IRC log of ws-ra on 2010-03-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:31:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
19:31:04 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:31:06 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:31:06 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
19:31:08 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
19:31:08 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM already started
19:31:09 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
19:31:09 [trackbot]
Date: 30 March 2010
19:31:13 [Bob]
zakim, who is on the phone?
19:31:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P3, +984999aaaa, Doug_Davis, Bob_Freund, [Microsoft], Tom_Rutt, +1.703.860.aabb
19:31:15 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
19:31:41 [Zakim]
19:31:59 [Zakim]
+ +39.331.574.aacc
19:32:05 [Zakim]
+ +1.831.713.aadd
19:32:15 [asoldano]
zakim, aacc is asoldano
19:32:15 [Zakim]
+asoldano; got it
19:32:21 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
19:32:23 [Zakim]
19:33:14 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
19:33:39 [Bob]
19:34:32 [Bob]
scribe: Wu
19:34:48 [Dug_]
19:35:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.970.aaee
19:35:54 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:36:26 [Wu]
Minutes of March 16 is approved.
19:36:29 [Zakim]
19:37:09 [Zakim]
19:38:03 [Wu]
Bob: last call WD will happen today or tomorrow depending web master.
19:38:23 [Wu]
Yves: it should happen quite soon
19:39:08 [Wu]
Bob: F2F schedule logistic information
19:39:18 [Wu]
Ram: it should come out very soon.
19:40:01 [Wu]
Bob: new issues
19:41:25 [Yves]
Topic: 9266
19:41:29 [Dug_]
19:41:34 [Wu]
issue 9266
19:42:04 [Wu]
Bob: issue 9266 is accepted
19:42:36 [Wu]
Doug: it is a fairly minor edit to spec
19:44:39 [Dug_]
Topic: 9320
19:44:42 [Dug_]
19:45:04 [Dug_]
This specification does not mandate how events are serialized into
19:45:05 [Wu]
Decision: issue 9266 is solved as proposed.
19:45:05 [Dug_]
notification messages. Rather, within the Subscribe request message
19:45:07 [Dug_]
a subscriber can specify a "Format" that indicates the set of rules
19:45:08 [Dug_]
that MUST be followed when constructing notification messages.
19:45:17 [Bob]
RESOLUTION: Issue 9266 resolved with the proposal at
19:45:55 [Wu]
Bob: Issue 9266 is accepted as a new proposal
19:46:11 [Dug_]
RESOLUTION: Issue 9320 resolved as proposed
19:46:21 [Dug_]
Topic: 9321
19:46:23 [Dug_]
19:48:33 [Dug_]
9321 accepted as a new issue
19:48:33 [Wu]
Bob: the issue is accepted as a new issue 9321
19:48:36 [Dug_]
Topic: 9031
19:48:47 [Dug_]
19:48:51 [Dug_]
19:49:28 [Ram]
19:49:40 [Bob]
ack ram
19:50:00 [Wu]
Ram: did some research on it, and I am fine with Dug's proposal
19:50:17 [Dug_]
RESOLUTION: issue 9031 resolved as proposed
19:51:07 [Wu]
Bob: issue 9095
19:51:21 [Bob]
19:51:38 [Dug_]
19:52:01 [Dug_]
19:52:14 [Wu]
Ram: I am fine with Dug proposed
19:52:26 [Wu]
Ram: comment #1 is fine
19:52:51 [Wu]
RESOLUTION: issue 9096 resolve with comment #1
19:53:06 [Wu]
19:53:27 [Wu]
RESOLUTION: issue 9095 resolve with comment #1
19:54:24 [Dug_]
19:54:38 [Bob]
ack dug
19:56:02 [Dug_]
eves, why not?
19:56:13 [Wu]
Issue 8832: it will need more time and discuss in next meeting
19:56:25 [asoldano]
19:56:35 [Dug_]
19:56:46 [Wu]
Issue 8284 on WSDL version
19:57:13 [Wu]
Bob: need time frame to resolve this issue
19:58:54 [Wu]
Ram: we are expecting in mid May to get down to this issue
20:00:01 [Wu]
Bob: how long for the WG to wait?
20:00:29 [Wu]
Ram: it is about three month.
20:01:07 [Wu]
Bob: Dependency on BP might affect our progress.
20:01:39 [Dug_]
20:01:39 [Wu]
Gil: let's see what happens until what we progress
20:01:48 [Dug_]
20:02:41 [Ram]
20:02:49 [Ram]
20:02:55 [Wu]
Bob: we discuss at F2F to find out which feature will be at risk
20:03:12 [Wu]
Bob: there is plenty things to do at F2F
20:04:32 [Wu]
Bob: There is a remaining issue 9250
20:05:12 [Wu]
Bob: anybody needs more time to talk issue 9321
20:05:25 [Wu]
Bob: there is a proposal for issue 9321
20:06:04 [gpilz]
20:06:30 [Wu]
20:06:54 [Bob]
acl gp
20:06:57 [Bob]
ack gp
20:07:42 [Dug_]
20:07:56 [Wu]
Gil: that does not particular bother me. If both are optional, then it is unclear.
