IRC log of ws-ra on 2011-07-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:27:01 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
19:27:01 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:27:03 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:27:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
19:27:05 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
19:27:05 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
19:27:06 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
19:27:06 [trackbot]
Date: 05 July 2011
19:27:35 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has now started
19:27:41 [Zakim]
19:27:55 [Bob]
zakim, ??P3 is Bob
19:27:55 [Zakim]
+Bob; got it
19:28:50 [Dug]
Dug has joined #ws-ra
19:29:30 [Zakim]
19:32:06 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
19:32:16 [asoldano]
asoldano has joined #ws-ra
19:32:57 [Zakim]
19:32:58 [Zakim]
19:33:21 [Zakim]
19:34:10 [trutt]
trutt has joined #ws-ra
19:34:15 [Zakim]
19:36:29 [gpilz]
SCRIBE: gpilz
19:36:48 [Bob]
19:37:10 [gpilz]
TOPIC: Agenda
19:37:21 [gpilz]
RESOLUTION: Agenda agreed
19:37:33 [gpilz]
TOPIC: Approval of Minutes
19:37:41 [gpilz]
RESOLUTION: minutes approved
19:37:47 [gpilz]
TOPIC: New Issues
19:38:20 [gpilz]
19:38:20 [trackbot]
Sorry... adding notes to ISSUE-13016 failed, please let sysreq know about it
19:38:57 [gpilz]
Gil: looks like a typo
19:39:08 [gpilz]
Bob: issue accepted
19:39:17 [gpilz]
Doug: it's already been fixed
19:39:30 [gpilz]
Bob: any objection to just fixing this?
19:39:41 [Dug]
19:39:42 [gpilz]
RESOLUTION: Doug's proposal accepted
19:40:10 [gpilz]
19:40:10 [trackbot]
Sorry... adding notes to ISSUE-13148 failed, please let sysreq know about it
19:40:25 [gpilz]
Doug: Proposal is to just add 'REQUIRED'
19:40:47 [gpilz]
RESOLUTION: proposal for Issue-13148 is accepted as proposed
19:40:49 [Dug]
19:41:05 [gpilz]
19:41:05 [trackbot]
Sorry... adding notes to ISSUE-13151 failed, please let sysreq know about it
19:41:14 [gpilz]
Bob: any objections to opening this issue?
19:41:23 [gpilz]
... is the text in the spec correct?
19:41:29 [gpilz]
Doug: yes the text is correct
19:41:43 [gpilz]
RESOLUTION: Issue-13151 resolved as proposed
19:41:50 [gpilz]
TOPIC: External Comments
19:41:52 [Bob]
19:42:51 [gpilz]
Bob: mismatch between namespace in WSDL and the URI of the location of the WSDL
19:43:03 [gpilz]
Tom: Do we have a RDDL file for this stuff?
19:43:06 [gpilz]
Doug: We do
19:43:51 [gpilz]
Tom: It seems this person just needs to be educated (on the difference between the URI and the @targetNamespace)
19:44:07 [trutt]
19:44:16 [gpilz]
(confusing dicsussion on possible changes to the RDDL file)
19:44:38 [gpilz]
Doug: when you click on the namespace link, you get an HTML page that describes the namespace
19:44:54 [gpilz]
Yves: the link to the WSDL is wrong - we have that in the ED copy as well
19:45:00 [gpilz]
... I can do the change
19:45:13 [gpilz]
Doug: I don't mind doing it, but I need to know what the correct thing is
19:45:22 [gpilz]
Yves: dated WSDL reference is wrogn
19:45:37 [gpilz]
Doug: assuming we approve the docs, the dated links all get updated again
19:46:01 [trutt]
19:46:08 [gpilz]
... perhaps we could just tell this person that things are out of synch now but will come back into synch on the next publishing event
19:46:17 [Dug]
birthing activity! ouch!
19:46:20 [gpilz]
Bob: who is going to take care of this?
19:46:29 [gpilz]
Yves: me
19:46:53 [gpilz]
Bob: we need to respond back to Andy
19:47:02 [gpilz]
... who would like to do that?
19:47:34 [gpilz]
... "we shall correct the RDDL file location at . . . when we publish our PR"
19:47:42 [gpilz]
... Yves can you take care of this?
19:47:49 [gpilz]
Yves: ok
19:48:08 [Bob]
19:48:35 [gpilz]
Bob: wondering why faults are not declared in the portType's of the WSDLs (mex, eventing, etc.)
19:48:46 [gpilz]
... we don't normally do this sort of thing
19:48:52 [gpilz]
Doug: and we won't
19:49:28 [gpilz]
Bob: something along the lines of "it has not been the custom to define faults in the portTypes of infrastructure specs like . . ."
19:49:37 [gpilz]
Tom: is he talking about event notifications?
19:49:47 [gpilz]
Bob: no, he's referring to the XSDs
19:49:59 [gpilz]
Tom: we don't define any faults in our spec WSDLs?
19:51:26 [gpilz]
Gil: if you define faults in your WSDL they don't appear on the wire the way we say the should
19:51:48 [gpilz]
... infrastructure faults versus application faults
19:52:16 [gpilz]
Tom: we have a different mapping for our faults than that defined in WSDL
19:52:46 [gpilz]
Gil: yes - no WS-* has ever used WSDL-defined faults for error handling
19:53:09 [gpilz]
Bob: anyone to volunteer
19:53:12 [gpilz]
Gil: I will
19:53:34 [gpilz]
Bob: should I create pro-forma issues to track these
19:53:40 [gpilz]
Yves: that would be best
19:53:57 [gpilz]
TOPIC: Test Status
19:53:57 [Bob]
19:55:01 [gpilz]
Bob: look like we have met our criteria for 2 interoperable implementations for each specifications
19:55:22 [gpilz]
... the exceptions are the metadata specifications (SOAP assertion and EventDescriptions)
19:55:37 [gpilz]
... these don't have any direct, on-the wire tests associated with them
19:55:47 [Dug]
8 WS-SOAP Assertions & WS-Event Descriptions While this working group will not explicitly test the use of WS-Policy, this test scenario allows for the inclusion of the WS-SA and WS-EVD policy assertions to appear in the WSDL of the Tracker Service. In doing this the scenario is verifying that the assertions can successfully be included as part of the WSDL/Policy of a service.
19:55:50 [gpilz]
... have folks had a chance to take a look at the latest scenario doc?
19:55:58 [Dug]
19:56:18 [gpilz]
Bob: is that adequate?
19:56:32 [Zakim]
19:56:38 [gpilz]
... is there anyone who finds it inadequate
19:57:57 [Bob]
19:58:08 [gpilz]
(pause while Ram is updated on progress of meeting)
20:00:11 [gpilz]
Bob: seems like we need to change the docs before we go to PR
20:00:18 [gpilz]
Doug: will be done within the hour
20:00:37 [gpilz]
Bob: seems unfair to ask people to vote based on documents that they have never seen
20:00:51 [gpilz]
... better to let everyone review the docs as they will appear for PR
20:01:00 [gpilz]
... we've passed all of our exit criteria
20:01:13 [gpilz]
... is everyone able to make a meeting on July 12th?
20:01:21 [gpilz]
... and is that enough time?
20:01:27 [gpilz]
Ram: a few questions?
20:01:41 [gpilz]
... there hasn't been any substantive changes since the CR
20:01:43 [gpilz]
Bob: true
20:02:10 [gpilz]
... people may quibble with things like getting the machine readable artifacts to match with the text of the spec
20:02:24 [gpilz]
... but does any member believe there have been substantive changes?
20:02:27 [gpilz]
20:02:38 [gpilz]
Ram: so all changes have been editorial?
20:02:41 [gpilz]
Bob: yes
20:03:09 [gpilz]
Ram: assuming that is the case, if the candidate PR drafts are available - i think i may be able to be ready as early as the 12th
20:03:33 [gpilz]
Bob: on most of the specs there have been no changes
20:03:52 [gpilz]
Doug: i've been doing some spec hygiene
20:04:01 [gpilz]
... a couple of typos in eventing and enumeration
20:04:28 [gpilz]
Ram: when you send out the drafts, will you send out a diff-marked version relative to the PRs?
20:04:32 [gpilz]
Bob: Yves?
20:04:36 [gpilz]
Yves: yes I can do that
20:04:50 [gpilz]
Bob: we want to diff between the CR and the proposed PR drafts
20:05:02 [gpilz]
... those will be valuable when we do the progression anouncement
20:05:17 [gpilz]
... Doug, once you have the materials ready - let Yves know
20:05:21 [gpilz]
Doug: they are ready now
20:05:28 [Yves]
I'll produce them tomorrow morning
20:05:29 [gpilz]
Ram: I need roughly 3 days for internal review
20:05:38 [gpilz]
... should have them by next Tuesday
20:05:49 [gpilz]
Bob: Yves, today or tomorrow would be good
20:05:57 [gpilz]
... then we can make the decision next week
20:06:06 [gpilz]
... and get to the PR progression before August
20:06:24 [gpilz]
Yves: have the diffs ready by my morning (your night)
20:06:55 [gpilz]
TOPIC: WS-EVD MIME type status
20:07:00 [gpilz]
Bob: Yves - how is this going?
20:07:08 [gpilz]
Yves: I will slap Phillipe
20:07:21 [gpilz]
Bob: does this need to be nailed down before we do PR
20:07:23 [gpilz]
Yves: we do
20:07:44 [gpilz]
Bob: tell Phillipe that we would prefer if we didn't end up waiting on the MIME type assignment
20:07:57 [gpilz]
20:08:00 [Zakim]
20:08:03 [asoldano]
20:08:05 [Zakim]
20:08:06 [Zakim]
20:08:10 [Zakim]
20:08:12 [Zakim]
20:08:15 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate hours
20:08:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
20:08:18 [Zakim]
20:46:44 [trutt_]
trutt_ has joined #ws-ra
21:02:38 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra
21:05:00 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, Gil, in WS_WSRA()3:30PM
21:05:02 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
21:05:05 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bob, Doug_Davis, Tom_Rutt, Gil, Alessio, Yves, [Microsoft]
22:01:24 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-ra