IRC log of ws-ra on 2010-03-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:26:54 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
20:26:54 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:26:56 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
20:26:56 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
20:26:58 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
20:26:59 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
20:26:59 [trackbot]
Date: 09 March 2010
20:26:59 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
20:27:30 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has now started
20:27:35 [Zakim]
20:29:10 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
20:29:30 [Zakim]
+ +
20:30:14 [Bob]
zakim, aaaa is Sreed
20:30:14 [Zakim]
+Sreed; got it
20:30:19 [Dug]
Dug has joined #ws-ra
20:30:33 [Zakim]
20:30:53 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
20:31:18 [Zakim]
20:31:29 [Zakim]
20:31:59 [Zakim]
20:32:05 [Zakim]
20:32:08 [fmaciel]
fmaciel has joined #ws-ra
20:32:17 [Zakim]
20:32:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.970.aabb
20:32:35 [Bob]
zakim, P10 is Katy
20:32:35 [Zakim]
sorry, Bob, I do not recognize a party named 'P10'
20:32:42 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
20:32:54 [Zakim]
20:32:56 [Zakim]
20:33:00 [Bob]
zakim, ??P10 is Katy
20:33:00 [Zakim]
+Katy; got it
20:33:32 [Tom_Rutt]
Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
20:34:41 [Bob]
20:34:44 [Dug]
20:35:09 [Dug]
20:35:14 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
20:35:17 [Ram]
20:35:59 [Bob]
ack ram
20:36:31 [Bob]
scribe: Katy
20:36:45 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-ra
20:37:18 [Katy]
TOPIC: Minutes of March 2nd
20:37:26 [Katy]
20:37:41 [Katy]
TOPIC: F2F Schedule
20:38:20 [Katy]
Bob: Trying to schedule F2f for conclusion of public review
20:38:54 [Katy]
... of LC documents. Tentative dates mid April would require that we have reached LC this week
20:39:09 [Katy]
... but review must be 3-6 weeks
20:40:09 [Katy]
Ram: Will hold provisional date 13-15 April
20:41:08 [Katy]
Bob: This may be de-coupled from last call if we close MOAP today, else we may have F2F to resolve MOAP and might move the date in.
20:41:49 [Dug]
20:41:56 [Katy]
20:41:58 [Ashok]
20:42:01 [Bob]
ack dug
20:42:43 [Katy]
Dug: We are making MOAP progress but not there yet. Within the next day or so there should be a proposal to review
20:42:57 [Bob]
ack ashok
20:43:19 [DaveS]
DaveS has joined #ws-ra
20:43:24 [Ram]
20:43:35 [DaveS]
Join the call in a few seconds.
20:43:35 [Katy]
Ashok: Before we all go off and spend lots of time on this, I would like to check that we all agree on the basic use case.
20:44:58 [Zakim]
20:45:07 [Dug]
+1 to the usecase
20:45:09 [Katy]
... Use case: We use policy assertions to specify capabilities of Endpoints. We would like to add further policies to the messages not recognised by that policy assertion
20:47:03 [Dug]
QoS for the feature operations
20:47:07 [asir]
20:47:26 [gpilz]
s/not recognized/implied/
20:47:55 [Bob]
ack ram
20:48:10 [Katy]
Ashok: With change use case correct
20:48:12 [Ram]
20:48:14 [Bob]
ack asir
20:48:34 [Katy]
Asir: The use case is a very general statement
20:48:53 [gpilz]
We use policy assertions to specify capabilities of Endpoints (e.g. wst:TransferResource). We would like to add further policies to the messages implied by that policy assertion (e.g. wst:Get).
20:50:26 [gpilz]
(a) as a whole (i.e all the operations of WS-T)
20:50:34 [Katy]
Ashok: Does the group think it would it be useful to specify policy for individual implicit feature operations (rather than them all)
20:50:58 [gpilz]
(b) individually (i.e. separate policies for wst:Get from wst:Put)
20:52:21 [Katy]
Asir: This level of granularity is useful
20:52:50 [asir]
20:53:02 [Ram]
20:53:35 [Katy]
Gil: If we don't need to solve this use case then the solution could be far simpler. But it sounds like we agree that we'd like policies to apply to individual implicit operations (rather than to al lthe implicit operations)
20:54:30 [Dug]
LOL RTFM is the answer!
