See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 16 February 2010
<Bob> trackbot, start telecon
<trackbot> Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 16 February 2010
<Bob> zakim pick a victim
<scribe> SCRIBE: gpilz
RESOLUTION: agenda approved
<Dug> 8306 is a good one too
RESOLUTION: 9032 accepted as new issue
Bob: any probs with dealing with 8306?
Ram: I would prefer that issues that came after the moratorium be discussed after last call
Bob: let's tackle MOAP and 9032
RESOLUTION: minutes approved
<Dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Feb/0015.html
gil: describes proposal
bob: any probs with this proposal?
<Dug> s/will/MUST/ in transfer too
doug: there is a similar sentence
in WS-T
... can we change this as well?
ram: is that change in the chat room ???
<Dug> Transfer: When this operation is used to replace the entire XML representation, any OPTIONAL values (elements or attributes) not specified in the Put request message will be set to a resource-specific default value.
asir: can you pull in the exact text from WS-T that you propose to change?
doug: (above)
RESOLUTION: 9032 resolved with proposal plus additional, corresponding change to WS-Transfer
bob: where are we on the mother of all proposals
doug: some of us had a phone call
on Fri of last week
... I sent out a slightly modified proposal for further
review
... but I haven't heard back yet; Asir?
Asir: we are reviewing the latest proposal
bob: are we more right than wrong at this point?
asir: I would suggest we discuss
MOAP next week
... maybe we will be in a position to discuss it then
bob: in that case, there is
relatively little new business
... unless people would like to tackle another issue . . .
doug: 8306?
bob: people objected to discussing issues that had previously been laid over to Last Call
doug: this issue wasn't opened up
after the moratorium
... we deferred it based on the idea that we didn't have time
to discuss it
... we have time now
bob: the WG decided to defer that
issue until Last Call
... the WG needs to decide to take it back
doug: I propose we do so
<Dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8306
ram: is there a proposal?
bob: yes
ram: I haven't had a chance to
look at it yet
... can I look at it and discuss it next week?
bob: right now, we're coming up
to a mid-march moratorium on publishing (something to do with
the AC meeting)
... the minimum Last Call interval is 3 weeks post
publication
... practically 3.5 to 4 weeks
... in order for us to maintain our schedule of having a F2F at
the end of Last Call
... we need to vote/approve Last call by March 2nd
... if people agree to this, we can keep the scheduled F2F
Asir: there are a couple more Frag issues to deal with as well
bob: there is no requirement (by process) that all specs be advanced simultaneously
asir: I'm not sure that 3 weeks
is sufficient for other WGs to review
... I also recall at the F2F that we should allow 6 weeks
bob: I was hoping for 6 weeks because you get more feedback
asir: we think 6 weeks is reasonable
bob: should we leave the next F2F to be open schedule?
<asir> we agree
gil: i'm reluctant to have a F2F where there is nothing to talk about
bob: we have 2 frag issues, MOAP, and RFC 2119 on WS-Evd
<asir> If the WG could close on MOAP, then the WG could advance T, E, En and MEX
<Dug> do have interop/test stuff to talk about?
(all): continued discussion of F2F material
bob: requirements for F2F in that
time frame (last week of March) are weak w/out Last Call
issues
... though we will need a F2F on testing
doug: I know there a couple big
issues that may or may not get resolved before the F2F
... but it seems silly to ignore the issues that have been
deferred until Last Call, just because we put this stake in the
ground
... several of these issues are relatively minor
bob: from a process point of
view, its more important to tackle the substantive issues
first
... willing to tackle the minor things
tom: if they are really simple
things, its likely that reviewers will find them
... this wastes "Last Call review cycles"
asir: if we just want to tell the world there is a bug in the spec, we can always just record an issue
karty: if we have time, we might as well be resolving issues
bob: let's take a look at the
issue list
... MOAP has a wide-ranging impact and is substantive
<asir> suggest that we use additional cycles to resolve 8185 and 8193
<Dug> 8886, 9031 are easy
<Dug> 8900 too
<asir> disagree that 9031 is easy
bob: people should look at new
issues (8886, 8900, 9031)
... I think we should cancel the March F2F
asir: should we meet in the middle of April?
bob: if we decide on a 6 week Last Call, we should plan a F2F for the end of that 6 week period
<Zakim> asir, you wanted to ask a clarification
gil: 6 (or 7) seven weeks is
enough time to plan any travel
... propose we defer any decision about next F2F until after we
approve Last Call
asir: (agrees)
(all): misc. discussion of next F2F
asir: April 13-15th?
bob: tentatively
... April 13-15?
... acceptable?
(all): silence
RESOLTION: next F2F tentatively scheduled for April 13-15
<DaveS> bye
meeting adjorned
<asoldano> bye
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/will/MUST/ in transfer too Succeeded: s/14-16th/13-15th/ Found Scribe: gpilz Inferring ScribeNick: gpilz WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Ashok Ashok_Malhotra Asir Bob_Freund DaveS Doug_Davis Dug Gilbert Katy Microsoft P22 P24 RESOLTION Sreed Tom_Rutt Transfer Vikas Yves aabb aacc aadd aaee asoldano bob doug gil joined karty li ram tom trackbot ws-ra You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Feb/0014.html Found Date: 16 Feb 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/16-ws-ra-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]