IRC log of ws-ra on 2009-10-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:59:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
07:59:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to
07:59:43 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
07:59:43 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
07:59:45 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
07:59:45 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA(F2F)3:30AM scheduled to start 29 minutes ago
07:59:46 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
07:59:46 [trackbot]
Date: 02 October 2009
08:00:01 [Yves]
08:00:41 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA(F2F)3:30AM has now started
08:00:49 [Zakim]
+ +
08:01:01 [dug]
yves - I'm blocked again - could you look at the logs?
08:01:47 [Zakim]
+ +0196281aabb
08:02:04 [Bob]
Bob has joined #ws-ra
08:02:20 [Zakim]
+ +39.331.574.aacc
08:02:35 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
08:03:36 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.361.aadd
08:04:08 [Zakim]
- +
08:04:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.849.aaee
08:13:56 [Bob]
scribe: Ram Jeyaraman
08:13:59 [Yves]
dug, I only have access to the black lists
08:14:15 [Yves]
and the ip you gave was not in it
08:14:37 [DaveS]
DaveS has joined #ws-ra
08:15:03 [dug]
08:15:03 [Zakim]
08:15:07 [dug]
try that one
08:15:54 [Sreed]
Sreed has joined #ws-ra
08:15:55 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
08:16:41 [jeffm]
jeffm has joined #ws-ra
08:16:54 [dug]
yves, is in the blacklist
08:17:03 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-ra
08:17:11 [Yves]
yep, clearing it
08:17:46 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
08:17:50 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
08:17:53 [Yves]
08:17:56 [dug]
fixed! thanks
08:18:00 [Ram]
scribe ram
08:18:04 [Bob]
scribenick: Ram
08:18:30 [Bob]
08:20:40 [Bob]
topic: 7088 implementation
08:21:05 [Bob]
proposed xsd/wsdl at
08:23:02 [MartinC]
MartinC has joined #ws-ra
08:28:30 [Ram]
XSD/WSDL from Doug looks good. No objections to publishing WS-Fragment as a FPWD.
08:29:30 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
08:29:52 [Bob]
08:30:54 [Ram]
Topic: 6721
08:30:57 [Bob]
08:31:11 [dug]
08:31:50 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
08:31:51 [paul]
paul has joined #ws-ra
08:31:58 [Ram]
Doug: The text in 7.2 is the old text; says you can advertise the policy.
08:32:12 [Ram]
Doug: In the new text, I changed policy to metadata.
08:32:58 [Ram]
Doug: This is an initial pass at what we discussed day before.
08:33:49 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.290.aaff
08:33:49 [Ram]
Asir: Two comments.
08:35:03 [jeffm]
08:35:18 [Ram]
Asir: These two paragraphs there are a continuation of the para under 7.2. When a dialect URI is defined we need to provide an identifier. Not defining is fine but we need to call it out.
08:35:54 [Ram]
Doug: There were some reading flow issues; so i did it this way.
08:37:38 [Ram]
Doug: I am fine with rearranging it if it improves the flow.
08:38:07 [Ram]
Asir: There is one semantic change relating to the identifier; identifier is not defined.
08:39:01 [Ram]
No objections so far on the suggested change.
08:39:30 [Bob]
ack jeff
08:39:45 [Ram]
Jeff: why does this proposal still talk about XML SOAP URI?
08:40:27 [Ram]
Doug: We don't have a standard version for it.
08:40:41 [Wu]
08:41:21 [Ram]
Bob: The WSDL dialect is defined in the MEX specification.
08:42:00 [Ram]
Jeff: Should the dialect URI use a WS-RA namespace?
08:42:08 [Ram]
Bob: You should consider filing an issue.
08:42:54 [dug]
08:46:03 [Ram]
Jeff: When are the operations exposed.
08:46:26 [Ram]
Asir: When the applications want to expose them.
