19:25:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
19:25:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/05/24-ws-ra-irc
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> +Doug_Davis
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> +[Microsoft]
19:32:38 <Zakim> +??P8
19:33:52 <Ram> Ram has joined #ws-ra
19:34:08 <li> li has joined #ws-ra
19:34:38 <Zakim> +Yves
19:34:51 <Zakim> + +1.908.696.aabb
19:37:11 <Bob> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2011May/0002.html
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> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12722
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> q+
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> +q
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> +q
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> q+
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> http://www.soaphub.org/interop/status/WSRA
19:58:06 <Dug> Concluded pair-wise testing for all but mex
19:58:11 <Dug> q+
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> q+
20:01:15 <Bob> dug
20:01:18 <Dug> -q
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> -??P8
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> +??P3
20:04:37 <Dug> q+
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> ok
20:15:23 <Dug> agreed
20:15:44 <Dug> Bob: Gil please let us know if you finish early or if you need more time
20:15:51 <Dug> AOB?
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> -asoldano
20:17:45 <Zakim> -Dave
20:17:46 <Zakim> -Gil
20:17:47 <Zakim> -Yves
20:17:48 <Zakim> - +1.908.696.aabb
20:17:48 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
20:17:49 <Zakim> -??P4
20:17:50 <Zakim> -Doug_Davis
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 http://www.w3.org/2011/05/24-ws-ra-minutes.html Bob
20:20:15 <gpilz> gpilz has joined #ws-ra
20:20:26 <gpilz>  /help
20:23:38 <gpilz> gpilz has left #ws-ra
22:26:16 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ws-ra