IRC log of ws-ra on 2011-05-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:25:31 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
19:25:31 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:25:33 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:25:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
19:25:35 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
19:25:35 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM already started
19:25:36 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
19:25:36 [trackbot]
Date: 24 May 2011
19:26:57 [asoldano]
asoldano has joined #ws-ra
19:27:28 [Zakim]
19:30:32 [Zakim]
+ +39.331.574.aaaa
19:30:53 [asoldano]
Zakim, aaaa is asoldano
19:30:53 [Zakim]
+asoldano; got it
19:32:03 [Zakim]
19:32:38 [Zakim]
19:33:52 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
19:34:08 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
19:34:38 [Zakim]
19:34:51 [Zakim]
+ +1.908.696.aabb
19:37:11 [Bob]
19:37:58 [Dug]
scribe: Dug
19:38:04 [Dug]
scribenick: Dug
19:38:10 [Dug]
Topic: agenda
19:38:23 [Dug]
approved w/o
19:38:29 [Dug]
Topic: 12722
19:38:33 [Dug]
19:39:14 [Dug]
new issue approved
19:39:19 [Dug]
proposal approved
19:39:45 [Dug]
Topic: Primers
19:39:53 [Dug]
any desire to do it?
19:40:26 [Dug]
Dug to ping Katy to see if she wants to finish up MEX
19:40:42 [Dug]
No other folks seem to have any interest
19:40:49 [Dug]
Topic: Director's CR call
19:40:56 [Dug]
Bob: went to CR
19:41:05 [Dug]
... formal objection was raised an a topic
19:41:24 [Dug]
... raiser stands by formal objection but doesn't want to hold up the work
19:41:52 [Dug]
... after discussion it was suggested that we figure out how to test the possible issue raised in the FO
19:42:21 [Dug]
... charter requirement includes WS-I compliance
19:42:43 [Dave]
Dave has joined #ws-ra
19:42:55 [Dug]
... between WS-I requirements and WSA there might be dup of info
19:43:24 [Dug]
... requirement might be to cover a transient phase between non-wsa and wsa support
19:43:37 [Dug]
... allows for either dispatch mechanism
19:44:05 [Dug]
... how would we go about testing it?
19:44:54 [Ram]
19:45:10 [Bob]
ack ram
19:45:24 [Dug]
Ram: what is the director looking for?
19:46:14 [Dug]
... spec says what wsa and wrapper should be. if receiver detects a diff from spec then it should fault.
19:46:36 [Dug]
... its a corner case
19:46:58 [Dug]
... we (msft) can live with the decision of the WG. Not interested in negative testing.
19:47:26 [Dug]
Bob: specs don't say "all impls must detect all incorrect syntax"
19:47:34 [Dave]
19:47:39 [Dug]
... lots of other places where this can happen
19:47:52 [Dug]
... some impls will do xsd checking - not required by specs
19:48:09 [Bob]
ack dave
19:48:50 [Dug]
Dave: if a client didn't match the spec (either wsa or wrapper is wrong) what should happen? Fault or do what you think is right?
19:49:04 [Dug]
19:49:48 [Dug]
Dave: do any existing impls exhibit weird behavior ?
19:50:11 [Dug]
... we could create a test that looks for this but do we have any impls that could generate this bad situation?
19:50:23 [Bob]
ack dug
19:51:15 [Dug]
Dug: IMO its out of scope for us to say what should happen when a non-compliant impl sends bad stuff
19:51:35 [Dug]
Bob: we don't specify what fault might be generated
19:52:23 [Dave]
19:52:43 [Bob]
ack dave
19:52:50 [Dug]
Bob: we would have the build something weird to make this happen
19:53:16 [Dug]
Dave: a possible test would be to generate a bogus wrapper in the Body that mis-matches the action
19:54:51 [Dug]
Bob: why is this syntax check any diff from any other syntax error?
19:55:03 [Dug]
... do diff other than the FO was raised.
19:55:29 [Dug]
... Ram,would you like to either put together a test for it or withdraw the FO?
19:56:02 [Dug]
Ram: we can decide that this issue isn't big enough to do the additional testing
19:56:19 [Dug]
Bob: a statement from msft to that effect would be helpful
19:56:36 [Dug]
Ram: msft doesn't see a strong need to do additional testing for these corner cases
19:56:47 [Dug]
Bob: would you construct an email stating that?
19:57:02 [Dug]
Ram: yes i'll send it
19:57:14 [Dug]
Topic: testing
19:57:27 [Dug]
19:58:06 [Dug]
Concluded pair-wise testing for all but mex
19:58:11 [Dug]
19:58:23 [Bob]
ack dug
19:58:36 [Dug]
Dug: Li did you test ws-eventing with IBM?
19:58:39 [Dug]
Li: no
19:59:05 [Dug]
Status is from f2f
19:59:47 [Dug]
Bob: no change to eventing so f2f eventing testing is fine
20:00:35 [Dug]
soap-assertions, evn are not tested
20:00:49 [Dug]
we need to say that "presence in metadata is sufficient"
20:01:07 [Dug]
20:01:15 [Bob]
20:01:18 [Dug]
20:01:27 [Dug]
Dug: how/where do we say this?
20:01:47 [Dug]
Bob: in scenario doc (show where it goes), and in the test results we send up the chain
20:02:27 [Zakim]
20:02:58 [Dug]
... in test results doc
20:04:02 [Dug]
Bob: current position - write-up results for all but mex
20:04:22 [Dug]
... some other groups are interested in seeing these progress. EVD, Enum and Eventing
20:04:29 [Zakim]
20:04:37 [Dug]
20:04:50 [Bob]
ack dug
20:05:38 [Dug]
Dug: I'd prefer to wait if Oracle is close
20:05:55 [Dug]
Bob: has pinged Oracle but no firm response yet
20:06:35 [Dug]
Li: what is the length of the PR phase?
20:06:56 [Dug]
Bob: min 4 weeks
20:07:19 [Dug]
Li: so no new changes unless there's a bug
20:07:31 [Dug]
Bob: namespace will be locked down at PR phase
20:07:53 [Dug]
Li: ok to wait
20:08:24 [Yves]
we need to have interop report _before_ going to PR
20:09:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.831.713.aacc
20:10:03 [Dug]
Bob: Gil, any ETA on mex?
20:10:29 [Dug]
Gil: not yet - working on eventing
20:10:38 [Dug]
Bob: eventing is covered already
20:10:44 [Dug]
... don't have a pair of impls of mex
20:10:52 [Dug]
Gil: so mex first and eventing later?
20:10:59 [Dug]
Bob: yes
20:11:34 [Dug]
Gil: might be able to do by first week of June 10th
20:11:55 [Dug]
Bob: folks ok to wait ~10 days?
20:12:04 [Dug]
Bob: Dug/Gil please work on testing mex
20:12:18 [Dug]
... formatting of testing report, any volunteers ?
20:12:22 [Dug]
Bob: I'll do it
20:12:52 [Dug]
... mini-matrix per spec
20:13:27 [Dug]
... casual looker will not follow what we currently have
20:14:09 [Dug]
... assuming current 'success' will stay.
20:14:19 [Dug]
... need something in scenario doc for evd and sa
20:14:29 [Dug]
... Dug - please add something to scenario doc.
20:14:43 [Dug]
action: Dug to add text in scenario doc w.r.t. sa and evd
20:14:43 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-182 - Add text in scenario doc w.r.t. sa and evd [on Doug Davis - due 2011-05-31].
20:14:54 [Dug]
... next meeting?
20:15:10 [Dug]
... June 14th?
20:15:17 [Dug]
... ok?
20:15:21 [asoldano]
20:15:23 [Dug]
20:15:44 [Dug]
Bob: Gil please let us know if you finish early or if you need more time
20:15:51 [Dug]
20:15:54 [Ram]
Regarding the discussion about the need for additional / negative testing for the issue relating to the formal objection: While the possibility of encountering this interoperation problem in the real world exists (particularly when implementations choose to do dispatch using first child element), I think it is not serious enough at this time to have to do any additional / negative testing to check for this case.
20:16:26 [Dug]
Bob: please put that in an email to the public list
20:17:04 [Dug]
... add that it would require the construction of special clients and/or services
20:17:21 [Dug]
... to force them to misbehave
20:17:28 [Dug]
Ram: will do
20:17:44 [Dug]
meeting ends
20:17:44 [Zakim]
20:17:45 [Zakim]
20:17:46 [Zakim]
20:17:47 [Zakim]
20:17:48 [Zakim]
- +1.908.696.aabb
20:17:48 [Zakim]
20:17:49 [Zakim]
20:17:50 [Zakim]
20:17:52 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
20:17:54 [Zakim]
Attendees were Doug_Davis, +39.331.574.aaaa, asoldano, [Microsoft], Yves, +1.908.696.aabb, Dave, +1.831.713.aacc, Gil
20:18:00 [Dave]
Dave has left #ws-ra
20:19:36 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
20:19:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
20:20:15 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
20:20:26 [gpilz]
20:23:38 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra
22:26:16 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-ra