<trackbot> Date: 23 February 2010

<Bob> scribelist http://5z8.info/facebook-hack_f6j2p_super-nsfw

<Bob> scribe: Li

agenda

<Bob> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Feb/0023.html

<Bob> ad 8306 to the agenda

8306 ready added to agenda

minutes of feb 16

approved w/o objection

<Dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Feb/att-0022/wsfrag-8193-8185-v5.doc

discussion of the above proposal

dug: introduce high level editorial changes
... move x-path to section 3.xx
... from section 7
... clarify "replace" and "insert" semantics
... define "insert" as always the child of the target
... eliminate "child" vs. "sibling" ambiguity
... a table of samples to show how everything works

ram: need more time

<Bob> acl katy

<Bob> sck katy

<Bob> dammit, ack katy

katy: is xsd validation sufficient?

dug: we could add more text

bob: conclude by next week?

ram: not sure

bob: on agenda next week

MOAP

<Dug> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/10/02/MOAPv2.zip

dug: introduce the changes to mex
... changes in seciton 3, swap section 4,5, section 6, section 11
... section 12 is new for bootstrapping
... and changes to xsd and wsdl
... question about example 8-2

ashok: ok with it

ram: remove line 6 and the corresponding text

dug: need more time until next meeting

<Dug> I think it would be unfair to accept it today - most people haven't had a chance to review it yet

asir: if we allow policy in addressing, we think it's premature

bob: any issue for that assertion?

asir: we need to describe the semantics associated with the assertion
... an example is premature without behavior

gil: adding text will address your concern?

asir: there is a guideline on what can be asserted

dug: how about extensibility?

<gpilz> can we get a reference on where WS-Policy states that you MUST enumerate the allowable sub-assertions?

asir: you can insert anything, but have to describe the assertion behavior
... drop it and open a new issue

ashok: this is not a nested policy, it's an outer policy applied to the endpoint

tom: assertion has to come with behavior/semantics

asir: if it's not a nested, then it is ok; remove it and open a new issue

katy: need more time on it

li: need more time to read it

dug: open issue at example 12-1

bob: anothe week is sufficient?
... please don't bashing each other over the head on nonnormative examples
... is this proposal covering all the issues?

dug: yes

ram: it is useful in general,
... suggest shortening it for time sake

8306

<Bob> proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Feb/0017.html

<Dug> Gil's comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Feb/0025.html

ram: describing the proposal

<Bob> acl gpi

gil: three terms is confusing

dug: i'm ok with the proposal if we merge the terms

<Dug> go with "consumer"

bob: resolved w/o objection

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8886

<Dug> Note, a (subscription|enumeration context) expiring is not considered to be an unexpected termination, therefore a xxxEnd message MUST NOT be sent in this case.

bob: objection to accepting it now instead of LC?
... can we break moratorium to accept it?
... 8886 is accepted w/o objection

gil: the proposal is correct, as expiry is not unexpected

ram: not sending xxxEnd is going too far

dug: why not say it?

gil: ram's solution allows sending End when subscription expires
... leaving wiggle room is not good

yves: i'm ok with it and CWNA

katy: propose is clarify the implicity behavior

ram: timer may go wrong and we need to send End in that case

<Dug> new words for the spec: Acts of God MUST NOT occur. :-)

<Yves> how about cosmic radiations flipping bits in memory? MUST NOT occur? :)

ram: if the system detects that abnormality
... come up with some text

bob: happier if we close it today

dug: it only says timeout does not trigger End event, not prohibiting anything else triggering it

ram: propose new text...
... if timeout is normal, don't send; but allows other cases

bob: it is a LC issue then because no agreement
... has been reached after live discussion
... it will delay our LC schedule
... it will delay our LC schedule

browser disconnected

bob: let's work on the agenda

<Ashok> Bob: We agreed to the agenda. This issue was added at the end ... I would rather focus on substantive issues

<Ashok> ... if this issue is not quick to resolve, let's move on

bob: not permiting changing of business order

<Dug> q please

bob: that have been agreed
... other business?

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)

Succeeded: s/accept/accepting/
Succeeded: s/acceit/accept/
Succeeded: s/send/say/
Succeeded: s/anyting/anything/
Found Scribe: Li
Inferring ScribeNick: li

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Ashok_Malhotra Doug_Davis Gilbert MartinC Microsoft Sreed Tom_Rutt Yves aaaa aacc ashok asir asoldano bob dug gil gpilz joined katy 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://5z8.info/murdervids_o9b1g_PIN-phisher

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 23 Feb 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/23-ws-ra-minutes.html
People with action items: