19:19:41 RRSAgent has joined #ws-arch 19:19:52 Zakim has joined #ws-arch 19:20:23 cgi-irc has joined #ws-arch 19:22:51 bye 19:23:05 quit 19:23:33 agenda+ Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items (15.30 + 5) 19:23:33 agenda+ Agenda review, and AOB (15.35 + 5) 19:23:33 agenda+ No minutes to approve (15.40 + 0) 19:23:49 agenda+ Review action items [none] (15.40 + 0) 19:23:49 agenda+ Status (15.40 + 10) 19:23:49 agenda+ Review of progress made at F2F (15.50 + 10) 19:23:49 agenda+ Review RTF proposals for Requirements doc changes related to Team goal (16.00 + 15) 19:23:49 agenda+ Review RTF D-AC018 [5] (16.15 + 15) 19:23:51 agenda+ Proposal for D-AC005.5 - 8 (16.30 + 5) 19:23:53 agenda+ Next steps and task assignments (16.35 + 20) 19:23:53 agenda+ Wrap-up (16.55 + 5) 19:24:10 joe has joined #WS-ARCH 19:24:20 hpsteiert has joined #ws-arch 19:24:54 chris: I'd like to schedule some time to discuss my various goals that I posted. 19:25:26 okay, we'll see if there's time, otherwise next week I'll add it to the agenda 19:25:32 k? 19:25:55 that's ok 19:27:04 chris, when will the f2f minutes be available? I a bit lost in some email threads without them. 19:28:06 AlanD has joined #ws-arch 19:28:12 hugo and I were cleaning them up this morning. they should be posted soon. 19:28:48 TimJones has joined #ws-arch 19:30:43 zakim, this is arch 19:30:44 ok, chrisf 19:30:52 +Chris_Ferris 19:31:01 tomCarrol has joined #ws-arch 19:31:05 +Hugo 19:31:10 igors has joined #ws-arch 19:31:24 +??P17 19:31:29 + +1.919.488.aacc 19:31:35 +DavidB 19:31:41 +??P20 19:32:08 -??P20 19:32:13 +MikeM 19:32:35 Daniel has joined #ws-arch 19:32:38 MikeM has joined #ws-arch 19:32:53 +??P20 19:32:56 +??P24 19:32:57 +Prasad_Yendluri 19:33:44 +??P25 19:33:45 +PaulD 19:34:44 + +1.415.229.aadd 19:35:03 MartinC has joined #ws-arch 19:35:09 +??P1 19:35:30 +DOrchard 19:35:43 + +1.412.268.aaee 19:35:44 +??P3 19:35:58 JimD has joined #ws-arch 19:36:11 Jim Davenport here from MITRE 19:36:22 I cannot seem to dial in right now 19:37:28 +??P27 19:38:46 +??P28 19:39:07 +??P29 19:39:13 +??P30 19:39:53 Kreger has joined #ws-arch 19:40:39 AllenBr has joined #ws-arch 19:40:52 agenda? 19:41:32 Zakim, what is the agenda? 19:41:33 I see 11 items remaining on the agenda: 19:41:34 1. Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items (15.30 + 5) [from chrisf] 19:41:35 2. Agenda review, and AOB (15.35 + 5) [from chrisf] 19:41:37 3. No minutes to approve (15.40 + 0) [from chrisf] 19:41:39 4. Review action items [none] (15.40 + 0) [from chrisf] 19:41:42 5. Status (15.40 + 10) [from chrisf] 19:41:43 6. Review of progress made at F2F (15.50 + 10) [from chrisf] 19:41:44 7. Review RTF proposals for Requirements doc changes related to Team goal (16.00 + 15) [from chrisf] 19:41:46 8. Review RTF D-AC018 [5] (16.15 + 15) [from chrisf] 19:41:48 9. Proposal for D-AC005.5 - 8 (16.30 + 5) [from chrisf] 19:41:49 10. Next steps and task assignments (16.35 + 20) [from chrisf] 19:41:49 11. Wrap-up (16.55 + 5) [from chrisf] 19:42:00 + +1.650.599.aaff - is perhaps ScottV? 19:42:42 well thanks Dave! I need more gold stars! 19:43:14 dave... how do you make it put the msg out with an * like that? 19:43:19 jeffm has joined #WS-Arch 19:44:57 ----- 19:45:01 Daniel = scribe 19:45:04 1. Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items (15.30 + 5) 19:45:14 ----- 19:45:18 Chris goes over agenda 19:45:33 item 3 minutes 19:45:54 F2F minutes to review: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/06/f2f-minutes 19:45:57 Hugo working on minutes, will post URL on IRC, will be approved next week in call 19:46:08 Aims & Objectives URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jun/0093.html 19:46:08 item 4 - no outstanding AIs 19:46:52 item 5 status: editors call report: 19:47:19 few attendees, working on usage scenarios document 19:47:32 terminology: use thingies suggested 19:47:56 +MarkB 19:47:56 Chris asks Hugo about posting of use cases 19:48:17 Hugo: modified travel use case, integrated with Roger's EDS use case 19:48:30 will post to list, link from homepage 19:48:35 David O will review 19:48:55 ACTION: Hugo to publish his updated version of the use thingy doc 19:49:40 RTF report: team lead reports, working on 7, 18, 19 19:49:49 will send reworked #7 to list for review 19:49:59 nest week will work on #18, 19 19:50:05 nest - next 19:50:23 CHris: will cover later in agenda also 19:50:45 agenda item 7 19:51:09 actually, item #6, review of f2f results 19:51:31 Chris: meeting was partially successful, lot of progress, could be more 19:51:42 many proposals were resolved 19:51:57 CHris has made the changes to the reqs doc, will post today 19:52:15 David O presented basic Arch Document, much discussion at f2f 19:52:20 more work needed 19:53:04 Chris will propose additional task forces to work on parts of this 19:53:28 esp. architectural aspects of existing specs need to be harvested 19:53:38 -??P24 19:54:00 binding, MEP, cross-functional requirements added to list 19:54:11 Katia: cross reference must be consistent 19:54:22 CHris: glossary presentation by Allen Brown 19:54:32 discussion of glossary organization 19:54:43 Allen will continue to work on this 19:55:09 Chris: Use cases were also reviewed, both travel and EDI use thingies were reviewed 19:55:22 security aspects were discussed in detail 19:55:42 confidentiality, data integrity, authentication 19:56:07 this discussion ended when we reached the limits of the current architectural understanding 19:56:48 decision was made to split efforts to flesh parts out, parallel efforts to maximize resources and speed process 19:57:19 agenda item 7: review of RTF proposal addressing DAG002 19:57:39 should some of these be moved to team goals? 19:57:56 refactoring options discussion 19:58:08 CHris: hopefully everyone has looked at this 19:58:20 Suresh leads conversation 19:58:37 the first proposal is to move DAG007 over to team goals 19:58:47 let's talk about this first, then the rest 19:59:09 DAG007 says the ref architecture must be reliable and stable over time 19:59:27 Daniel sez: where do you want to move it? 20:00:04 Chris: asks group how to proceed with this proposal: serially or as a whole? 20:00:19 Suresh starts with 7.1 - relaible 20:00:25 7.2 stable over time 20:00:53 7.1.1 precise definition of architecture, no opaque jargon 20:01:18 Frank M. asks if we use plain English or UML or what? 20:01:34 Suresh sez the doc doesn't say, intentionally ambigous 20:02:06 Frank M: do we think it should be in English? 20:02:17 Suresh: thinks it should be ambigous 20:02:27 Daniel agrees, even while typing 20:02:54 Chris notes we shoud try not obfuscate the text too much 20:03:08 make sure we define terms as much as possible 20:03:22 7.2 - stability and evolution 20:03:33 DaveO has joined #ws-arch 20:03:34 7.2.1 - stable conceptual model 20:03:56 7.2.2 WSA defined by well-defined policy 20:04:17 7.2.3 new versions of WSA should be backwards compatible 20:04:30 7.2.4 changes are well-defined 20:05:09 Daniel: I was worried about 7.2.3. I've worked on a lot of software projects that required it, and I've worried about it. 20:05:18 Zulah: We had this discussion and the "should" came up. 20:05:29 unarbitrarily??? 20:05:36 LOL that is not a word 20:05:45 Dave thanks, I am back as scribe 20:05:48 ok 20:05:53 much gracias 20:06:15 Suresh, Katia argue over compatibility 20:06:23 zakim, who's here? 20:06:26 On the phone I see Mark_A_Jones, GlenD, ??P7, +1.408.732.aaaa, Tim_Jones, ??P10, ??P9, +1.972.459.aabb, Joseph_Hui, Igor_Sedukhin, Chris_Ferris, Hugo, ??P17, +1.919.488.aacc, 20:06:26 ... DavidB, MikeM, ??P20, Prasad_Yendluri, ??P25, PaulD, +1.415.229.aadd, ??P1, DOrchard, +1.412.268.aaee, ??P3, Henrik?, ??P28, ??P29, ??P30, ScottV?, MarkB 20:06:27 On IRC I see DaveO, jeffm, AllenBr, Kreger, JimD, MartinC, MikeM, Daniel, igors, TC, TimJones, joe, Zakim, RRSAgent, chrisf, frankmcca, MarkB, Mark_J, Henrik, dbooth, hugo 20:06:28 Daniel will accept 7.2.3 so long as it says "should" 20:06:34 +??P43 20:06:35 zakim, mute me 20:06:37 sorry, DaveO, I do not see a party named 'DaveO' 20:06:52 zakim, mute dorchard 20:06:53 DOrchard should now be muted 20:07:33 I can buy that 20:07:38 paul Denning sez: 7.2.3.1 is superflous 20:07:57 SUresh: that one applies specifically to changes, not the same as 7.2.1 20:08:07 -ScottV? 20:08:32 Suresh: does the group agree? 20:08:40 No complaints from the ppl 20:09:06 Mike M. sez: 7.2.1 may be superflous also 20:09:10 resolved: remove: , and the 20:09:11 changed Web Service Architecture is reliable 20:09:14 Suresh: I adont agree 20:09:25 from d-ac007.2.3.1 20:09:41 Katia: makes point about 7.2.3.1 20:09:46 Chris clarifies 20:10:00 they could be merged but its worth preserving the distinction 20:10:07 CHris: other comments? 20:10:33 Joe Hui: at a higher level, "evolvable over time"? 20:10:49 Joe: should we add this? 20:11:10 Suresh: stable changes lead to evolution, not really needed 20:11:19 q+ 20:11:40 Suresh says it was removed because it is mentioned elsewhere 20:11:57 Joe argues that his point is different 20:12:05 wants to add evolvable to 7.2.2 20:12:18 CHris: let's get closure w/o adding things 20:12:30 Please send your change requests to the list 20:12:49 Can we be confortable with the existing text? what do we think? 20:12:56 Frank M asks about 7.2.2 20:13:09 Frank: does it refere to the arch or the documents or the components or what? 20:13:23 SUresh: all of the above 20:13:44 Suresh: do we agree? 20:13:55 Dbooth suggests we should clarify the text 20:14:23 Frank supports idea, but it needs further elaboration, describes as "minefield" 20:14:26 Joe'd like to see the notion of an "evolutionary roadmap" reflected in 7.2.2. 20:14:31 -GlenD 20:14:47 Frank: versioning is a difficult task fraught with error and controversy 20:15:11 Chris clrifies the versioning 20:15:29 Frank: how does versioning work? incrementing? 20:15:50 +??P6 20:15:53 Frank we need a versioning policy 20:16:23 Chris: agrees we need to spend more time on this 20:16:41 -Prasad_Yendluri 20:17:16 Daniel: What i intended was the arch must be reliable, stable, but there is a path for it to grow. I did not mean easily understood. 20:17:38 Katya: But now we're talking about it pertaining to the document, so "reliable" is a confusing term. 20:17:39 Daniel talks about intent of goal 7, meaning of relaible is "predictable behaviour 20:17:48 Thx Dave! 20:18:00 zakim, unmute dorchard 20:18:01 DOrchard should no longer be muted 20:18:01 Suresh: agrees with reliable term 20:18:07 q+ 20:18:36 Katia: confusing reliable with well-defined 20:18:40 q- 20:19:08 Katia sez well-defined is different and should be included, thinks text is confusing 20:19:21 ack daveo 20:19:29 David O suggests that this go to the mailing list 20:19:55 Chris: hmmm maybe we can get closure on at least some things, ie the intent rather than text 20:20:01 Chris: objections? 20:20:05 no objections 20:20:30 editors take action item to fix DAG007 as per group agreement 20:20:45 now on DAC008.6 20:20:55 Ooops 20:20:56 ACTION: Editors to include new version of D-AC007 with modifications agreed on the call 20:21:27 Daniel: 007 was originally intended to refer to the arch, not the team. 20:21:45 Katia: doesn't agree 20:22:01 on to 8.6 - use of components must be consistent w/in architecture 20:22:18 Katia: suggests it might be moved 20:22:51 Daniel notes that this applies to both the arch and doc, and that this was intentional on the part of the editors 20:22:57 Katia suggests rewording: 20:23:05 The definition and use of the components is consistent 20:23:05 within the Web Service Architecture 20:23:13 and the architecture document itself 20:23:26 CHris: hears no objection, so moved 20:23:31 moving on 12.7 20:23:43 ACTION: Editors to include new version of D-AC008.6 20:23:50 12.7 sez architecture must be validated against use thingies 20:24:08 does the group agree? 20:24:22 ACTION: Editors to include new version of D-AC012.7 20:24:23 Chris: this si approved 20:24:44 ag 5.3 - unique components 20:25:05 Chris goes over items 5.x, asks for comments 20:25:13 Chris: objections? 20:25:20 ACTION: Editors to include new version of D-AC005.3 20:25:27 CHris hears no objections, editors will do it 20:25:51 ACTION: Editors to mark D-AC005.3 as approved AC005.3 20:25:56 CHris: skipping agenda item 8, RTF needs more time to cogitate on this one 20:26:25 CHris: tortures group with high pitched noise as he changes telephones 20:26:42 Chris: on to agenda item 9 20:27:09 rrevision for DAC 5.5-8 20:27:30 Frank M: what about mgmt? this is a black hole...is mgmt out of scope? 20:27:37 Chris: discuss on the list 20:27:51 Frank have we discussed this before? 20:27:56 CHris: not on the call 20:28:27 CHris ( on item 9) 5.5-8 revision suggested by Srinivas, text is recast 20:28:43 Chris reads proposed text 20:29:08 Mark B. sez: there was something on the list about this 20:29:20 mark: actually that was 5.6 sorry 20:29:31 Chris: do we adopt the revisions? 20:29:43 zakim, mute dorchard 20:29:45 CHris: no objections, editors are tasked with fixing it 20:29:46 DOrchard should now be muted 20:29:59 Chris: on to agenda item #10 20:30:00 ACTION: Editors to change and mark as accepted: D-AC005.[56] 20:30:03 sigh.. 20:30:09 Chris recaps what happened at the f2f on this issue 20:30:10 zakim, unmute dorchard 20:30:11 DOrchard should no longer be muted 20:30:40 CHris: I had hoped to draft what might constitute scope of security WG proposal 20:31:05 Chris: we worked on this but did not achieve closure, based on Joe Hui's "onion" proposal 20:31:09 (see f2f notes) 20:31:42 Chris: suggestion that we might focus on end to end security also, possibly at the message level 20:31:59 CHris: requires digital signing of SOAP msgs, credentialing 20:32:25 Chris: when we got to the point of setting pen to paper, we broke out into broader discussion 20:32:50 Chris: of need for more clear arch def before security WG can be proposed 20:33:13 CHris: futher discussion was about arch model for WS...suggestion was that we would 20:33:30 Chris: harvest assumptions and ideas from existing WS specs 20:33:48 and then set up a subteam to do the harvesting 20:34:11 members should be familiar with WSDL and/or SOAP 20:34:23 David O: is that an or or or both 20:34:27 Chris: and/or 20:34:34 CHris: need a small group 20:35:03 Chris: also a 2nd subgoup working on security use thingies 20:35:22 Chris: based on dissecting Hugo's travel use thingy 20:35:28 q+ 20:35:53 Chris: talks about short time frame 3-4 weeks 20:36:31 CHris: calls for volunteers, 3-4 ppl per group to progress in short time 20:37:05 Mark Baker: under the impression that harvesting would look at running code as source for arch principles 20:37:19 Mark B: better approach that harvesting other specs 20:37:27 Mark: what do you think? 20:37:46 CHris: you mean the web? 20:38:02 Mark: better source than specs, which are very general 20:38:08 Katia: what is the point? 20:38:23 Katia: harvest from *what* running code? 20:38:43 David O: Mark may be suggesting looking at a wide range of code 20:38:59 Mark: experience shows that running code is best soruce 20:39:07 q? 20:39:17 Paul D: are you thinking about deployment descriptors etc? 20:39:43 Mark: not sure about that...more about interactions between existing components as model for architecture 20:40:19 David O: one of the reasons for harvesting was from Glen D., instead of proposing conceptual model, 20:40:41 we should start from the group up with components exchanging infosets 20:41:03 and then talk about how this might be extended with more features, etc. 20:41:21 WSDL proviedes an abstract model of these intractions might take place 20:41:29 David O likes this idea 20:41:48 iteratively adding more refinements 20:42:17 opposes Daniel's top-down suggestion at previous f2f 20:42:40 Katia: doesn't object to Dave's proposal, but notes that this leads to feature creep in the description 20:42:59 David O: WSDL supports 4 types of msgs...is that what you mean? 20:43:12 Katia: there are other things too 20:43:46 David interrupts: the point is that the reality of these specs have lots of architecture in them 20:44:13 David: we should gather all of that up and then work on it 20:44:32 Chris: this is useful for consistency 20:44:43 David: what? we need consistency? Ha! 20:44:54 Chris: that would be nice... 20:45:11 CHris: one can think of features that should be defined unambigously and consistently 20:45:30 CHris: and we need to take these things into accoutn when we work on the arch 20:46:45 Chris: we can consider alternate sources of desription, but we have to deal with what is already done 20:46:52 regardless of the impact 20:47:04 mark doesn't agree 20:47:19 Daniel doesn't agree with Dave, agrees with Mark 20:47:40 David O: makes distinction about harvesting, helps to identify gaps 20:48:13 mark: notes basic assumption that we all know about SOAP and WSDL 20:48:32 David O: ppl were unconfy with features of SOAP and WSDL 20:48:54 Regrets - I need to drop off, see y'all next week 20:48:58 David O: points out that most of the arch is already done, we just need to harvest 20:49:13 Suresh: likes David's approach 20:49:28 has one question: is the part from the other specs normative? 20:49:33 Chris: normative? 20:49:52 Daniel: this means we are stuck with SOAP and WSDL 20:50:17 Scribe: correction: David O said "normative" not CHris F. 20:50:31 Katia: aska about meaning of normative 20:51:01 David O: SOAP must be extended to be used, so extensibility is key 20:51:19 Suresh: which version of SOAP 1.1? 20:51:25 Chris: SOAP 1.2 20:52:03 -??P28 20:52:12 Chris: normative defn is diff in this group than normal W3C 20:52:31 David O: can you pass on the reference to SOAP attachments? 20:52:46 Suresh: question about infosets 20:52:57 Chris: we can discuss that later 20:53:07 -??P6 20:53:10 Chris: wrapping up, asks for volunteers for these two subgroups 20:53:20 Chris: note short timelines 20:53:42 Chris: work will start asap 20:54:08 CHris: sez that previous volunteers fro the f3f should volunteer again 20:54:25 Joe Hui: wonders if CHris would state scope of volunteer work 20:54:30 -??P1 20:54:39 -??P30 20:54:42 Chris: after the useage thingies work is done yes 20:54:48 Joe: what is the overall scope? 20:55:00 CHris: will send in an email 20:55:15 -??P7 20:55:27 i have to leave too. later all. 20:55:28 bye for now, I have another meeting 20:55:32 -MarkB 20:55:39 FrankMcC: I sent out some additional goals/requirements. 20:55:55 ... I'd like to find a way to get the process in place to address them. 20:56:22 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jun/0093.html 20:56:22 [15:45] item 4 - no outstanding AIs 20:57:15 ... The background for this is that they come from our experience in doing agents. 20:57:27 ... An agent is like a use case for people doing Web Services. 20:57:42 ... And from doing Agent interop stds also. 20:58:01 Katya: And also they represent how WEb Services may evolve in the future. 20:58:14 ... Rather than just one-shot "get the stock quote" examples. 20:58:26 ... In reality you have multi-party interactions and more complicated services. 20:58:51 FrankMcC: If WS are going to be deployed by businesses, they need to address std business needs. 20:59:06 ... These goals are enable techynologies to meet those needs. 20:59:11 Katya: Yes. 20:59:29 FrankMcC: I'd like to put a process into place for addressing these. 21:00:16 Chris: That is part of our process. 21:00:29 i must leave. 21:00:35 -MikeM 21:01:15 Chris: Just keep championing them on the list and try to bring them toward consensus or capture the sense of what people think. 21:01:38 Chris: No teleconference call on July 4th. 21:02:34 Chris: Re: Usage Scenarios, DaveH is not on the call, and my phone battery is dying, so could someone volunteer to chair the call? 21:02:50 - +1.408.732.aaaa 21:03:05 -??P9 21:03:08 MarkH: I'll hang out for the call. 21:03:23 (A few others also said they would) 21:03:27 -Mark_A_Jones 21:03:29 zakim, please propose a chair 21:03:30 I don't understand 'please propose a chair', dbooth. Try /msg Zakim help 21:03:40 -??P20 21:03:52 Hao: I'll chair. 21:03:57 -Joseph_Hui 21:03:57 -Tim_Jones 21:03:58 -??P10 21:03:58 TC has left #ws-arch 21:04:00 -??P17 21:04:02 -Hugo 21:04:16 [Meeting adjourned] 21:04:17 -??P29 21:04:27 -Henrik? 21:04:28 - +1.919.488.aacc 21:04:49 TimJones has left #ws-arch 21:05:28 - +1.972.459.aabb 21:05:36 -DavidB 21:05:46 rrsagent, where am i? 21:05:46