IRC log of ws-ra on 2009-10-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:04:46 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
19:04:46 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:04:48 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:04:48 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
19:04:50 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
19:04:50 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 26 minutes
19:04:51 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
19:04:51 [trackbot]
Date: 13 October 2009
19:22:45 [fmaciel]
fmaciel has joined #ws-ra
19:24:04 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra
19:25:55 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
19:26:05 [Bob]
Bob has joined #ws-ra
19:26:18 [Tom_Rutt]
Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
19:26:29 [Bob]
trackbot, start telecon
19:26:31 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:26:33 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
19:26:33 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
19:26:34 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
19:26:34 [trackbot]
Date: 13 October 2009
19:27:10 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has now started
19:27:17 [Zakim]
19:27:35 [Zakim]
19:27:36 [Bob]
zakim, ??P0 is Bob
19:27:36 [Zakim]
+Bob; got it
19:27:48 [dug]
zakim, IBM is Doug
19:27:48 [Zakim]
+Doug; got it
19:28:01 [dug]
zakim, Doug is Dug
19:28:01 [Zakim]
+Dug; got it
19:28:16 [Zakim]
+ +39.331.574.aaaa
19:28:41 [Zakim]
+ +0759029aabb
19:29:00 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
19:29:12 [Zakim]
+ +
19:29:34 [Zakim]
+ +1.571.262.aadd
19:30:14 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.970.aaee
19:30:44 [Zakim]
19:31:06 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
19:31:34 [Zakim]
19:31:36 [Zakim]
+ +0208234aaff
19:31:46 [Bob]
19:31:56 [Zakim]
19:31:57 [Zakim]
19:31:59 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
19:32:22 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-ra
19:32:28 [asoldano]
zakim, +39.331.574.aaaa is asoldano
19:32:28 [Zakim]
+asoldano; got it
19:32:41 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
19:32:44 [Zakim]
19:32:58 [Zakim]
19:33:22 [Zakim]
19:33:22 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
19:33:35 [asir]
zakim, Microsoft is asir, ram
19:33:35 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'Microsoft is asir, ram', asir
19:35:08 [fmaciel]
Is that working
19:35:20 [dug]
19:35:33 [fmaciel]
Did you see this?
19:35:37 [dug]
yes I see it
19:36:04 [Bob]
19:36:42 [fmaciel]
Here is another one...
19:36:43 [dug]
how do i get one of those clients? :-)
19:37:01 [Yves]
maybe his terminal is stuck
19:37:49 [Bob]
scribe: Wu Chou
19:38:08 [Sreed]
Sreed has joined #ws-ra
19:38:36 [Wu]
Add issue 7553 to discussion today
19:38:48 [Wu]
Agenda agreed
19:40:05 [Wu]
F2F minutes accepted and go final
19:40:52 [gpilz]
19:41:09 [Bob]
ack gpil
19:41:25 [Wu]
Please register to W3C meeting in Nov.
19:41:43 [li]
i had nightmare with paypal too in the past
19:41:44 [Wu]
Gil: problem with paypal payment for registration
19:42:25 [dug]
Gil - can Jeff pay for you?
19:42:52 [Wu]
Yves: please send email to w3c admin for help.
19:43:29 [Wu]
Bob: Meeting is on Thursday/Friday of that week and may run to the end of the day.
19:43:54 [dug]
19:43:55 [asoldano]
19:43:59 [Wu]
Bob: new issue 7791 from Paul
19:44:47 [Wu]
Bob: no objection, issue 7791 is open.
19:45:06 [dug]
19:45:18 [Yves]
dug, most probably yes :)
19:45:46 [dug]
19:45:48 [Wu]
Bob: next new issue 7811
19:47:03 [Wu]
Katy: issue is more editorial regarding to use generic SOAP fault
19:47:25 [Wu]
Bob: no objection, issue 7811 is openned.
19:48:01 [Wu]
Ram: we need more concrete proposal and some study.
19:48:31 [Wu]
Katy: It would be good if someone else can take a closer look.
19:48:56 [dug]
19:49:00 [Wu]
Ram: Certainly, we should accept this issue and do some work.
19:49:14 [Wu]
Bob: new issue 7812
19:50:26 [Wu]
Bob: no objection, issue 7812 is resolved with the proposal.
19:51:13 [Wu]
Bob: new issue 7827 from Katy.
19:51:30 [DaveS]
DaveS has joined #ws-ra
19:51:43 [Wu]
19:52:42 [asir]
sounds reasonable
19:53:13 [Wu]
Bob: no objection, issue 7827 is resolved with the proposal.
19:53:28 [Wu]
Bob: new issue 7828
19:53:55 [Wu]
19:55:03 [gpilz]
19:55:05 [dug]
19:55:15 [Bob]
ack gpi
19:56:25 [Ram]
19:56:32 [Bob]
ack dug
19:56:32 [asir]
related to issue 7588 and Action 113
19:56:34 [Wu]
Gil: I owe group a proposal and my proposal will conform it.
19:56:45 [Bob]
ack ram
19:57:06 [Wu]
dug: prefer to have chang first.
19:57:45 [Wu]
Bob: no objection, issue 7828 is open. It will be reviewed later.
19:58:22 [Wu]
dug: issue 5724 propose close without action.
19:58:33 [Ram]
19:58:43 [Wu]
Bob: no objection, issue 6724 is closed without action.
19:59:19 [Wu]
Bob: issue 7553 proposal?
19:59:36 [Ram]
19:59:44 [Ram]
One more comment: I will ask that the specification clearly specify what the fault sub codes are when the generic fault is raised. That way, it is clear to the implementor what the interoperable behavior is.
19:59:48 [Wu]
Katy: mostly resolved at F2F and working on detailed text.
20:01:49 [gpilz]
20:01:55 [Wu]
Bob: have you looked at Ram suggestions?
20:02:02 [Bob]
ack ram
20:02:20 [Wu]
Katy: it looks good.
20:03:14 [Wu]
Ram: Suggest to clear identify the condition of the fault sub-code.
20:03:29 [gpilz]
20:03:42 [Bob]
ack gpi
20:03:54 [Ram]
20:04:47 [Bob]
ack ram
20:05:02 [Wu]
gpilz: it seems issue with the direction with that two sentences.
20:05:39 [Wu]
ram: how about we work with Katy on the proposal and agree with gil's comment.
20:06:09 [Wu]
bob: issue 6411, no way to create metadata from dug.
20:06:16 [li]
20:06:39 [Wu]
dug: propose to close issue 6411 with no action.
20:06:57 [Wu]
bob: hear no objection. issue 6411 closed with no action.
20:06:58 [dug]
20:07:56 [gpilz]
20:08:29 [DaveS]
20:08:47 [Bob]
ack gp
20:08:58 [Wu]
dug: all needs are qname and the proposal is qute straightforward.
20:09:55 [Bob]
ack dave
20:10:26 [Wu]
20:10:42 [dug]
20:11:04 [Wu]
daveS: not sure if this is policy concept and looks more of metadata conecpt.
20:11:45 [Bob]
ack dug
20:11:49 [Wu]
daveS: the issue has some peices to break down.
20:12:43 [asir]
20:12:47 [Wu]
dug: not sure if it is policy or not. Open to suggestions if it is better.
20:12:49 [Bob]
ack asir
20:13:05 [Wu]
asir: need more time to think about it.
20:13:21 [Wu]
bob: one week time and put in next week call.
20:16:47 [dug]
20:16:53 [Wu]
bob: issue 7015
20:16:54 [Bob]
ack dug
20:17:32 [Wu]
dug: not aware with the interoperablity issue of this type problem.
20:17:49 [Ram]
20:18:01 [Bob]
ack ram
20:18:02 [gpilz]
20:18:15 [Wu]
dug: propose to close issue 7015 without action.
20:18:53 [DaveS]
20:19:26 [Bob]
ack gpi
20:19:41 [gpilz]
20:19:50 [gpilz]
20:19:55 [Wu]
ram: propose to specify the implementation more clearly on relying wsa:action.
20:20:49 [Wu]
gpilz: did not see the sign of problem in this direction of action and body.
20:20:52 [Bob]
ack dave
20:22:49 [Tom_Rutt]
20:22:53 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
20:23:02 [Bob]
ack yves
20:23:13 [Wu]
daveS: not clear what is special with transfer that needs this information.
20:23:53 [Bob]
ack tom
20:23:54 [Wu]
yves: needs a good story of the body wrapper.
20:24:28 [DaveS]
20:24:32 [DaveS]
20:24:41 [Wu]
tom: agree with dug and not seeing problem.
20:24:54 [Bob]
ack dave
20:25:16 [gpilz]
20:25:54 [Bob]
ack yves
20:26:04 [asir]
20:26:43 [Wu]
yves: we need to say what should happen if there is a discrepency between action/body.
20:26:56 [Bob]
ack gpi
20:27:08 [gpilz]
20:27:25 [Wu]
gpilz: yves issue may be addressed in another issue.
20:28:26 [Bob]
ack asir
20:28:30 [dug]
and what if they don't do what we tell them to do in this fault case? how recursive do we get?
20:28:33 [Wu]
gpilz: there is a limit to spec what it should do.
20:28:56 [Wu]
asir: we are happy to work with yves to have a proposal.
20:29:52 [Wu]
bob: sounds there is a separate issue and happy yves and ram to work on a separate new issue to addrss it.
20:29:57 [DaveS]
I have looked at Transfer and I will not be raising an issue on fault a missmatch.
20:30:16 [Tom_Rutt]
q+ for clarification
20:30:47 [Bob]
ack tom
20:30:47 [Zakim]
Tom_Rutt, you wanted to discuss clarification
20:30:52 [Zakim]
- +
20:31:01 [Wu]
20:31:20 [DaveS]
20:31:23 [Bob]
ack asir
20:31:29 [Bob]
ack wu
20:31:42 [li]
wu: it's a good idea for yves and ram to work on the issues
20:32:04 [Wu]
asir: suggest to keep both open and discuss together.
20:32:17 [li]
...asir's idea is good to keep both open until a good solution.
20:32:23 [gpilz]
20:32:27 [Yves]
suggest to open a new issue, and make 7015 depends on the new issue
20:32:34 [Yves]
closing the new issue will close 7015
20:32:43 [gpilz]
that's backwards
20:33:03 [gpilz]
the new issue exists only if there is a unique soap:Body for each operation
20:33:07 [Zakim]
+ +
20:33:20 [gpilz]
if all the soap:Body's are the same, the new issue doesn't exist
20:33:53 [dug]
20:34:01 [Yves]
well if the resolution of the new issue is satifactory to the people who raised 7015... (that I can't say ;) )
20:34:25 [Wu]
bob: the new issue will depend on resolution issue 7015, is it right?
20:35:00 [Bob]
ack dave
20:35:25 [asir]
7015 depends on the new issue, rather than the other way around
20:35:35 [asir]
q+ to ask Dave a clarification question
20:35:48 [Bob]
ack gp
20:35:49 [dug]
20:36:03 [Bob]
ack asir
20:36:03 [Zakim]
asir, you wanted to ask Dave a clarification question
20:37:26 [Wu]
daveS: it is clear from the spec that this should not cause problem.
20:37:36 [asir]
20:38:02 [Wu]
bob: this issue is independent of issue 7015.
20:38:09 [Bob]
ack asir
20:38:24 [Wu]
asir: we don't these issues are independent.
20:38:39 [Wu]
bob: at this point the issue is not raised yet.
20:39:31 [dug]
I'd prefer if we talked about the issue in front of us and not some other, yet to be opened, issue. If this issue needs to morph then CWNA and open a new one.
20:39:45 [Ram]
20:40:33 [Yves]
the issue about discrepancy between body and action is because of the duplication of action as a body element
20:40:59 [Ram]
20:41:06 [DaveS]
20:41:11 [dug]
yves- your issue would exist even if the Body were static across all ops - it could still be mismatched.