20:08:20 [Wu]
Gil: want to take a look of Dug's propoal
20:09:35 [Wu]
Dug: we need to address this issue from Format
20:11:42 [Wu]
Action: discuss over the mailing list and progress it to resolution
20:11:42 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - discuss
20:11:56 [Wu]
Issue 9250
20:12:20 [gpilz]
zakim, who is noisy?
20:12:31 [Zakim]
gpilz, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Doug_Davis (73%), [Microsoft] (44%)
20:12:40 [Wu]
20:13:10 [Ram]
20:13:13 [Dug_]
20:13:18 [Wu]
Dug: I have slight preference to put things in MEX and well comments
20:13:40 [Bob]
ack ram
20:13:43 [Wu]
Ram: I am still researching this issue.
20:14:29 [Dug_]
20:14:57 [Wu]
Ram: SOAP version is part of binding
20:15:33 [Bob]
ack dug
20:16:15 [Wu]
Dug: it is more for the case that wsdl is not available
20:16:50 [gpilz]
20:16:58 [gpilz]
20:17:05 [Wu]
Yves: if no wsdl availabe, then server decides
20:17:11 [gpilz]
zakim, who is noisy?
20:17:24 [Zakim]
gpilz, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: Doug_Davis (52%), ??P13 (4%), Yves (76%)
20:17:56 [Wu]
Ram: I need more time to make progress on this issue
20:18:13 [Wu]
Action: discuss this issue in the next call
20:18:13 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - discuss
20:19:52 [Wu]
Ram: issue 9087 is a reasonable question raised.
20:20:46 [Wu]
Ram: we can say xml resouce with an xml representation
20:22:08 [Wu]
Bob: if you have an empty resource, what will be the return of "GET"
20:23:39 [Dug_]
20:23:40 [Wu]
Bob: If the encoding and xml format is not acceptable, we define a fault.
20:23:56 [Dug_]
If an implementation detects that the presented representation is invalid for the target resource, then the implementation MUST generate a wst:InvalidRepresentation fault.
20:25:01 [Dug_]
so "is invalid" -> "is invalid or incompatible"
20:25:05 [Dug_]
20:27:20 [Wu]
Bob: resource defined in xml infoset, any thought about that?
20:29:20 [gpilz]
20:30:14 [Ram]
20:30:21 [Bob]
ack gp
20:30:25 [Bob]
ack ram
20:30:42 [Wu]
Bob: what is a better approach: constrain the def of resource, or we manipulate, ...
20:30:42 [Zakim]
- +984999aaaa
20:30:49 [Dug_]
on the comment thing, people may just be forced to pass in the parent in some cases - not idea but it can work.
20:30:58 [Dug_]
20:31:30 [Bob]
Topic: 8273
20:31:34 [Wu]
20:32:07 [Wu]
Gil: issue 8273 can touch all specs.
20:32:09 [Bob]
propasal at
20:34:59 [Wu]
Gil: WS-E can discuss notification. You may check security at the subscription time, or check at per-notificaion basis.
20:35:57 [Katy]
20:36:11 [Bob]
ack katy
20:36:11 [Wu]
Ram: I will take a look at it.
20:37:23 [Wu]
Katy: Event source integrity is important
20:37:53 [Wu]
Gil: In addition, it needs authentication, etc. as well.
20:42:00 [Wu]
Gil: endpoint verification - event sink also needs to be protected.
20:42:28 [Dug_]
the concept of a useful security section is mind blowing!
20:43:33 [Wu]
Bob: what is the plan?
20:44:35 [asoldano]
20:44:36 [Zakim]
20:44:39 [Zakim]
20:44:40 [Zakim]
20:44:41 [Zakim]
20:44:42 [Zakim]
- +1.408.970.aaee
20:44:43 [Zakim]
- +1.831.713.aadd
20:44:44 [Zakim]
20:44:46 [Zakim]
20:44:50 [Zakim]
20:44:51 [Zakim]
20:44:51 [Zakim]
20:45:00 [Zakim]
20:45:38 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
20:45:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
20:47:04 [Zakim]
- +1.703.860.aabb
20:47:05 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
20:47:07 [Zakim]
Attendees were +984999aaaa, Doug_Davis, Bob_Freund, [Microsoft], Tom_Rutt, +1.703.860.aabb, Wu_Chou, +39.331.574.aacc, +1.831.713.aadd, asoldano, +1.408.970.aaee, Ashok_Malhotra,
20:47:10 [Zakim]
... Yves
21:18:17 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra