19:27:50 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
19:27:50 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-ws-ra-irc
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> +Bob_Freund
19:29:36 <Zakim> +??P11
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> +Gilbert_Pilz
19:30:44 <Zakim> +Doug_Davis
19:30:53 <li> li has joined #ws-ra
19:31:15 <Tom_Rutt> Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
19:31:18 <Zakim> +Wu_Chou
19:31:43 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
19:33:17 <Zakim> +asoldano
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> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010May/0003.html
19:35:17 <Zakim> +MartinC
19:35:23 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:35:27 <Zakim> +Yves
19:35:33 <MartinC> MartinC has joined #ws-ra
19:35:58 <DaveS> Scribe: Daves
19:36:01 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
19:36:10 <DaveS> Agenda Approved.
19:36:19 <DaveS> Minutes approved.
19:36:55 <DaveS> Topic New Issues
19:36:57 <Dug_> and:  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9655
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> +[Microsoft]
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_> breakfast?
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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010May/0005.html
19:47:07 <DaveS> Bob (the proposer) is mostly OK with it.
19:47:42 <Tom_Rutt> q+
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_> q+
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> q+
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> Agreed.
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> q
20:03:37 <Tom_Rutt> q+
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> -Gilbert_Pilz
20:05:43 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
20:05:59 <DaveS> Gil is back.
20:07:43 <DaveS> q+
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> q+
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> q+
20:11:09 <Bob> ack ram
20:12:10 <Ram> q+
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> q+
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> q+
20:15:14 <Bob> ack tom
20:15:15 <Zakim> + +1.919.349.aacc
20:15:21 <Zakim> -Doug_Davis
20:15:33 <Bob> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/proposals/xpath-profile-levels.html
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> q+
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> q-
20:24:58 <Tom_Rutt> q
20:25:00 <Tom_Rutt> =
20:25:02 <Tom_Rutt> q
20:25:34 <DaveS> Tom: The functions actually look handy. Maybe we should look at these.
20:25:40 <DaveS> q+
20:26:22 <Bob> ack dav
20:26:48 <DaveS> Bob: One possility is close with no action.
20:26:50 <Tom_Rutt> q+
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> -Gilbert_Pilz
20:28:10 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
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> -Gilbert_Pilz
20:30:24 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
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> q
20:32:04 <DaveS> This implies keeping the QName only and Full XPath.
20:32:06 <Ram> q+
20:33:07 <DaveS> q+
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> -asoldano
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> +asoldano
20:36:50 <Tom_Rutt> q+
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> q+
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> Bye
20:48:49 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
20:48:50 <Zakim> - +1.703.860.aadd
20:48:52 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
20:48:53 <Zakim> -Wu_Chou
20:48:53 <Zakim> - +1.919.349.aacc
20:48:55 <Zakim> -Bob_Freund
20:48:55 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
20:48:56 <Zakim> -asoldano
20:48:56 <Zakim> -Yves
20:48:58 <Zakim> - +1.408.970.aabb
20:49:00 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
20:49:02 <Zakim> -??P11
20:49:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-ws-ra-minutes.html Yves
20:49:10 <Zakim> -MartinC
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