:05:57 [asir2]
Two interoperable implementations are sufficient
15:06:01 [asir2]
15:06:28 [gpilz]
15:06:52 [Bob]
ack wu
15:06:55 [MartinC]
Wu: two independent is fine, the group can judge how independent
15:07:35 [MartinC]
Gil: mergers are complicated so why consider here
15:07:44 [Yves]
independant _codebase_
15:07:52 [DaveS]
15:07:59 [Yves]
the company issue is irrelevant there (just loosely coupled)
15:08:25 [Yves]
the goal of interop is that the specification can be implemented by different people with the same understanding
15:08:58 [Wu]
Two independent implementations will be sufficient. This WG makes judgement on the validity of two implementation. We should tie it to merger, etc.
15:09:15 [MartinC]
Dug: if can prove two indendent groups of people test the spec isn't that ok
15:09:42 [Wu]
replacement /should tie it/should not tie it/
15:10:44 [asir2]
I hear a lot of pushback on ... 2 independent companies
15:10:55 [Ram]
15:12:32 [MartinC]
Action: Freund propose exit criteria on the email list
15:12:32 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-111 - Propose exit criteria on the email list [on Robert Freund - due 2009-10-07].
15:13:21 [Bob]
ack dave
15:13:41 [MartinC]
David: this a technical spec quality issues and we exit when we are happy the spec is suitably tested
15:13:46 [Bob]
ack gp
15:13:52 [Bob]
ack ram
15:14:09 [MartinC]
...everything else is market consideration and out of scope
15:14:50 [MartinC]
15:18:46 [li]
cross-talking heard
15:19:17 [li]
ws-ra and another group
15:29:46 [MartinC]
Gil: goes over the issues wrt expiration
15:30:54 [MartinC]
...similiar issue with ws-eventing on a subscription manager
15:32:17 [MartinC]
.... two ways to resolve
15:32:31 [MartinC]
...1) obey what the client want or fault, or
15:33:21 [MartinC]
.....2) remove the illusion of control from the consumer
15:33:35 [MartinC]
15:34:15 [dug]
yves- I'm being blocked again
15:34:20 [dug]
15:34:30 [Yves]
stop hammering our servers!
15:35:01 [MartinC]
gil favours removing expiration
15:35:04 [gpilz]
15:35:28 [Bob]
ack dug
15:35:58 [MartinC]
Dug: option 2 forces a renew which maybe too costly
15:36:07 [MartinC]
Dug: can live with option 1
15:36:17 [MartinC]
15:36:49 [MartinC]
... doesn't understand the pushback on option 1
15:37:06 [Wu]
15:37:29 [Bob]
ack gp
15:37:38 [dug]
15:38:32 [dug]
yves - that was my IP
15:38:36 [Ram]
15:38:46 [Bob]
ack wu
15:38:50 [Bob]
ack martin
15:38:52 [MartinC]
Martin: favorurs option 1
15:39:07 [dug]
15:39:14 [MartinC]
Wu: Subscriber can always reject the request
15:39:53 [Yves]
dug, it's not blocked... maybe another ip then
15:40:30 [MartinC]
... consumer may not have an idea of the capability of the subscripion manager
15:40:39 [gpilz]
15:40:43 [dug]
15:40:46 [dug]
15:40:52 [dug] says:
15:40:56 [MartinC]
Bob: typucally if it cant meet the requirement it doesnt give another time, it rejects
15:41:11 [Yves]
found an entry for your regular "abuse IP" ;)
15:41:14 [MartinC]
15:41:23 [Yves]
can you test?
15:41:37 [dug]
no joy
15:42:25 [MartinC]
Wu: stay with the current spec as it gives the desired behaviour
15:44:00 [dug]
works now
15:44:02 [dug]
15:45:03 [MartinC]
15:47:14 [MartinC]
Wu: current spec says if the expiration cant be met the subscription is still created
15:47:16 [Bob]
ack ram
15:47:26 [MartinC]
Ram: we all have different use cases
15:47:37 [MartinC]
....trying to find a solution for all
15:48:11 [MartinC]
...Dug's outline proposal seemed reasonable
15:48:54 [Bob]
ack dug
15:48:57 [MartinC]
15:49:03 [Wu]
Unless the subscribers with the counter offer, otherwsie the subscriber unsubscribes and terminates.
15:49:29 [MartinC]
Dug: its not an offer you get back from the source, its what was given, so its not really a negotiation and a fault would be better
15:50:59 [MartinC]
.... cWhy is the expires property different from the other like e.g filterdialect wich is ok to fault
15:51:05 [MartinC]
15:51:11 [Bob]
ack gp
15:51:45 [MartinC]
Gil: Doesn't see a lot of value in hints, you either care or don't care
15:51:49 [li]
15:52:01 [Ram]
15:52:05 [MartinC]
...still have to code as if have no control
15:52:23 [Bob]
15:52:31 [Wu]
15:52:36 [MartinC]
...what does "close" or "best efort" mean
15:52:54 [Bob]
ack martin
15:54:20 [Bob]
acl li
15:54:24 [Bob]
ack li
15:55:13 [MartinC]
Martin: if we add a "variance" property to option one which indicates a tolerance level to option 1 will that cover most use cases?
15:56:10 [Bob]
ack ram
15:56:19 [MartinC]
Li: wants to accomdate both options
16:00:49 [Bob]
ack bob
16:00:52 [Bob]
ack wu
16:00:59 [MartinC]
Bob: can accomodate all use casess with two values one of which is optional
16:01:24 [MartinC]
Wu: differnec with filterdialiect is that subscription can not work if dialect is not supported
16:01:29 [Zakim]
- +0196281aahh
16:01:38 [li]
no voice
16:02:09 [li]
complete silence on phone
16:02:35 [Bob]
looks like we are done :-)
16:02:54 [Bob]
probably zakim enforced
16:03:21 [Yves]
I doubt that zakim did that, usually there are audible warnings before
16:03:57 [MartinC]
wu: how about an extra parameter called "exact" which will fault if the exact expriation cant be supported
16:04:12 [MartinC]
Doug: if its required then can go for that
16:04:30 [Bob]
ok, we are wrapping up
16:04:51 [li]
classic forrest gump moment
16:05:11 [Bob]
Li, we are trying to give you an AI
16:05:18 [Bob]
16:05:55 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra
16:06:44 [MartinC]
Agreed that propsal 2) removal is a no go
16:07:04 [Ram]
16:07:42 [Zakim]
16:08:40 [MartinC]
Action: Gil write a new proposal for 7587 and 7478 and bounce of the group on email before Friday, to discuss on Friday
16:08:40 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Gil
16:08:57 [MartinC]
16:09:09 [Bob]
on ms, gil, Li
16:09:36 [MartinC]
Bob: thanks the organisers for todays meeting
16:09:44 [MartinC]
Meeting is recesssed
16:09:56 [Bob]
thanks Martin for scribing
16:10:10 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:10:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
16:10:17 [MartinC]
MartinC has left #ws-ra
16:10:24 [asir2]
Action: Gilbert, Ram and Li to write a new proposal for 7587 and 7478 and bounce of the group on e-mail before Friday
16:10:24 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Gilbert,
16:10:56 [asir2]
Action: Pilz, Ram and Li to write a new proposal for 7587 and 7478 and bounce of the group on e-mail before Friday
16:10:56 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Pilz,
16:11:06 [Zakim]
16:11:07 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA(F2F)3:30AM has ended
16:11:08 [Zakim]
Attendees were +0196281aaaa, +39.331.574.aabb, +1.646.361.aacc, +39.331.574.aadd, +1.914.066.aaee, Yves, +0196270aaff, +39.331.574.aagg, +0196281aahh, Ashok_Malhotra,
16:11:11 [Zakim]
... +, +39.331.574.aajj, li, +0196270aakk
16:11:24 [asir2]
Ram, Gilbert and Li to write a new proposal for 7587 and 7478 and bounce of the group on e-mail before Friday
16:11:34 [asir2]
Action: Ram, Gilbert and Li to write a new proposal for 7587 and 7478 and bounce of the group on e-mail before Friday
16:11:34 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Ram,
16:48:10 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra
17:10:51 [jeffm]
jeffm has joined #ws-ra
18:14:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-ra