IRC log of ws-ra on 2010-05-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:27:50 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
19:27:50 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:27:52 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:27:52 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
19:27:54 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
19:27:54 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
19:27:55 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
19:27:55 [trackbot]
Date: 04 May 2010
19:28:05 [asoldano]
asoldano has joined #ws-ra
19:28:18 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has now started
19:28:24 [Zakim]
19:29:36 [Zakim]
19:30:16 [DaveS]
DaveS has joined #ws-ra
19:30:30 [DaveS]
Hello, Dave the scribe
19:30:33 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
19:30:34 [Zakim]
19:30:44 [Zakim]
19:30:53 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
19:31:15 [Tom_Rutt]
Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
19:31:18 [Zakim]
19:31:43 [Zakim]
19:33:17 [Zakim]
19:33:37 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.361.aaaa
19:33:51 [Bob]
scribenick: DaveS
19:34:17 [Dug_]
someone is pounding hard on their keyboard
19:34:22 [Bob]
19:35:17 [Zakim]
19:35:23 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:35:27 [Zakim]
19:35:33 [MartinC]
MartinC has joined #ws-ra
19:35:58 [DaveS]
Scribe: Daves
19:36:01 [Zakim]
19:36:10 [DaveS]
Agenda Approved.
19:36:19 [DaveS]
Minutes approved.
19:36:55 [DaveS]
Topic New Issues
19:36:57 [Dug_]
19:37:32 [DaveS]
9607 - 9613 Accepted as New issues
19:37:47 [DaveS]
9655 accepted as a new issue
19:37:59 [DaveS]
9588 accepted as a new issue
19:38:03 [Dug_]
+1 to proposal for 9588
19:38:07 [Zakim]
19:38:37 [DaveS]
Resolved 9588 Resolved as proposed.
19:38:53 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.970.aabb
19:39:00 [DaveS]
Topic F2F Meeting
19:39:10 [DaveS]
Fred Joined.
19:39:32 [Dug_]
19:39:41 [DaveS]
Start each day at 9:00 (Ram will let people in from 8:00)
19:40:03 [Dug_]
phew! :-)
19:40:09 [Fred_Maciel]
Fred_Maciel has joined #ws-ra
19:40:11 [DaveS]
Breakfast will be provided.
19:40:12 [Dug_]
woo hoo!
19:40:35 [DaveS]
Topic Next F2F
19:40:40 [Dug_]
ram will FedEX it :-)
19:40:47 [asoldano]
19:40:50 [DaveS]
Proposal from Bob to leave it open.
19:42:00 [DaveS]
To be discussed at the F2F. Expected to be inline with the normal 6 to 8 weeks cadence.
19:43:23 [Dug_]
I'd prefer if the next f2f were an interop
19:43:58 [DaveS]
F2F meeting discussion time will be announced in time for EU people to make sure they can dial in
19:44:19 [DaveS]
Topic 9567
19:45:02 [DaveS]
Gil is working on a new approach to this issue.
19:45:15 [DaveS]
Should be no problem for the F2F.
19:45:38 [DaveS]
Topic 9568
19:45:58 [DaveS]
There seems to be little discussion on this one.
19:46:20 [DaveS]
May be due to discussion on other issues.
19:46:31 [DaveS]
Topic 9087
19:46:50 [DaveS]
Proposal from Doug to limit the scope of a resource
19:47:04 [Dug_]
Latest note on this:
19:47:07 [DaveS]
Bob (the proposer) is mostly OK with it.
19:47:42 [Tom_Rutt]
19:48:19 [DaveS]
A friendly ammendnent that UTF both modes 8 and 16 also be supported.
19:48:27 [Bob]
ack tom
19:48:31 [Dug_]
19:48:48 [DaveS]
The XML 1.0 spec states that 8 and 16 are required.
19:48:56 [Bob]
ack dug
19:49:28 [DaveS]
Doug's proposal states that the 8 and 16 issues is applied to all specs.
19:49:34 [Yves]
it's already there by reference to XML 1.0, duplicating XML 1.0 spec using a MUST is not good
19:50:03 [DaveS]
There is a difference between sender and receiver in the UFT encoding question.
19:51:00 [Zakim]
- +1.646.361.aaaa
19:51:05 [DaveS]
XML 1.0 specifies that it must be supported, but there are other parts of the system that also need to comply.
19:51:28 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
19:51:50 [DaveS]
Tom: Receiver MUST accept both.
19:53:39 [DaveS]
Sender may typically send either and the receiver must understand both.
19:54:35 [DaveS]
Gil: This it really only a problem with fragment, since the normal transfer puts the whole thing.
19:54:43 [Yves]
you may require a specific encoding using ws-policy, but the policy is not defined for that, yet.
19:55:08 [Tom_Rutt]
19:55:10 [DaveS]
Bob: But what if the 16 version come in a GET to a clinet that would rather have 8 only.
19:55:13 [Dug]
I'm lost as to the current proposal
19:55:41 [Dug]
it sounds a bit like everyone is agreeing and yet the conversation still goes on ....
19:55:45 [DaveS]
daveS: Agrees with Dug.
19:56:03 [Ram]
Implementations are expected to support both UTF-8 and UTF-16 as described in XML 1.0.
19:56:21 [Dug]
in compliance section for all specs
19:56:23 [Tom_Rutt]
a client implementation may take the get response, in utf-16, parse it into a dom tree, and when they send it back the dom tree will be encoded in utf-8. The sending is an implementation specific matter
19:56:27 [DaveS]
proposal: add a note the the specs that implementations must support 8 and 16 as described in XML 1.0.
19:57:15 [DaveS]
Tom: it is only the receiver that matters.
19:58:28 [DaveS]
Tom: Both schemes will handle both.
19:59:02 [DaveS]
Please satisfy the 3 Japanese guys in a bar in Kawasaki.
19:59:06 [DaveS]
19:59:21 [DaveS]
Resolved as proposed.
19:59:29 [Dug]
Guess we don't care about gals in those bars
20:00:22 [DaveS]
Topic 9558
20:01:05 [DaveS]
The issue includes a sketch of a proposal.
20:01:43 [DaveS]
This may be specific to frag only.
20:02:31 [DaveS]
The content of the Frag spec would define the subset in question.
20:02:56 [DaveS]
XPath Level 1 is a lightweight subset
20:03:27 [Tom_Rutt]
20:03:37 [Tom_Rutt]
20:04:12 [Bob]
ack tom
20:04:19 [DaveS]
This provides at least two levels of support in support of small servers.
20:04:57 [DaveS]
The important issue here is that the server is the small light weight device in this case.
20:05:07 [DaveS]
E.g. a lightbulb.
20:05:30 [Dug]
eeekkk a lightbulb supporting soap! scary!
20:05:34 [DaveS]
We lost Gill.
20:05:39 [Zakim]
20:05:43 [Zakim]
20:05:59 [DaveS]
Gil is back.
20:07:43 [DaveS]
20:08:09 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
20:08:19 [Bob]
ack dave
20:08:53 [DaveS]
Gil: WS Man is concerned that Level 2 needs supported.
20:09:03 [Tom_Rutt]
20:09:15 [DaveS]
Maybe they shouldn't be lumped together.
20:09:27 [DaveS]
But the use cases are distinct.
20:09:34 [Bob]
ack tom
20:09:44 [DaveS]
Tom: WS Man can do this them selves in their spec.
20:10:12 [DaveS]
Level 1 is liked by a number of other uses.
20:10:34 [DaveS]
The security request has a few comparisons.
20:10:55 [DaveS]
The differences are minimual.
20:11:00 [Ram]
20:11:09 [Bob]
ack ram
20:12:10 [Ram]
20:12:17 [DaveS]
Ram: There seems to be some interest in having these subsets (unchanged) moved into a separate spec.
20:13:05 [DaveS]
This would consolidate the number of document that subset XML.
20:13:16 [Bob]
ack ram
20:13:39 [Tom_Rutt]
20:13:52 [DaveS]
Ash: Multiple dialects are a bad idea.
20:15:01 [DaveS]
It may be handy to put the Level 1 spec in a separate document.
20:15:03 [Ram]
20:15:14 [Bob]
ack tom
20:15:15 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.349.aacc
20:15:21 [Zakim]
20:15:33 [Bob]
20:15:41 [DaveS]
Tom: Level 1 in a separate spec is OK. Or is there another cahnge being proposed.
20:16:41 [DaveS]
We need to at least answer the group.
20:17:27 [DaveS]
From Section 3 of the proposal:
20:17:28 [DaveS]
Create a separate XPath profile with WS-Fragment Level 1 profile (unchanged), XML Signature 2.0 XPath profile, renamed as Level 2 and material in section 7 ("XPath 1.0 Expression Language") of WS-Fragment.
20:18:25 [DaveS]
Bob: These look definitly different.
20:18:56 [DaveS]
Bob: Is it a good idea to have fewer dialects?
20:19:33 [DaveS]
There is general support for having only one dialect and therefore maybe we should try theirs.
20:19:55 [Ram]
20:20:07 [DaveS]
It would probably need to be in a separate spec.
20:20:29 [DaveS]
Tom: The functions they include look pretty useful.
20:21:08 [DaveS]
Asjh: We mostly have full implementations. It is sometimes more dificult to take stuf out.
20:21:38 [DaveS]
Tom: these extensions are easy to implement and help the user a lot.
20:21:54 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.860.aadd
20:22:25 [DaveS]
Ram: Who in this group would test this set of features?
20:23:00 [DaveS]
Bob: Is Level 1 at risk anyway?
20:23:30 [DaveS]
Doug: But if full support exists, we get the subset for free. The concern is with oour schedule.