08:47:28 [Zakim]
- +39.331.574.aacc
08:48:57 [Bob]
from comment #2 of Issue-6694 (directional decision during the August F2F)
08:49:01 [Bob]
RESOLUTION: (directional) everything is implicitly defined with WS-Policy
08:49:03 [Bob]
assertions, optionality of operations to be indicated by assertions or some
08:49:04 [Bob]
other appropriate WS-Policy mechanism. In addition the wsdl will be in the
08:49:06 [Bob]
08:53:39 [Bob]
08:54:08 [Ram]
Katy:If a decision had been previously made not to put explicitly in the WSDL, the quoted resolution does not contradict it.
08:54:44 [Ram]
Wu: My understanding is that by using the policy assertion the endpoint is declaring implicit support for all the operations.
08:56:18 [gpilz]
s/indicate that a certain security algorithm is needed to use the WS-Transfer operations./indicate that a specific security mechanism is used to protect the WS-Transfer operations for this endpoint./
08:56:27 [gpilz]
08:57:05 [Katy]
08:57:49 [Ram]
Asir: Two a concrete change. Change 'while' to a 'when';
08:58:54 [Ram]
Gil: Should there be a statement that operations cannot explicitly appear when the policy assertion is used?
08:59:11 [Ram]
Asir: This is in the first paragraph of section 7.
08:59:32 [Bob]
ack wu
08:59:39 [Bob]
ack gpi
08:59:57 [Ram]
Wu: I want to see a clear declartion that I support WS-Transfer operations.
09:00:14 [Ram]
Bob agrees with Asir's comment.
09:00:55 [Ram]
Wu does not agree with Gil's point.
09:01:42 [Ram]
Bob: We have already agreed that if the policy assertion is present, then all operations are implicitly supported.
09:02:03 [Ram]
Wu: The policy assertion section covers many things beyond just the implicit behavior.
09:02:04 [Yves]
implicit declaration doesn't forbid explicit and more tuned declaration
09:02:38 [Ram]
Doug agrees.
09:02:44 [Yves]
implicit means "it's not defined, resort to using this"
09:03:26 [Bob]
ack katy
09:03:34 [Zakim]
- +1.646.290.aaff
09:04:54 [Ram]
Katy: The text already covers all the possible options. Transfer is implicitly defined, explicitly supported, not suported.
09:05:14 [Ram]
Katy: Not supported implies Not a Transfer resource.
09:05:30 [asir]
09:05:59 [Ram]
Katy: It strikes me that there has been a clear decision about not openly supporting explict option.
09:06:31 [Ram]
Bob: The specification does not require use of policy or WSDL.
09:07:16 [Ram]
Bob: Although we have said that policy is not the exclusive way, but if policy is used, that implicitly defines the operations.
09:07:22 [Ram]
Bob: True or not?
09:08:09 [Ram]
Martin: It is ambiguous whether it is implicit or explicit.
09:08:26 [Zakim]
- +1.919.849.aaee
09:09:51 [Ram]
Bob: The meaning of the existence of the policy indicates Transfer is supported. Implicitly or explicitly supported is undefined.
09:09:56 [Wu]
There should be a specific policy assertion to indicate that the operations are implicitly supported.
09:09:58 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.849.aagg
09:10:21 [Ram]
Bob: Do we agree that when the policy assertion is present, the operations are implicitly defined?
09:11:11 [Ram]
Doug: Whether policy is used or not has no bearing on whether it is implicit or explicit.
09:11:42 [Ram]
Bob: If the policy assertion exist, what does it mean?
09:12:06 [Ram]
Doug: All it means is, service is advertising support for transfer. Meaning, transfer operations are supported.
09:12:13 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.290.aahh
09:12:23 [gpilz]
09:13:14 [Wu]
09:13:27 [Bob]
ack asir
09:13:41 [MartinC]
09:14:11 [Ram]
Asir: The policy assertion indicates you are supporting the required operations and with the policy params it supports the optional operations.
09:15:37 [Ram]
Asir: When an endpoint supports policy, and Transfer, and uses policy assertion, it is indicative of the operations being supported implicitly.
09:19:33 [Bob]
09:20:35 [Bob]
ack gp
09:21:23 [Ram]
Bob: We don't want to revisit earlier agreements. The resolution to 6694 indicates that when policy assertion is engaged implicit support of operations is expressed.
09:24:44 [Ram]
Gil is describing an use case.
09:27:32 [Ram]
Gil is defining an application WSDL that contains the Transfer operations. The policy appears in the WSDL as well.
09:27:43 [Ram]
Asir: It is redundant.
09:27:50 [Ram]
Gil: Is it illegal?
09:29:41 [Ram]
Doug: The policy assertion is indepent of implicitly.
09:29:58 [paul]
09:30:42 [Ram]
Bob: We discussed that we had previously discussed that what is infrastructure for one person is infrastructure for another person.
09:31:35 [dug]
09:32:32 [Ram]
Bob: The resolution text for 6694 stands.
09:34:19 [Ram]
Katy: This was a mechanism for operations that do not explicitly appear in the WSDL.
09:35:02 [paul]
09:35:42 [Ram]
Dave: The red text in the proposal is capturing the cases that are not covered by the resolution to 6694.
09:36:07 [Bob]
ack martin
09:36:09 [Bob]
ack wu
09:36:36 [Wu]
09:36:41 [Ram]
Martin: If you have a policy and dialect explicitly defined, there is no clarity.
09:36:44 [Wu]
09:36:51 [Ram]
Bob: That is a separate discussion.
09:37:06 [paul]
09:37:08 [asir]
09:37:12 [gpilz]
09:37:14 [dug]
09:37:34 [Bob]
ack asir
09:37:40 [Ram]
Bob: Does the proposed modification sufficiently addressed 6721?
09:37:40 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
09:37:49 [paul]
I took myself off the queue. I personally don't agree that WSTransfer is purely 100% infrastructure, but that is a side issue
09:40:10 [Ram]
Asir: Let us remove the phrase "While the WS-Transfer operations are not exposed in an endpoint's WSDL" from the red text in the proposal.
09:40:36 [gpilz]
09:41:24 [asir]
Paul - I don't agree that Transfer is just infrastructure. Bob said it well ... one man's infrastructureis another man's app
09:41:51 [paul]
i thought we resolved this on wednesday?
09:42:35 [DaveS]
09:42:59 [MartinC]
09:43:02 [Wu]
09:43:53 [Ram]
Doug: Use a MUST: "While the WS-Transfer operations MUST not exposed in an endpoint's WSDL"
09:44:04 [Ram]
Dave: This is not core to 6721.
09:44:09 [dug]
09:44:51 [Bob]
ack dave
09:45:27 [asir]
09:45:54 [Ram]
Dave: I am fine with the text as it is. I suggest using a separate issue to revisit or make adjustments to previous resolutions.
09:46:40 [Ram]
Dave: I am not too particularly attached to one particular manifestation.
09:46:51 [gpilz]
09:47:15 [Ram]
Martin: I don't like the word 'version'.
09:47:29 [gpilz]
09:47:30 [Ram]
Delete "Own verion of the" phrase.
09:47:38 [gpilz]
ack MartinC
09:47:40 [Bob]
ack martin
09:47:45 [gpilz]
09:47:46 [Bob]
ack wu
09:47:49 [Katy]
09:48:10 [Bob]
ack dug
09:48:13 [Ram]
No objections to Martin's change.
09:48:41 [Ram]
Doug: I don't agree that changing the first paragraph should be handled via a separate issue.
09:48:58 [Ram]
Doug: I think it is in the spirit of the earlier resolutions.
09:49:49 [Ram]
Bob: We agreed to the resolution to 6694 irrespective of the various (mis)interpretations.
09:50:29 [Ram]
Bob: If people have an issue with the agreed to text for 6694 let us reopen that issue.
09:51:01 [Ram]
Bob: I suggest that we do NOT elaborate on teh 6694 any further since it is not central to issue 6721.
09:51:37 [Wu]
09:52:01 [Bob]
ack asir
09:52:30 [DaveS]
09:52:31 [Ram]
Asir: The second paragraph in section 7 is not central to 6721.
