See also: IRC log
zakim unmute me
<scribe> scribe: MSEder
Mark: no objection approving the
minutes from January 24.
... approve the minutes from January 31?
... no objection
anish: did action item for number 17
mark: give TAG enough information
to close their issue
... 90 minute joint meeting before lunch on Monday
... rough agenda, identity issues and specific issue that Mark
brought up
... discussion about the issue that Mark Baker brought up
jonathan: faster we can make this go away the better. Has said everything he has to say on this issue
<GregT> ?
jonathan: not an issue all and
cannot be solved in the way Mark Baker suggests
... growing what we think is the Web into new areas with what
we call Web services
... does not have the time to give a presentation to the
TAG
markn: should not dedicate too much time to this
markn: registration for the Sunday meeting and for Sunday dinner
Bob: there will be a bus provided
markn: bus cost will be about
$20
... March in face-to-face agenda will be coming out soon
... no host for the April face-to-face
... April face-to-face should ideally be on the West Coast
<TomRutt> what are dates of april f2f
<Marsh> We might have to consider not co-hosting WSA and WSD meetings as well...
markn: only current offer is to host the meeting in Japan
<Marsh> ... if that increases the hosting possibilities.
markn: new drafts have been circulated
anish: what did we decide with respect to EPR comparison
markn: still not resolved
<tibco-dmh> +1
markn: what should we put in the status section of these documents
glen: work is ongoing this represents the current state of thinking, bla bla bla
markn: let the editors make the
status section appropriate?
... no objection to publishing
... all three voted to be published as working drafts
markn: new default default issue
jonathan: will take ownership of
this item
... prepare concrete proposal
<scribe> ACTION: develop discussion and make a proposal for Jonathan
<anish> ACTION: develop discussion and make a proposal for Jonathan
markn: no additional discussion
on issue 4 security model
... people seem happy and we should say we have delivered a
security modeling close issue out
paco: advisable to architect a way to sign the EPR's
markn: wants to avoid a
comprehensive proposal right before the face-to-face
... going to close Gudges action item
<scribe> ACTION: Marc Hadley identify parts of the spect the place requirements are security model
markn: issue 17
anish: Anish and Jonathan have made proposals on this issue
<anish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0046.html
anish: two proposals are complementary
<anish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/att-0010/00-part
anish: Jonathan talks about cross-referencing the two things in the two specs and Anish talks by using the best practice
jonathan: two proposals are if not complementary they are orthogonal
anish: operation name mapping
best practice says
... if you have an action item that is distinct in a particular
interface
... use WSDL extensibility
markn: is this only really valid at the interface level?
anish: could put this in other
places as well
... this goes in our WSDL binding
jonathan: sense this is now a
best practice what information does this give you?
... since this is not a requirement equals true can use the
WSDL document
umit: not really sure what this proposal helps me do if I do not have these action values defined
anish: WSDL that you have will either have WSA action attribute if using addressing. You know what the action attribute is if you have addressing
jonathan: if not required this doesn't really help me just give me an opportunity to make errors
paco: if this problem has to be
solved it will come from WSDL
... not our job to do what the WSDL working group should do
glen: WSDL says best
practice
... best practice as if he do something that is hard to figure
out that it is recommended you put an indicator in there to
figure out what you're doing
anish: WSDL 2.0 had a
requirement.
... this is a syntactic shortcut.
jonathan: two values for having
the markup
... author made a mistake argument. Not very impressed with
this one
markn: is this a well understood issue?
anish: if we have a WSDL 2.0
binding this should be done
... the best practice in WSDL 2.0 is to put in some
marker
... would like to see and attribute in their.
jonathan: proposes an editorial
solution
... wants cross-link between the two documents
markn: leave issue 17 open and direct the editors to include this text as an editorial text to the drafts.
<mnot> http://www.w3.org/mid/7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A50670C5A8@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
<scribe> ACTION: Marc to incorporate the text in the above proposal
<Arun> Need to leave early so going offline
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan coordinate regarding the WSDL half of his proposed text
<mnot> ACTION 3 = Marc to incorporate < http://www.w3.org/mid/7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A50670C5A8@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> into editors' drafts
<mnot> ACTION 4 = Jonathan to coordination getting WSDL's half of < http://www.w3.org/mid/7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A50670C5A8@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> into WSDL WG
markn: issue 18
<anish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0029.html
anish: only one place in the core
were said properties are abstract
... not really sure if there is an issue
glen: using the reference properties to do some kind of extensibility thing
anish: another use case is a relay attribute
markn: options to leave it as it is, come up with some sort of abstraction with another attribute
ansih: there is no place were mislead people. neutral if we should add text
glen: no suggested text for 2.1, put it out and see if people get confused or not
markn: this seems to be a minor
issue as some of the other points regarding endpoint should be
captured as issue 20
... what is the resolution of this issue?
glen: rather say nothing at all then do something weird
<mnot> proposed resolution of i018: closed with no action; WG notes that multiple protocols can be accommodated by multiple attributes on RefPs, etc.
glen: no objections to closing with the above resolution
markn: issue 20
anish: talk about endpoints in WS
addressing and have a definition of what endpoints mean
... WSDL 2.0 also has a definition of endpoint
... when we talk about endpoints and these two different specs
they are quite different things
... proposal is to add a wording that says they're two
different things
jonathan: Have three things, Web
services endpoints, WSDL endpoint components, and we have
endpoint references
... three different things and no overlap
ansih: the problem is different
things but both talk about endpoints
... very different things. One should not confuse the two
jonathan: make the point that
they are optimized for two different uses
... using the term endpoint too much
... should change the terminology in WSDL
glen: is an endpoint reference also an input description?
jonathan: agree the information
describes the same behavior of the endpoint
... we optimize them for little bit different usage
paco: the EPR is runtime.
... endpoint component is more static
... one is a runtime artifact the other is a development
artifact. not a black-and-white distinction
anish: discussion has gone on a
tangent
... raise the issue that the terminology was confusing
... happy to give editors a license to correct this text
jonathan: want to see it before he signs it
anish: not much support to change for a name and would would rather see clarifying text
jonathan: make sure that WSDL talks about endpoint components
<scribe> ACTION: Anish will propose a text to clarify this issue
<anish> ACTION: Anish will propose a text to clarify this issue by 2/10
<anish> ACTION 5=
markn: issue 22
more a WSDL issue then addressing issue
scribe: anything in issue 22 that stops us from having last call on the SOAP binding
paco: do not know how we express
this in WSDL
... and do not know how to bind SOAP
marc: is core ready
paco: For WSDL there's still work
to do
... SOAP may be less of an issue
... allow core to finish
markn: needs a definite issues regarding soap and WSDL
greg: still need to understand better how we use these on the wire
paco: arbitrary how we're splitting the job of the group
anish: taking SOAP to last call at the same time as core
markn: do we need to talk about a particular transport binding in our document
ansih: there is not a soap 1.2 binding as a standard that can be used
markn: does not see how that
stops us
... will have a chance in CR to see the specs integrated
greg: can we go to CR and still make changes
markn: if we need to make substantial technical changes we have to drop it back to last call
<pauld> observes this spec is based upon a member submission with existing implementations
markn: cannot exit CR if we do
not show interoperability
... agree the use cases
paco: a big issue is on the table that we need to address
greg: we are working the issue through the task force
jonathan: not clear the solution space for the issue is going to touch the addressing core specification
markn: this issue will not affect the text of the core specification
paco: yes we agree that
marc: can we push the core ahead on its own and get it out of CR
markn: moved to the issues raised an issue 22 to the WSDL working group and they are a different schedule from us
<marc> not sure how we can exit CR with core alone, how do you test interop on an abstract thing
paco: dates are important but we need to make sure we do the work
markn: one of the reasons for
last call is to have other working groups review the spec
... this will help to push other people to get their work
done
ying-leng: what is the process for considering a something is major or not
philippe: no formal process
... but if it can change the opinions of reviewers of the
document it can be considered important enough
markn: needed more discussion
about the process for last call
... people mentioned things that need to be added to the soap
binding draft
no
<anish> ACTION: glen to write up specific text to allign WS-Address to SOAP extensibility model
markn: issue 42
jonathan: put together a miniumal
proposal for extensibility
... do we need something like a WSA must understand
... put in a boilerplates
... must ignore rule as opposed to a must understand
... extensions can introduce new properties
paco: explain point 3
jonathan: meant message properties