See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 30 March 2010
<Bob> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/chair-tools/scribelist.html
<Bob> scribe: Wu
Minutes of March 16 is approved.
Bob: last call WD will happen today or tomorrow depending web master.
Yves: it should happen quite soon
Bob: F2F schedule logistic information
Ram: it should come out very soon.
Bob: new issues
issue 9266
Bob: issue 9266 is accepted
Doug: it is a fairly minor edit to spec
<Dug_> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9320
<Dug_> This specification does not mandate how events are serialized into
Decision: issue 9266 is solved as proposed.
<Dug_> notification messages. Rather, within the Subscribe request message
<Dug_> a subscriber can specify a "Format" that indicates the set of rules
<Dug_> that MUST be followed when constructing notification messages.
<Bob> RESOLUTION: Issue 9266 resolved with the proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Mar/att-0039/WS-Eventing-Section_9_marked_LC-dug.doc
Bob: Issue 9266 is accepted as a new proposal
<Dug_> RESOLUTION: Issue 9320 resolved as proposed
<Dug_> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9321
<Dug_> 9321 accepted as a new issue
Bob: the issue is accepted as a new issue 9321
<Dug_> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9031-Davis
<Dug_> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9031
Ram: did some research on it, and I am fine with Dug's proposal
<Dug_> RESOLUTION: issue 9031 resolved as proposed
Bob: issue 9095
<Bob> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9095
Ram: I am fine with Dug
proposed
... comment #1 is fine
RESOLUTION: issue
9095 resolve with comment #1
... issue 9095 resolve with comment #1
<Dug_> eves, why not?
Issue 8832: it will need more time and discuss in next meeting
<asoldano> lol
<Dug_> exactly
Issue 8284 on WSDL version
Bob: need time frame to resolve this issue
Ram: we are expecting in mid May to get down to this issue
Bob: how long for the WG to wait?
Ram: it is about three month.
Bob: Dependency on BP might affect our progress.
Gil: let's see what happens until what we progress
Bob: we discuss at F2F to find
out which feature will be at risk
... there is plenty things to do at F2F
... There is a remaining issue 9250
... anybody needs more time to talk issue 9321
... there is a proposal for issue 9321
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9321
<Bob> acl gp
Gil: that does not particular
bother me. If both are optional, then it is unclear.
... want to take a look of Dug's propoal
Dug: we need to address this issue from Format
<scribe> ACTION: discuss over the mailing list and progress it to resolution [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - discuss
Issue 9250
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9250
Dug: I have slight preference to put things in MEX and well comments
Ram: I am still researching this
issue.
... SOAP version is part of binding
Dug: it is more for the case that wsdl is not available
Yves: if no wsdl availabe, then server decides
Ram: I need more time to make progress on this issue
<scribe> ACTION: discuss this issue in the next call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-ws-ra-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - discuss
Ram: issue 9087 is a reasonable
question raised.
... we can say xml resouce with an xml representation
Bob: if you have an empty resource, what will be the return of "GET"
<Dug_> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wst.html#InvalidRepresentation
Bob: If the encoding and xml format is not acceptable, we define a fault.
<Dug_> If an implementation detects that the presented representation is invalid for the target resource, then the implementation MUST generate a wst:InvalidRepresentation fault.
<Dug_> so "is invalid" -> "is invalid or incompatible"
<Dug_> ?
Bob: resource defined in xml
infoset, any thought about that?
... what is a better approach: constrain the def of resource,
or we manipulate, ...
<Dug_> on the comment thing, people may just be forced to pass in the parent in some cases - not ideal but it can work.
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8273
Gil: issue 8273 can touch all specs.
<Bob> propasal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Mar/0046.html
Gil: WS-E can discuss notification. You may check security at the subscription time, or check at per-notificaion basis.
Ram: I will take a look at it.
Katy: Event source integrity is important
Gil: In addition, it needs
authentication, etc. as well.
... endpoint verification - event sink also needs to be
protected.
<Dug_> the concept of a useful security section is mind blowing!
Bob: what is the plan?
<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) Succeeded: s/9096/9095/ Succeeded: s/idea/ideal/ Found Scribe: Wu Inferring ScribeNick: Wu WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Ashok Ashok_Malhotra Bob Bob_Freund Decision Doug Doug_Davis Dug Dug_ Gil Katy Microsoft P13 P3 Ram Tom_Rutt Vikas Wu_Chou Yves aabb aacc aadd aaee asoldano gpilz joined 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/2010Mar/0045.html WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 30 Mar 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-ws-ra-minutes.html People with action items: discuss WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]