20:54:39 [gpilz]
20:55:05 [asir]
the general use case is valid
20:55:18 [asir]
as Ashok mentions .. solutions are in the WS-Policy specs
20:55:39 [Katy]
Bob: I hear agreement on the use case
20:55:58 [Dug]
20:56:07 [Bob]
ack asir
20:56:08 [Katy]
... So, which parts of the proposals to we agree to and which parts are contentious?
20:56:28 [Bob]
ack gpi
20:58:32 [Katy]
Gil: The use case is not already solved with the existing WS-Policy specs (Asir suggested this earlier). The WS-Policy specs did not properly anticipate the union of the implict and application operations and how policy might be used to target implict OR application operations but not both
20:59:02 [Katy]
... There may be the mechanisms to solve this but we need to explictly explain how to use the existing mechanisms
20:59:05 [Bob]
ack dug
20:59:13 [Ram]
20:59:59 [Katy]
Dug: I agree with Gil. And this is the core of the disagreement in MOAP - how we want the spec to explain the particular use case
21:01:28 [Katy]
Asir: When Ashok and I described the features, we were specifically discussing how to attach policies to specific operations. My confusion is how the union causes a problem.
21:02:58 [asir]
21:03:03 [Ram]
21:03:27 [Katy]
Gil: Adding a <wst:TransferREsource> causes WST operations to be added to my application endpoint. I think that the current mechanisms provided by WS-Policy does not provide a way to apply policy to just WS-T Get (for example) and not app operations.
21:03:42 [Bob]
ack asir
21:04:54 [Katy]
Asir: In that scenario there are 2 different porttypes, one supports app operations and the other provides WST operations. Put the WSDL with implicit attachments in the policy feature assertion.
21:06:35 [Katy]
Gil: But the policy intersection algorithm will not work with WSDL parameter as the WSDL will be a parameter in the feature assertion and is processed by the transfer domain.
21:06:59 [Katy]
Asir: make it a sibling of transfer
21:07:17 [Tom_Rutt]
21:07:37 [Katy]
Gil: doesn't work because they are the same service
21:07:59 [Bob]
ack tom
21:08:23 [Dug]
21:08:25 [Ram]
21:09:06 [Katy]
Tom: I would like a clarification. MOAP proposal has mechanism to confgure aspects of endpoint but I am hearing some don't need this
21:09:33 [Katy]
Bob: I would like to understand points of contention wrt the MOAP proposal. Specific points and how to move forward.
21:10:30 [Katy]
... Can we get to first part of the proposal where we have issues. I would like to get to the text.
21:10:36 [Bob]
ack dug
21:10:51 [Katy]
Dug: MOAP v6, example 8-5
21:10:59 [li]
21:11:10 [DaveS]
21:11:41 [Katy]
Dug: To Tom, problem isn't ise case per say, just what the spec should say about the use case
21:12:43 [Dug]
21:14:15 [gpilz]
21:14:43 [Katy]
Dug: Ex 8-5. The nested policy assertion on line 6 is contentious.
21:14:57 [Katy]
Bob: Does this nested policy conform to WS-Polcy
21:15:02 [Katy]
Dug: Yes
21:15:13 [Dug]
(01) <wsa:EndpointReference ...>
21:15:15 [Dug]
(02) <wsa:Address></wsa:Address>
21:15:16 [Dug]
(03) <wsa:Metadata>
21:15:18 [Dug]
(04) <wsp:Policy>
21:15:19 [Dug]
(05) <mex:MetadataExchange>
21:15:21 [Dug]
(06) <wsp:Policy> ... </wsp:Policy>
21:15:23 [Dug]
(07) </mex:MetadataExchange>
21:15:25 [Dug]
(08) </wsp:Policy>
21:15:27 [Dug]
(09) </wsa:Metadata>
21:15:28 [Dug]
(10) </wsa:EndpointReference>
21:15:33 [Dug]
line 6 is the question
21:16:21 [Katy]
Ram: There are a number of different mechanisms external PAs, WSDL, nested. We could remove the contentious line and have a separate issue to talk about after LC
21:16:40 [li]
is this example normative or informative?
21:16:53 [Katy]
... or we leave it there but suggest discussion after LC
21:17:25 [Ashok]
21:17:34 [Katy]
Bob: This is non-normative text. Which part of the normative text do you disagree with?
21:17:51 [Bob]
ack ram
21:18:01 [Katy]
Ram: Section 11.1
21:18:08 [Katy]
This extensibility point allows for additional WS-MetadataExchange specific metadata to be included within the policy assertion - e.g. WS-MetadataExchange WSDL, or nested policy assertions related to the WS-MetadataExchange message exchanges. Any metadata that appears is scoped to the operations and features of the WS-MetadataExchange specification.
21:19:21 [Ashok]
21:19:34 [Ram]
Ram's proposal for Example 12-1:
21:20:55 [Katy]
Ram: Would be acceptable to go last call with 1) Mark examples using nested assrtion as work in progress and may change 2) Incorporate additional example showing binding in 12-1
21:21:33 [Katy]
... Aspects to be marked example 9.1 text in 11.1 example 8.5
21:23:50 [Ram]
21:23:59 [Katy]
Bob: Any objection to this amendment to MOAP to be used as the resolution 6463 8031 8198?
21:24:13 [Ashok]
21:25:24 [Bob]
ack gpi
21:25:34 [Katy]
Ram: I would like clarity on the health warning
21:25:50 [Ram]
The use of nested policy assertion as described here is subject to changeas it is being currently discussed in the WG.
21:26:13 [asir]
21:26:19 [Ram]
The above is the health warning.
21:26:46 [Katy]
Bob: Any objection to above plus health warning
21:26:49 [asir]
21:26:52 [Ram]
21:26:56 [Katy]
... no objections
21:27:15 [Katy]
RESOLUTION: MOAP 6463 8031 8198
21:27:48 [Ram]
21:27:52 [Ram]
21:27:53 [Katy]
ACTION: Bob to inform ANtoine
21:27:53 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-144 - Inform ANtoine [on Bob Natale - due 2010-03-16].
21:27:56 [Bob]
ack asir
21:28:51 [Katy]
TOPIC: Last Call
21:29:27 [Katy]
Bob: Editors (Doug) how long will it take to incorporate changes?
21:29:44 [Katy]
Dug: Next couple of days
21:30:42 [Katy]
Bob: Need to take editors' drafts, freeze them, make last call
21:30:55 [Zakim]
21:31:15 [Dug]
amazing how Tues feels like the end of the week :-)
21:31:38 [Katy]
... Please review docs for any further 2119 issues
21:32:06 [Katy]
Bob: LC vote will be 1st order of business next call. Any objections?
21:32:17 [Katy]
Asir: What about 8289
21:32:55 [Katy]
Bob: After Doug sends note saying issues in docs, all need to review
21:33:21 [asir]
21:33:45 [asir]
may a week break after entering LC :-)
21:33:50 [asir]
s/may/may be/
21:34:15 [asir]
what about the next F2F? You wanted to discuss
21:34:51 [Ram]
21:35:05 [Katy]
Bob: Aim publication 23rd, would a minimum 3 week review be acceptable for F2F or should we move the F2F out.
21:35:06 [asir]
Starts on March 17th
21:36:15 [Katy]
... publishing morotorium on 17th might mean date of publish moves to 30th
21:36:31 [Katy]
... have later date
21:36:36 [Katy]
... for F2F
21:37:13 [Katy]
... 11th-13th May proposed for next F2F
21:37:28 [Katy]
Ram: Microsoft still willing to host
21:37:51 [Katy]
Bob: This might be a good meeting to have in Europe
21:39:33 [Katy]
... Meeting 11-13 May, WCoast, subject to confirmation by MSFT
21:39:50 [Zakim]
21:39:52 [Zakim]
21:39:54 [Zakim]
21:39:55 [Zakim]
21:39:55 [Zakim]
- +1.408.970.aabb
21:39:57 [Zakim]
21:39:57 [Zakim]
21:39:58 [Zakim]
21:40:03 [Zakim]
21:40:05 [DaveS]
21:40:41 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:40:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
21:41:12 [Zakim]
21:45:03 [Zakim]
21:45:04 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
21:45:06 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bob_Freund, +, Sreed, gpilz, asoldano, Ashok_Malhotra, [Microsoft], li, +1.408.970.aabb, Tom_Rutt, Doug_Davis, Katy