09:54:18 [Zakim]
- +1.646.290.aahh
09:57:03 [Ram]
Bob: Is there any objection to agreeing to just the part below.
09:57:18 [Ram]
Proposed text/extract: "an endpoint MAY choose to expose its own version of the WS-Transfer WSDL by using the following WS-MetadataExchange Dialect URI:"
09:57:44 [Zakim]
- +1.919.849.aagg
09:57:50 [Ram]
09:57:58 [Ram]
"This version of the WS-Transfer WSDL can be annotated to indicate any endpoint specific metadata that might be needed by clients interacting with this service. For example, the WSDL MAY have policy assertions to indicate that a certain security algorithm is needed to use the WS-Transfer operations."
09:58:14 [Ram]
Dave: There is need to clarify about dialects.
09:58:55 [Ram]
Doug: One or more WSDL need to be considered.
09:59:51 [Ram]
Bob: Does the above text work for every one?
10:00:12 [gpilz]
10:00:27 [Yves]
annotating... meaning SAWSDL?
10:00:42 [gpilz]
s/indicate that a certain security algorithm is needed to use the WS-Transfer operations./indicate that a particular security mechanism is used to protect the WS-Transfer operations for this endpoint./
10:01:20 [Bob]
10:02:40 [Ram]
No objections to the amendment from Gil noted above.
10:06:02 [Ram]
Doug to post a new doc with some revisions:
10:06:06 [Wu]
how about s/is used to protect /for/ the WS-Transfer ...
10:06:22 [dug]
10:07:46 [Katy]
Hi Yves, please could you unblock
10:08:59 [Yves]
10:09:19 [Katy]
10:09:33 [Yves]
but ask your system people to fix this ;)
10:10:15 [Katy]
I will try, something has certainly changed in the last few months
10:13:09 [Ram]
The proposed resolution will appy to all specifications except MEX. Specifically, resolution applies only to Transfer, Enumeration, Eventing specs.
10:13:38 [Zakim]
- +1.646.361.aadd
10:14:38 [Ram]
This also applies to MEX.
10:17:58 [Bob]
proposal is (i.e. retrievable by using a WS-MetadataExchange GetMetadata with a Dialect URI of An endpoint MAY choose to expose the WS-Transfer WSDL by using the following WS-MetadataExchange Dialect:
10:18:00 [Bob]
Dialect URI @Identifier value
10:18:01 [Bob] Not defined
10:18:03 [Bob]
The WS-Transfer WSDL can be annotated to indicate any endpoint specific metadata that might be needed by clients interacting with this service. For example, the WSDL MAY have policy assertions that indicate a particular security mechanism used to protect the WS-Transfer operations supported by this endpoint.
10:18:12 [dug]
10:18:27 [Ram]
The latest modified version of the proposal in above.
10:18:42 [Ram]
No objections to the above proposed resolution.
10:18:52 [Ram]
Issue 6721 is resolved.
10:19:28 [Ram]
RESOLUTION 6721 is represented by comment #6 in bugzilla.
10:33:52 [Ram]
topic: 7013
10:34:29 [Bob]
proposal at
10:36:24 [dug]
10:37:15 [gpilz]
10:37:29 [Katy]
10:37:37 [DaveS]
10:37:38 [Wu]
10:37:39 [Bob]
ack dug
10:39:34 [Ram]
No objections to closing 7013 with no action.
10:40:02 [Ram]
Resolution 7013 closed with no action.
10:40:20 [dug]
10:40:30 [Ram]
topic: 7207
10:40:44 [Ram]
Concrete proposal is at
10:41:23 [Ram]
s/concrete proposal/concrete manifestion of proposal/
10:41:31 [Zakim]
+ +39.331.574.aaii
10:41:50 [gpilz]
10:42:01 [Ram]
s/concrete manifestation of proposal/concrete manifestation of resolution/
10:42:04 [Yves]
optional but mandatory features looks weird
10:45:13 [Bob]
ack gpi
10:47:09 [paul]
paul has joined #ws-ra
10:48:07 [Ram]
Bob: Any objections to the concrete manifestation of the resolution?
10:48:17 [Ram]
We will revisit this after lunch.
10:49:30 [Zakim]
- +39.331.574.aaii
10:51:24 [dug]
10:52:28 [Ram]
We are continuing to look for changes made by the editor relating to correctly describing optional elements/features.
10:57:50 [Bob]
10:58:03 [Zakim]
10:58:29 [Ram]
Wu has a question about making fault reason as optional.
11:01:10 [Ram]
Wu is satisfied with the explanation.
11:01:25 [Bob]
lunch break will re-start at 1:00
11:21:13 [Zakim]
- +0196281aabb
11:21:15 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA(F2F)3:30AM has ended
11:21:16 [Zakim]
Attendees were +, +0196281aabb, +39.331.574.aacc, +1.646.361.aadd, +1.919.849.aaee, Yves, +1.646.290.aaff, +1.919.849.aagg, +1.646.290.aahh, +39.331.574.aaii
11:56:34 [Katy]
Message for those dialing in: The folk here have gone on a quick tour of Hursley site so we will commence a little after 1pm
11:57:10 [Katy]
I guess it'll be about 1.20 before we restart
11:57:35 [Katy]
(i.e. 23 mins from now in duration time)
11:58:13 [asoldano]
ok, thanks Katy
12:04:05 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
12:12:58 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA(F2F)3:30AM has now started
12:13:05 [Zakim]
+ +0196281aaaa
12:13:14 [Bob]
we aew slowly gathering...
12:18:52 [Bob]
scribe: Gilbert Pilz
12:19:12 [Bob]
scribenick: gpilz
12:19:42 [gpilz]
TOPIC: 7207
12:19:51 [gpilz]
Bob: has everyone considered the latest text?
12:20:03 [gpilz]
... does anyone need more time?
12:20:04 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
12:20:13 [gpilz]
Asir: it's not very clear what is optional and what is not
12:20:31 [gpilz]
... maybe we need to do a little homework before accepting such a global statement
12:20:40 [gpilz]
Kary: concern is with optional operations
12:21:12 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
12:21:48 [gpilz]
Asir: suggest we do more homework and be ready to discuss next meeting
12:22:21 [Zakim]
+ +39.331.574.aabb
12:22:54 [gpilz]
ACTION: Ram and Katy review latest text for 7207 and determine whether there is any ambiguity
12:22:54 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-117 - And Katy review latest text for 7207 and determine whether there is any ambiguity [on Ram Jeyaraman - due 2009-10-09].
12:23:04 [DaveS]
DaveS has joined #ws-ra
12:23:48 [gpilz]
TOPIC: 7586
12:24:01 [gpilz]
Bob: there is a proposed resolution
12:24:13 [Bob]
12:26:21 [gpilz]
DaveS: describes proposal
12:26:34 [MartinC]
12:26:38 [Zakim]
12:26:39 [gpilz]
12:26:55 [dug]
12:27:49 [Bob]
ack martin
12:27:56 [dug]
pong test
12:28:13 [Bob]
my pong broke ages ago :-)
12:28:31 [gpilz]
Martin: seems bloated - having to have 3 time values to specify an expiration
12:28:47 [gpilz]
DaveS: "exact" seems to be a minority case
12:29:06 [Bob]
12:29:08 [gpilz]
Martin: most programming uses exact times - hints etc. are the exception
12:31:45 [Wu]
12:32:17 [Zakim]
- +39.331.574.aabb
12:32:27 [Bob]
ack gpi
12:34:08 [Ram]
12:34:12 [Yves]
+1 to differentiate hints and non-hints
12:34:21 [gpilz]
Gil: would like to flip hint and non-hint syntax
12:35:09 [gpilz]
Daves: taking away default values makes the whole thing more complicated
12:35:38 [gpilz]
... right now, with a default min=0 and a default max=infinity, things always make sense
12:35:52 [gpilz]
Doug: it depends upon your point of view
12:36:24 [gpilz]
... for example, what happens if I include a min attribute, but no max attribute
12:36:29 [Bob]
ack dug
12:39:19 [gpilz]
12:40:11 [asir]
12:41:14 [Bob]
ack wu
12:42:18 [gpilz]
Wu: like this proposal
12:42:20 [Yves]
Dave's proposal, using attribute to give multiple non-hints and value for the hint (one target) seems optimal
12:42:39 [Bob]
ack ram
12:42:57 [gpilz]
... if it's difficult to support "any" because of schema, don't do it (no one seemed to care about any)
12:43:03 [gpilz]
Ram: I like the proposal
12:43:25 [Bob]
Chair notes that a +1 would suffice
12:44:36 [MartinC]
12:44:37 [dug]
12:46:17 [Katy]
12:46:35 [Yves]
gil, the client might always trash or not process things that are not getting back within the wanted range
12:46:48 [Yves]
(if @min and @max are not supported)
12:46:56 [gpilz]
Gil: need faults etc. to handle "wrong" cases
12:47:43 [gpilz]
yves: that's just how we got here in the first place . . . we wanted something better than Subscribe, check SubscribeResponse, Unsubscribe
12:47:54 [Bob]
ack gp
12:48:02 [Bob]
ack asir
12:48:13 [gpilz]
Asir: some question whether empty tag can be specified for "any" case
12:48:20 [Wu]
12:48:25 [gpilz]
... all we have to say is 'nillable="true"'
12:48:50 [gpilz]
(some discussion about how nillable works, difference between empty tag and xsi:Null
12:50:16 [Yves]
nillable optional elements... oh joy :)
12:50:25 [Bob]
ack martin
12:50:30 [Sreed]
Sreed has joined #ws-ra
12:50:30 [gpilz]
Martin: there's a big deal being made about replicating current behavior
12:50:45 [gpilz]
... is there agreement about what the current behavior actually is?
12:51:07 [Bob]
ack dug
12:51:26 [gpilz]
Doug: what is the fault for when the three values are hosed?
12:51:32 [gpilz]
(all) some sender fault
12:51:41 [gpilz]
Doug: we need an exact fault
12:52:16 [asir]
For folks who would like to understand how to use nillable and xsi:nil, please see IBM/David Fallside's excellent documentation,
12:52:56 [gpilz]
Doug: why nillable is not appropriate
12:53:41 [MartinC]
12:56:12 [gpilz]
Bob: is anybody speaking against this general approach?
12:56:16 [gpilz]
(all): no
12:56:21 [Bob]
ack katy
12:57:04 [gpilz]
Katy: the problem is not with the number of characters, it's the processing involved with comparing three values
12:57:23 [Yves]
<Expires @exact=1h>1h</Expires> ?
12:57:24 [gpilz]
... we need a shorthand that means "exact"
12:57:31 [gpilz]
12:58:24 [gpilz]
Yves: it's not checking the number of characters, it's comparing three values
12:58:35 [gpilz]
think about 3 xs:dateTimes each with different timezones
12:58:39 [Bob]
Yves, Touche
12:58:46 [gpilz]
compare all three and figure out if they are the same
12:58:50 [dug]
still shorter than a 1 gig xml file
12:59:00 [Yves]
gil, see proposal above ot have an @exact as a shorthand for @min @max
12:59:03 [asir]
Yep .. XML Schema says that you normalize dateTime and then compare
12:59:15 [asir]
ordering is defined in XML Schema
12:59:15 [gpilz]
Bob: can we agree to provide a shorthand for exact?
12:59:17 [Katy]
How about <Expires @exact>1h</Expires> ?
12:59:20 [gpilz]
Wu: seems to make sense
12:59:26 [asir]
if you are using a schema library, you don't have to do anything
12:59:33 [MartinC]
12:59:40 [MartinC]
+1 to katy
13:00:05 [gpilz]
Daves: don't think a shorthand is necessary
13:00:23 [Ram]
13:00:55 [Wu]
13:01:04 [gpilz]
Bob: (repeating) can we agree to provide a shorthand for exact?
13:01:25 [gpilz]
Ram: Katy, I think your concern is all the extra processing of comparing three values
13:01:33 [gpilz]
Katy: it's not a make or break thing
13:01:41 [gpilz]
Bob: is it acceptable to leave it as it is
13:02:04 [gpilz]
Katy: if no one else cares, I'm willing to bend
13:02:10 [gpilz]
Bob: anyone else care?
13:02:27 [gpilz]
Doug: I do, I'd like to make the obvious case as easy as possible
13:03:33 [MartinC]
revesre it to <expires non-exact> 1hr </expires>
13:04:10 [Yves]
so by default you expect that all clocks are synchronized perfectly?
13:04:21 [gpilz]
Bob: add the @exact attribute to the proposal - "@exact is shorthand for min, max, and value all being equal"
13:04:34 [gpilz]
Yves: no
13:05:08 [Yves]
13:06:42 [Ashok]
Default ?
13:07:22 [MartinC]
13:07:25 [MartinC]
13:11:57 [gpilz]
suggest wse:InvalidExpirationTime
13:12:05 [gpilz]
it already exits in the spec
13:13:10 [Bob]
ack martin
13:13:43 [gpilz]
13:13:48 [gpilz]
13:13:56 [Bob]
ack ram
13:14:03 [Bob]
ack gp
13:22:15 [dug]
13:23:26 [dug]
13:24:32 [Ashok]
INF is defined in XML Schema
13:24:46 [asir]
13:26:45 [gpilz]
If this attribute value is "true" the @min and @max attributes MUST be ignored and the wse:Expires element evaluated as if @min, @max, and the value of wse:Expires had identical values.
13:27:09 [Yves]
sounds good
13:27:28 [asoldano]
13:28:11 [DaveS]
The default value is "false" in which case this attribute has no effect. If this attribute value is "true" both @min and @max attributes MUST be ignored and are assumed to have the same value as the wse:Expires element.
13:28:32 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
13:28:38 [gpilz]
If the wse:Expires element in not present and the event source is not able to grant an indefinite subscription, it MUST generate a wse:ExpirationTimeExceeded fault.
13:29:09 [Zakim]
13:33:06 [Ram]
13:34:20 [gpilz]
13:34:32 [Bob]
ack ram
13:34:37 [dug]
13:34:38 [Bob]
ack dug
13:34:43 [gpilz]
this has to go away : If the wse:Expires element in not present and the event source is not able to grant an indefinite subscription, it MUST generate a wse:ExpirationTimeExceeded fault.
13:37:14 [Bob]
ack gp
13:41:28 [asir]
can use the same 'Expires' tag by disallowing min, max and exact attributes in a *Response
13:41:48 [Yves]
well why would those occur in a response?
13:41:57 [asir]
they won't
13:42:19 [Yves]
and at worst if they occur in a response it will be ignored
13:42:46 [Bob]
If they occur in a responce, it should be directed at a random w3 server
13:43:01 [Yves]
...and be blocked ;)
13:43:17 [asir]
13:44:16 [MartinC]
MartinC has left #ws-ra
13:44:32 [DaveS]
Need a new response type wse:GrantedExpires
13:44:32 [DaveS]
13:44:32 [DaveS]
(xs:dateTime | xs:duration)
13:44:32 [DaveS]
</wse:GrantedExpires> ?
13:44:32 [DaveS]
The value of this element indicates the expiration time (or duration) granted by the event source. If this element is missing the expires time is indefinite.
13:45:10 [Ram]
13:45:23 [Bob]
ack ram
13:46:30 [Wu]
If expir element is missing, min=0, max=inf, expir=inf?
13:47:14 [Wu]
In other words, they all take their default value
13:49:12 [gpilz]
(all): discuss the use of a new GrantedExpires element in the SubscribeResponse
13:50:34 [Ram]
The <GrantedExpires> must have the same schema type definition as the existing <Expires>
13:51:58 [li]
13:52:53 [Bob]
ack li
13:54:15 [gpilz]
Li: would like Event Source to provide policy for min and max supported expiration times
13:54:41 [dug]
13:54:53 [Ram]
13:55:43 [gpilz]
Ram: what about Renew operation?
13:55:53 [gpilz]
... exact same semantics?
13:56:54 [gpilz]
(all): must be identical
13:58:28 [li]
13:58:50 [Bob]
ack ram
14:02:54 [Bob]
ack li
14:05:13 [dug]
14:06:30 [gpilz]
RESOLUTION: comment #5 resolves 7586 - also applies to Renew
14:07:06 [gpilz]
RESOLUTION: apply the same resolution to Enumeration
14:08:23 [gpilz]
Note: above issue is 7587
14:08:53 [li]
14:09:22 [gpilz]
Complete notes: 7586 and 7588 were addressed yesterday (action to develop proposal that includes the use of both dateTime and duration)
14:09:33 [Bob]
acl li
14:09:43 [Bob]
ack li
14:09:55 [gpilz]
the above two issues are, in fact, 7478 and 7587
14:12:43 [dug]
14:14:35 [gpilz]
Doug: discusses mixing data types of @min, @max and Expires
14:20:51 [dug]
14:21:00 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-ra
14:21:02 [gpilz]
TOPIC: issue 6407
14:21:13 [dug]
14:22:53 [Bob]
ack dug
14:24:57 [gpilz]
RESOLUTION: 6407 resolved as proposed
14:25:40 [gpilz]
note with the standard policy yadda, yadda stuff added
14:26:07 [gpilz]
TOPIC: issues 7553, 7554
14:26:10 [Katy]
7553 and 7554 Proposal here
14:27:41 [Katy]
14:27:42 [Katy]
A registration of interest in receiving Notification messages from an
14:27:42 [Katy]
Event Source. Subscriptions may be created, renewed, expired or
14:27:42 [Katy]
14:29:03 [Katy]
If the subscription is not active, the request MUST fail and the subscription manager MAY generate a wse:UnknownSubscription fault.
14:29:23 [Bob]
7554 was consolidated with 7553
14:29:31 [gpilz]
Katy: (explains proposal)
14:29:33 [gpilz]
14:30:02 [Katy]
14:30:02 [Katy]
A registration of interest in receiving Notification messages from an
14:30:02 [Katy]
Event Source. Subscriptions may be created, renewed, expired or
14:30:02 [Katy]
cancelled. A Subscription is active when it has been created but has not been expired or cancelled.
14:32:59 [Katy]
If the subscription manager chooses not to renew this subscription, the request MUST fail, and the subscription manager MUST generate a SOAP 1.1 fault or a SOAP 1.2 Receiver fault indicating that the renewal was not accepted.
14:33:09 [li]
14:33:41 [li]
yes, soap 1.1 fault => soap 1.1 Server fault
14:34:14 [li]
soap 1.1 Server == soap 1.2 Receiver
14:34:38 [li]
14:35:11 [Katy]
The following element MAY be used to convey additional information in the the detail element of a SOAP 1.1 fault or a SOAP 1.2 receiver fault.
14:38:25 [gpilz]
Doug: The following element MAY be used to convey additional information in the detail element of a fault.
14:43:09 [Katy]
14:46:07 [gpilz]
Bob: Any objections to resolving 7553, 7554 with above
14:46:14 [gpilz]
Wu: Would like more time
14:46:42 [gpilz]
Bob: Meeting of 10/06 is cancelled
14:46:52 [gpilz]
... Next concall will be 10/13/2009
14:49:27 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra
14:49:40 [Zakim]
- +0196281aaaa
14:49:42 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
14:49:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
14:49:43 [Zakim]
14:49:47 [Zakim]
14:49:48 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA(F2F)3:30AM has ended
14:49:49 [Zakim]
Attendees were +0196281aaaa, +39.331.574.aabb, Yves, li
14:53:52 [asoldano]
ok, talk to you on the 13th then
14:54:00 [Bob]
14:54:05 [asoldano]
17:00:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-ra