20:41:29 [Bob]
ack dave
20:41:43 [gpilz]
as Dave said, the wsa:Action could be "Foo"
20:41:47 [Yves]
dug, agreed, if you duplicate action functionnality in body, you always have the issue
20:42:02 [dug]
no, duping action has nothing to do with this
20:42:03 [Wu]
daveS: if we resolve to clarify the fault behavor, would it resolve the issue?
20:42:04 [Yves]
if you just have action, you don't have that kind of issue
20:42:14 [gpilz]
it has nothing to do with the value of soap:Body - it's about whether or not it matches what the spec says
20:42:31 [dug]
no matter what wrapper you put in the body you could has the wrong wrapper - hence the issue
20:42:51 [Yves]
well, the issue is that you need a wrapper ;)
20:43:36 [Wu]
bob: we have the statement of issue here, where interoperability is the issue.
20:44:17 [Wu]
bob: first question if the interoperability described is real.
20:45:05 [DaveS]
20:45:56 [Bob]
ack dave
20:46:11 [Wu]
asir: the use of single wrapper should not be a issue, since the wrapper does not carry any information.
20:46:31 [asir]
20:47:05 [Wu]
daveS: as spec being written, it should not cause interoperability for complaint implementation.
20:47:09 [gpilz]
+1 to Dave
20:47:13 [asoldano]
+1 from me too
20:47:16 [Bob]
ack asir
20:47:34 [dug]
"The Get request message MUST be of the following form:...."
20:48:10 [Yves]
will compliant implementation _detect_ non compliant messages?
20:48:47 [asir]
neither detection nor reporting are part of the spec today
20:49:14 [gpilz]
and SOAP doesn't say what happens if I send random ASCII to a SOAP endpoint
20:49:54 [asir]
20:49:56 [Yves]
gil, yes: "Any other malformation of the message construct MUST result in the generation of a fault "
20:50:08 [Bob]
ack asir
20:50:39 [Wu]
asir: both yeves and I propose to coming back with some text on this issue.
20:51:07 [Wu]
yves: closing this one with no action will not make the point.
20:51:18 [dug]
20:51:37 [Wu]
bob: how many days to come back with a proposal, asir/yves?
20:51:55 [Wu]
asir: we will try to next week.
20:52:45 [gpilz]
20:53:13 [Bob]
ack dug
20:53:54 [DaveS]
+1 to diug. The new issue applies to all the specs. They should be separate.
20:54:18 [asir]
20:54:19 [Bob]
ack gp
20:54:37 [Wu]
dug: yves is a separate issue and it should open it separately.
20:54:58 [Bob]
issue action and wrapper differ
20:55:10 [Bob]
proposal: when that occurs throw a sender fault
20:55:23 [Yves]
bob, 22 should be fine by me, but if you want to do smething before that :)
20:56:22 [Wu]
bob: will be a new proposal or new issue?
20:56:33 [Wu]
yves: it is about my issue.
20:58:03 [Wu]
asir: yves and I working on the new issue which will lead to a concensus solution to issue 7015.
20:59:04 [Wu]
bob: the action is: yves and asir have a proposal on Oct. 22.
21:00:25 [asir]
21:00:58 [Zakim]
21:00:59 [Zakim]
21:01:00 [Zakim]
- +1.571.262.aadd
21:01:01 [Zakim]
- +1.408.970.aaee
21:01:01 [Zakim]
- +
21:01:02 [Zakim]
- +0759029aabb
21:01:04 [Zakim]
21:01:05 [Zakim]
21:01:05 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:01:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
21:01:06 [Zakim]
21:01:09 [Zakim]
- +0208234aaff
21:01:10 [Zakim]
21:01:30 [Zakim]
21:06:30 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, Bob, in WS_WSRA()3:30PM
21:06:31 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
21:06:33 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bob, Dug, +0759029aabb, +, +1.571.262.aadd, +1.408.970.aaee, Wu_Chou, gpilz, +0208234aaff, Tom_Rutt, asoldano, Yves, [Microsoft], +
21:22:05 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra
21:22:38 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:22:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
23:10:53 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-ra