20:23:48 [DaveS]
Tom: Who are the customers?
20:24:44 [DaveS]
Bob: We could close with no action, as this is mostly about spec efficiency.
20:24:52 [Ram]
20:24:58 [Tom_Rutt]
20:25:00 [Tom_Rutt]
20:25:02 [Tom_Rutt]
20:25:34 [DaveS]
Tom: The functions actually look handy. Maybe we should look at these.
20:25:40 [DaveS]
20:26:22 [Bob]
ack dav
20:26:48 [DaveS]
Bob: One possility is close with no action.
20:26:50 [Tom_Rutt]
20:27:03 [DaveS]
Bob: How do we test this?
20:27:23 [DaveS]
Tom: We build a test that tests only Level 1.
20:27:26 [Tom_Rutt]
test cases could only exercise level one constructs
20:27:42 [DaveS]
Then we also test full XPath as well.
20:27:54 [Zakim]
20:28:10 [Zakim]
20:28:15 [Bob]
ack tom
20:28:42 [DaveS]
Tom: The aim is to allow receivers to implement simple subsets. and it is easy to test.
20:29:41 [DaveS]
What is the impact on schedule?
20:29:49 [DaveS]
Gill: is breaking up.
20:29:58 [Zakim]
20:30:24 [Zakim]
20:30:30 [DaveS]
Gill said it could help schedule, but we still need to hear why.
20:31:12 [DaveS]
Proposal: drop Level one from us and say look at the other spec for subsets.
20:31:49 [Tom_Rutt]
20:32:04 [DaveS]
This implies keeping the QName only and Full XPath.
20:32:06 [Ram]
20:33:07 [DaveS]
20:33:27 [Bob]
ack ram
20:33:29 [DaveS]
Ram: Take the path of least resistance.
20:35:11 [DaveS]
There are some concerns with how to addres this testing of these.
20:35:20 [Zakim]
20:35:29 [DaveS]
Option 1) Close no action
20:35:46 [Tom_Rutt]
what would our conformance test use for xpath elements,
20:35:47 [Tom_Rutt]
just the xpath 1 subset?
20:36:00 [DaveS]
Option 2) We like your subset, please put it some where we can teverence it
20:36:28 [DaveS]
Option 3) Make out level match theirs.
20:36:35 [Zakim]
20:36:50 [Tom_Rutt]
20:36:54 [DaveS]
Option 4) Give them our level 1
20:37:38 [Bob]
ack tom
20:38:00 [DaveS]
Option 5) Our spec says nothing and other specs can define what ever they want.
20:38:38 [DaveS]
Number 5 leaves QName.
20:39:56 [Tom_Rutt]
additional: if use option 5 we have to decide how complicated our test cases will exercise xpaty
20:40:26 [DaveS]
In 5 we don't need to reference other specs.
20:40:53 [DaveS]
In 4 we would reference another doc.
20:40:58 [Tom_Rutt]
20:41:19 [Bob]
ack dav
20:42:00 [Bob]
ack tom
20:42:19 [DaveS]
Dave and Tom like 5, but Tom's worried about testing.
20:42:57 [DaveS]
Bob: Test Qname and an example of XPath.
20:43:58 [DaveS]
The test only verifies that XPath is there. It is up to XPath compliance to cover the full XPath support.
20:45:05 [DaveS]
We can stll say that the security guys could have Level one. And then possibly include a non-normative reference to their work if they finished first.
20:45:41 [DaveS]
People should think about this over the next week.
20:46:44 [DaveS]
Topic 9655
20:47:14 [DaveS]
Paus whail people think.
20:47:34 [DaveS]
s/paus whail/pause while/
20:48:09 [DaveS]
This means that no delivery mechanism is required.
20:48:26 [DaveS]
Sounds like more time is needed.
20:48:44 [DaveS]
Thank you all have a good time next week.
20:48:48 [DaveS]
20:48:49 [Zakim]
20:48:50 [Zakim]
- +1.703.860.aadd
20:48:52 [Zakim]
20:48:53 [Zakim]
20:48:53 [Zakim]
- +1.919.349.aacc
20:48:55 [Zakim]
20:48:55 [Zakim]
20:48:56 [Zakim]
20:48:56 [Zakim]
20:48:58 [Zakim]
- +1.408.970.aabb
20:49:00 [Zakim]
20:49:02 [Zakim]
20:49:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Yves
20:49:10 [Zakim]
20:49:11 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
20:49:13 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bob_Freund, Gilbert_Pilz, Doug_Davis, Wu_Chou, Tom_Rutt, asoldano, +1.646.361.aaaa, MartinC, Yves, Ashok_Malhotra, [Microsoft], +1.408.970.aabb, +1.919.349.aacc,
20:49:15 [MartinC]
MartinC has left #ws-ra
20:49:16 [Zakim]
... +1.703.860.aadd
23:15:55 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-ra