IRC log of ws-ra on 2010-03-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:30:30 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
20:30:30 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/03/02-ws-ra-irc
20:30:32 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
20:30:32 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
20:30:34 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
20:30:34 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM already started
20:30:35 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
20:30:35 [trackbot]
Date: 02 March 2010
20:30:53 [Zakim]
+Ashok_Malhotra
20:31:01 [Yves]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Feb/0037.html
20:31:10 [Zakim]
+ +1.831.713.aacc
20:31:14 [Zakim]
+ +0125669aadd
20:31:43 [Zakim]
+Tom_Rutt
20:31:44 [Zakim]
+Yves
20:31:55 [Zakim]
+asoldano
20:32:01 [Dug_]
Dug_ has joined #ws-ra
20:32:02 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
20:32:22 [Zakim]
+ +1.571.262.aaee
20:32:30 [Dug_]
I may be in-n-out- got an HVAC guy here fixing something
20:32:40 [gpilz]
zakim, who is here?
20:32:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Doug_Davis, +984999aabb, Ashok_Malhotra, +1.831.713.aacc, +0125669aadd, Tom_Rutt, Yves, asoldano, +1.571.262.aaee
20:32:42 [Zakim]
On IRC I see gpilz, Dug_, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ram, Tom_Rutt, Ashok, Katy, Sreed, asoldano, Yves, trackbot
20:32:52 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
20:33:15 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
20:33:15 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
20:33:15 [gpilz]
zakim, +1.831.713.aacc is me
20:33:16 [Zakim]
+gpilz; got it
20:33:57 [Zakim]
+li
20:34:32 [Yves]
li
20:34:59 [Yves]
Sreed
20:35:11 [Yves]
Tom RUtt
20:35:19 [MartinC]
MartinC has joined #ws-ra
20:35:22 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
20:35:36 [Yves]
Dug
20:35:43 [Yves]
Katy
20:35:58 [Yves]
Ram
20:35:59 [Yves]
Asi
20:36:03 [Yves]
s/Asi/Asir/
20:36:16 [Zakim]
+ +03531803aaff
20:36:26 [Yves]
MartinC
20:36:33 [Yves]
Alessio
20:36:43 [Yves]
VIkas
20:37:09 [Yves]
Scribe: Alessio
20:37:33 [Yves]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Feb/0037.html
20:37:38 [asoldano]
TOPIC: approval of last call minutes
20:38:02 [asoldano]
RESOLUTION: minutes approved
20:38:23 [Dug]
q+
20:38:53 [gpilz]
q+
20:39:33 [asoldano]
Dug: can we add 2 topics to agenda? definition and use of extension, use of policy parameters
20:40:18 [asoldano]
Yves: agree as it's part of MOAP
20:41:26 [asir]
what are we promising to discuss?
20:41:34 [asoldano]
gpilz: please leave some space to discuss about soap version wrt MOAP
20:41:49 [asir]
sounds like WSDL
20:41:58 [Dug]
link: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Feb/att-0022/wsfrag-8193-8185-v5.doc
20:42:27 [Dug]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Mar/0001.html
20:43:27 [asoldano]
TOPIC: Combined proposal for 8185 & 8193
20:46:02 [Dug]
q-
20:46:23 [asir]
there is a fax noise on the line
20:46:26 [li]
ringing...
20:46:36 [asir]
someone is making a point using a fax
20:46:40 [gpilz]
zakim, who is beeping?
20:46:40 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, gpilz.
20:47:12 [asoldano]
we should reply a value for replace mode
20:47:24 [asoldano]
s/reply/require
20:49:31 [Ram]
q+
20:49:35 [gpilz]
q-
20:50:29 [Dug]
q+
20:50:38 [gpilz]
q+
20:51:49 [Dug]
q-
20:53:16 [asoldano]
gpilz, we need to consider the use cases here
20:53:52 [asoldano]
gpilz, 80% use case is just "set this value"
20:56:23 [asoldano]
Ram, why not using "add" instead of Insert
20:58:21 [Zakim]
-gpilz
20:58:52 [Dug]
If the expression is invalid per the xsd, assuming xsd checking, then it MUST generate an invalidExpression fault
20:59:06 [Dug]
add to the end of replace
20:59:22 [Yves]
Proposal is Dug's proposed text amended by * Replace mode, and * Add
20:59:28 [Yves]
plus text above
21:00:03 [asoldano]
Yves, objections?
21:00:21 [asoldano]
RESOLUTION: issue 8193 and 8195 are closed with the resolution above
21:00:28 [Dug]
q+
21:00:31 [asoldano]
TOPIC: MOAP
21:01:04 [Zakim]
+Gilbert_Pilz
21:01:45 [Ram]
q+
21:01:49 [Dug]
q-
21:01:51 [asoldano]
can extensions modify base behaviour?
21:02:14 [Dug]
q+
21:03:13 [asoldano]
Ram, a client should be able to ingore extensions that have been made to a server
21:03:20 [gpilz]
q+
21:04:07 [gpilz]
q-
21:04:48 [gpilz]
q+
21:05:36 [asir]
q+
21:05:45 [asoldano]
Dug: extensions should not violate the base assertion
21:06:56 [asoldano]
gpilz, we need some way for requiring an extension to be understood and used
21:07:25 [asoldano]
gpilz, so that if you don't understand them,you can't communicate at all
21:07:32 [Dug]
q+
21:07:46 [Tom_Rutt]
Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
21:09:07 [asoldano]
asir, in soap we have mustunderstand, in policy we have nested policy expressions
21:09:14 [Katy]
q+
21:10:46 [asoldano]
Dug, as long as the nested assertion does not violate/contraddict the base behaviour, there's no real problem
21:10:55 [Dug]
q-
21:11:14 [Ram]
q+
21:15:56 [Ram]
q+
21:17:24 [Dug]
q+
21:18:37 [gpilz]
q+
21:19:06 [Ram]
q+
21:19:22 [Dug]
If an Element Information Item is not recognized, it MUST be treated as a policy assertion, unless specified otherwise such as in Section 4.3.4 Policy References.
21:19:32 [asoldano]
gpilz, you can't ignore policy assertion you don't understand unless that's marked as ignorable
21:19:35 [gpilz]
q-
21:21:11 [asoldano]
Dug, if the extension is there there's most probably a reason, so this is a good behaviour
21:21:49 [Dug]
q+
21:23:44 [asir]
q+
21:23:50 [asoldano]
Dug, this relates to when we can ignore policy parameters
21:26:12 [Dug]
q+
21:27:16 [Dug]
If an Element Information Item is not recognized, it MUST be treated as a policy assertion, unless specified otherwise such as in Section 4.3.4 Policy References.
21:27:36 [asoldano]
asir: make policy parameter in the parent assertion not ignorable, parameters in the extension ignorable instead
21:27:50 [Dug]
q+
21:28:01 [Dug]
Within normative outlines, in this specification, ellipses (i.e., "…") indicate a point of extensibility that allows other Element or Attribute Information Items. Information Items MAY be added at the indicated extension points but MUST NOT contradict the semantics of the element information item indicated by the [parent] or [owner] property of the extension. In this context, if an Attribute...
21:28:03 [Dug]
...Information Item is not recognized, it SHOULD be ignored. If an Element Information Item is not recognized, it MUST be treated as a policy assertion, unless specified otherwise such as in Section 4.3.4 Policy References.
21:28:07 [gpilz]
Within normative outlines, in this specification, ellipses (i.e., "…") indicate a point of extensibility that allows other Element or Attribute Information Items. Information Items MAY be added at the indicated extension points but MUST NOT contradict the semantics of the element information item indicated by the [parent] or [owner] property of the extension. In this context, if an Attribute Information Item is not recognized, it SHOULD be ignored. If
21:28:51 [Yves]
http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-policy/#Policy_Assertion_Nesting
21:29:49 [Dug]
q+
21:29:58 [gpilz]
q+
21:30:53 [Zakim]
- +984999aabb
21:31:13 [Yves]
http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-policy/#normalization
21:32:58 [gpilz]
q?
21:33:03 [Dug]
q+
21:33:47 [Tom_Rutt]
Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
21:34:55 [Ashok]
q+
21:36:19 [asir]
I don't understand what I am asked to provide a reference for
21:36:51 [asir]
q+
21:37:06 [Tom_Rutt]
q+
21:39:44 [li]
ws-policy 3.1 Assertions indicate domain-specific (e.g., security, transactions) semantics and are expected to be defined in separate, domain-specific specifications.
21:40:13 [gpilz]
q+
21:41:24 [gpilz]
q?
21:42:34 [asoldano]
a bit..
21:42:38 [Dug]
Tom: Both
21:43:11 [Dug]
q+
21:44:08 [asir]
q+
21:45:40 [li]
section 3.1 Authors MAY define that an assertion contains a policy expression (as defined in 4. Policy Expression) as one of its [children]. Nested policy expression(s) are used by authors to further qualify one or more specific aspects of the parent policy assertion. The qualification may indicate a relationship or context between the parent policy assertion and a nested policy expression. For example within a security domain, security policy authors may define a
21:46:12 [gpilz]
q+
21:46:33 [asoldano]
dug: asir, please show us where what you say about policy assertion is in the policy spec
21:46:56 [asir]
don't know what you are asking me to point to
21:47:19 [li]
q+
21:48:16 [asoldano]
li: take a look at text I pasted
21:49:23 [Tom_Rutt]
q+
21:49:53 [asoldano]
asir: we decide the extensibility logic in the assertion
21:49:55 [Dug]
q+
21:50:00 [asir]
i don't understand what i need to provide
21:51:00 [Dug]
please show in ws-policy where it says extensions SHOULD/MUST be ignored and where extended nested assertions are ignored or forbidden.
21:51:13 [asoldano]
Tom_Rutt, think the policy spec do not clearly allow or prohibit this
21:51:14 [asir]
q+
21:51:58 [Tom_Rutt]
there is nothing in the policy framework spec which states we cannot define a policy assertion type which can allow additional nested expressions. However, there is not statemment in policy framework 4.3.2 that states we can do it either. It seems silent
21:52:09 [Dug]
q+
21:53:56 [gpilz]
q+
21:53:59 [gpilz]
q-
21:54:36 [asoldano]
asir / dug: any policy expression is an assertion and can't be ignored
21:54:52 [gpilz]
q+
21:55:35 [asoldano]
dug /gpilz: please send an email to ML that point to relevant pieces of the policy spec talking about this topic
21:56:34 [asir]
First part of the q
21:56:35 [asir]
2.2 Extensibility
21:56:35 [asir]
Within normative outlines, in this specification, ellipses (i.e., "") indicate a point of extensibility that allows other Element or Attribute Information Items. Information Items MAY be added at the indicated extension points but MUST NOT contradict the semantics of the element information item indicated by the [parent] or [owner] property of the extension. In this context, if an Attribute Information Item is not recognized, it SHOULD be ignored. If an Element Infor
21:56:40 [asir]
Second part of the question
21:56:55 [asir]
from MEX
21:56:58 [asir]
3.3 Considerations on the Use of Extensibility Points
21:56:58 [asir]
The elements defined in this specification MAY be extended at the points indicated by their outlines and schema. Implementations MAY add child elements and/or attributes at the indicated extension points but MUST NOT contradict the semantics of the parent and/or owner, respectively. If a receiver does not recognize an extension, the receiver SHOULD ignore that extension. Senders MAY indicate the presence of an extension that has to be understood through the use of a c
21:57:43 [asoldano]
dug: where does policy spec say extension should be ignored
21:58:11 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
21:58:19 [Dug]
q+
21:59:01 [gpilz]
<wsp:Policy> xs:any </wsp:Policy>
21:59:05 [asoldano]
asir: part 2 is not controlled by the policy spec
21:59:13 [gpilz]
we don't own the WS-Policy namespace
21:59:21 [Dug]
q+
22:00:13 [Dug]
If an Element Information Item is not recognized, it MUST be treated as a policy assertion
22:00:35 [gpilz]
q+
22:00:57 [asoldano]
ashok: that's another context
22:02:59 [asoldano]
Yves: we're running out of time, please review the minutes very well
22:03:06 [Zakim]
-li
22:03:07 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
22:03:07 [Zakim]
- +1.571.262.aaee
22:03:09 [Zakim]
-Tom_Rutt
22:03:10 [Zakim]
-Ashok_Malhotra
22:03:10 [Zakim]
-Yves
22:03:12 [Zakim]
-asoldano
22:03:12 [Zakim]
- +03531803aaff
22:03:14 [Zakim]
-Doug_Davis
22:03:19 [Zakim]
- +0125669aadd
22:03:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/03/02-ws-ra-minutes.html Yves
22:05:26 [asoldano]
ok, leaving now, bye
22:05:35 [Yves]
thanks alessio!
22:07:37 [MartinC]
MartinC has left #ws-ra
22:08:19 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, Gilbert_Pilz, in WS_WSRA()3:30PM
22:08:21 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
22:08:23 [Zakim]
Attendees were +91.98.49.99.aaaa, Doug_Davis, +984999aabb, Ashok_Malhotra, +0125669aadd, Tom_Rutt, Yves, asoldano, +1.571.262.aaee, [Microsoft], gpilz, li, +03531803aaff,
22:08:25 [Zakim]
... Gilbert_Pilz
22:14:06 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra
22:26:37 [Tom_Rutt_]
Tom_Rutt_ has joined #ws-ra
22:31:33 [Tom_Rutt_]
Tom_Rutt_ has joined #ws-ra
22:46:28 [Tom_Rutt_]
Tom_Rutt_ has joined #ws-ra
22:57:25 [Tom_Rutt]
Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra