<scribe> Scribe: Prasad
Date: 22 Aug 2005
Mnot reviews the Agenda.
Additional agenda items:
1. the issue Jonathan raised today, "Fault: interaction with delimiter".
2. Mnot adds, discussion of WSDL document drafts after agenda item 5
- 2005-07-25: <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/07/25-ws-addr-minutes.html>
July 25 minutes approved
2005-07-18: Jonathan Marsh to coordinate with Description to make
sure notational conventions are in sync.
Mnot: Jonthan raised with WSDL WG but they did not adopt it as it.
Jonathan: WSDL has different clases of extensions. So more discussion is
needed. So notational convetions are not aligned but
it is recorded a last call issue with WSDL. We can close this AI as I
raised the issue.
AI recorded as CLOSED.
2005-07-25: Paul Downey to generate list of features, their
requirement level and applicability for discussion.
Mnot: We have two F2F meeting End of Sept in Bay Area hosted by TIBCO.
Early Nov in Tokyo hosted by Hitach. We don't have arrangements page yet
but will have soon.
Registration open for both.
Longterm Likely to have a f2f In Jan 06. Looking for a host in US. If
interested get in touch with MarkN.
Another in late Feb or early March '06 during Tech Plenary.
Telcon this and next week but off for one week due to labor day holiday.
Mnot: We are required by the W3C process to publish a heart-beat
document every 3 months.
WSDL WD we have not published an update in a while, been more than 3
Do we need to publish the draft anyway saying we don't have any changes
since the last draft?
Hugo: We have never done that before. We need to publish something every
Mnot: My understanding is that a Working Draft once published it needs
to be heart-beated.
Jonathan: When do we expect to get through the remaining issues on the
Mnot: I guess my question is can we publish an update soon enough?
Anish: Looking at the open issues, other than issue 59, all have pending
proposals. We should be able to resolve quickly.
Glen: Even for 59 there are proposal but no consensus yet.
Jonthan: I have another issue I am contemplating to file but it is
mainly editorial. I think we are pretty close.
We also have editorial copies publicly available. Republishing same
again seems silly.
TomR: regarding 59, could some explain if one of the possibilities not
to do anything?
Mnot: We should discuss that when we discuss issue 59.
Hugo: This rule is to ensure that the WG is doing some work in the
publicly visible area.
I don't see a problem in not re-publishing the same WSDL document again
esp. when we have made any changes.
Mnot: Ok. It seems we don't need to do a heart-beat at this point.
Mnot: Opened a long time ago when we were still in WD.
This is not a WD issue anymore. Can we close it or move
it to CR issues list. Is that ok with people.
Glen: As long as we don't drop anything on the floor.
Mnot: We know we need to do it anyway for CR.
Mont: Any objections to closing?
Recorded that issue i041 is Dropped.
Mont: Paul does not have connectivity so, it might be couple of weeks
before we will be able to start
discussing it. Perhaps we should assign the action to someone else?
Mnot: Can someone take on the action to come up with a list of features
in the spec
that are in CR. What kind of requirements they entail. The
applicability of how they might be tested in different scenarios.
Tested on client or server side etc.
Jonathan: Paul was going to come up with a test assertion doc. I am
interested in updating the scenarios we submitted and updating them to the
CR draft. I think that is different.
Mnot: We just need a list of testable features and different ways they
can be tested.
Jonthan: In Xquery group they have separate co-char for driving the
testing activity of the WG.
Mnot: We don't have an issue with time. We have too little discussion.
Are people interested in a task force?
TomR: Our colleagues might be interested. We may want to ask for
contributions one more round.
Mnot: We made the contributions request a while back
Jonathan: We we have a task-force would people be interested?
Arun: I can prepare / contribute a list
MNot: Can you do by next week?
ACTION to Arun to produce a list of testable features.
TomR: Is this different from CR testing?
Mnot: This is CR testing
Mnot: This issue has subparts we closed parts relevant to Core but there
is one part that is applicable to WSDL binding
Anish: There were 2 subparts. 1st related to Core. 2nd related to WSDL.
The 2nd part is about operation name mapping of WSDL 2.0.
It was ONM requirement. It is no longer a requirement but made a best
practice and move to WSDL 2.0 Primer.
If action property is that disambiguates messages we need way to state
that in WSDL.
There are five proposals. 1st by me is no longer relevant.
Jonathan: Since the last proposal was sent, things in WSDL changed. We
moved this from core as best practice to Primer.
The wording has gotten softer. It talks about how difficult to make all
your messages or even GED's unique.
Why isn't the information that all actions in the WSDL are unique via
inspection of the document? If you know
WS-A you can tell what the actions are either by defaulting or by
explicit description in the WSDL. Why do we need
to assert that all the Actions are unique?
Glen: This is similar to RPC-Style hint. I can look into to schema of
the operation and WSDL and figure out that it matches RPC-Style but,
having the hint there gives me head start. Doing the assertion at the
WSDL for Action gives me the flexibility to use them as the disambiguators.
Anish: We are getting into proposal discussion now.
1st option is do-nothing. You can determine the action is unique by
looking at the WSDL
The best practice says if we have multiple endpoints you should indicate
that via WSDL feature extension. But
we don't do that.
2nd option is the proposal I sent before we resolved issue 21.
It is now obsolete based on the way we resolved issue 21 and what is
proposed in the options 3 and 4.
option 3 is defining an @ called wasw:distictAction and allowing it to
be used on wsaw:usingAddressing.
Mnot: Option 3? You mean Attribute or Element?
Anish: I switched 2 and 3
Mnot: So you prefer @?
Anish: Yes. Both do the same but I prefer @ as an aesthetic issue
Those are the options + Jonatha's option, where it is suggested to add
some text to WSDL and WS-A
Jonthan: explains his proposal what is now relevant given the changes to
Mnot: What do people think?
Paco: Agree with Jonthan. Using Action to disambiguate messages is
mostly implementation issue.
We should close with no action.
Anish: This is an optional marker. You are not forced to use it.
Mnot: Per the CR criteria we need to interoperable impl. for optional
features. We need to ensure we will have two such implementations.
Glen: Part of it is negative testing.
Mnot: Who is interested in implementing this.
Glen: I am
Mnot: Ok we have two.
Jonathan: Anish's preferred attribute approach does not give an option to
say this is required. wsdl:required or feature:required
Anish: When you use that attribute, you are asserting something
independent of WS-Addr. If you don't understand usingAddr
then it does not matter. If you do understand the usingAddr marker you
understand this marker also. If the value of this @ is true
then actions in WSDL have to unique or the WSDL is incorrect.
Jonathan: So if the marker is set to true, my WSDL / WS-Addr processor
must verify that all actions are unique and fault if not?
Anish: If that WSDL processor faults or not, is not an issue. We
discussed it earlier.
Jonathan: So, if the marker is there but all Actions are not distinct it
is not clear if the processor should fault?
Or is it still a discussion point. Trying to see if this is really
optional or not.
Aish: It is a best practice. We need to have discussion what sort of
failure we want to see.
Jonathan: We need to take that discussion to the list.
... There should be required marker on it, so that your processor
Glen: As a client no issue. As a server........ This is really to help
Jonathan: Do you agree Anish that this is really redundant info?
Glen: It is true, you can calculate it heuristically
Anish: we don't reject WSDLs without this marker automatically
... It is useful in the -ve case, when the WSDL designer intended
them to be unique.
Jonathan: We need to worry about markers in imported WSDLs etc.
Straw-poll who prefers the marker approach?:
Who cannot live with the marker?:
Jonathan: In certain scenarios
Who cannot live w/o the marker?: None
Mnot: giving the straw-poll, my inclination is not do the marker
We have two options: (1) we close the issue with no action
(2) Add some text
Anish: I prefer we clarify something in the spec
Mnot: Issue 17 to close with close with proposal two with Editors to
modify the text proposed by Jonathan
Issue closed as above.
Anish: describes the issue
Mnot: Perhaps we should let people to familiarize the issue and revisit
issue discussion deferred to next week:
Anish: Issue how do you determine the destination property from WSDL?
We were heading towards one of the proposals #4 or #5
Jonthan: What is the difference between these and #6 from MarkH?
Jonathan: Don't need to reconcile an EPR in WSDL and the URI pointing to
the same thing?
Anish: Doesn't that put us in EPR equivalence?
MarcH: This is simply addressing how you derive the address of
destination from the WSDL to stick in the EPR
Aish: What happens when the EPR points to the WSDL......
Mnot: It seems we are leaning towards proposal 6.
... Anyone prefer anything other than proposal 6?
Mnot: we will take it up next week.
Mnot: Does it make sense to resolve 56 before 57?
Anish: It makes sense
Jonathan: Reference params allow you insert headers. Other things in
WSDL allow you to insert headers.
Mnot: Reference parameters are not necessarily headers give our charter
needs us to be SOAP independent.
Jonathan: How do you reconcile same thing defined in WSDL headers and
Reference params in EPRs?
MarcH: I don't see value for refParameters in EPRs in WSDLs.
Mnot: We will take it up after issue 56 is resolved
Mnot: This was handed to a task-force. They were almost done. What is
the current status.
Glen: I need to drop off now. Can we do it next week?
Mnot: This is the only real issue open against WSDL
... We will take up this issue also next week.
Jonathan: Describes the issue. Interaction of ":" delimiter with ":" in
Mnot: Did we visit this before?
MarcH: Prefer option 1, replace "Fault:" with "[delimiter]Fault[delimiter]"
Mnot: I will put it on issues list. We can discuss next week.
MarcH: Arun raised an issue on UsingAddressing vs Action that had not
Arun: Sent Aug 14th, with 5 proposals.
Mnot: Should we look at it now?
Jonathan: Like to review
Mnot: Ok. I will open the issue and put it on the agenda for next week.