See also: IRC log
<TomRutt> me testing
testing too
control-alt-delete?
<plh> hum
<scribe> chair: any objections?
RESOLUTION: MINUTES APPROVED
<mnot> http://www.w3.org/mid/AC23771B-12D3-4D62-B139-5F3529152C1C@Sun.COM
<mnot> http://www.w3.org/mid/1FD5DF5E-F004-4CC8-9F89-C4C777352B79@bea.com
<scribe> chair: proposal last week from umit et al. chance to look at it?
<scribe> chair: want to try to close it at next weeks f2f
umit: wants to see how rest of wg wants to proceed with open questions in order to proceed.
<RebeccaB> Sorry, Mark, I've lost my conference room - I'll have to find another...
general discussion around proposal 1 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/att-0116/ProposalTake3.htm). umit (and anish) agrees that there may be some situations where slight differences from the proposal are possible (e.g., specifying async as an attribute, element or sibling of UsingAddressing). However, there are tradeoffs and the current proposal does match the issue.
discussion about whether proposal should be targetted at one-way messages in addition to the current issue.
dhull: extend markup to support (for example) HTTP request and a-n-other protocol response (e.g., SMTP)
umit: current proposal doesn't prevent it.
dhull: agrees, but makes the migration path more difficult.
umit: disagrees.
<GlenD> +1 to Marc
+1
<dhull> +1
Marc: describes belief that the
proposal shouldn't be HTTP specific.
... c.f. WSDL which provides a framework for other bindings but
only defines the HTTP one. We should do the same.
<marc> http://www.w3.org/mid/1EFFF9BA-6069-4EFC-AEE3-EB4AD09770B2@Sun.COM
<dhull> q_
<pauld> notes Umit, et al's proposal cites http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Sep/0022.html
Umit: with heterogeneous response
(from request), proposal would be "incomplete". Would not be
happy with that. Asks proposers of heterogeneous bindings to
come back with a fully-formed example.
... claims that simply using URI for multiple bindings in the
WSDL is not sufficient to define the interaction pattern.
marc: understands what umit is saying, but his proposal talks purely at the SOAP level and thinks it does work. Will try to write up a fully-formed example for f2f.
<mnot> ACTION: Marc Hadley to create a more fully-formed counterproposal for i059 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/31-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> chair: spend substantial time on this next week, so proposal 1 and counter proposal and their assumptions will be discussed. Please get discussion going on the list this week if possible.
<mnot> http://www.w3.org/mid/37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E8845EF6@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
<scribe> new proposal 4 sent to list earlier in week.
<mnot> ACTION: Marc Hadley to propose amendment to Jonathan's proposal for cr9 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/31-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]
Jonathan's proposal seemed to be OK with group. No further discussion.
chair believes that the TAG want to make sure that EPRs shouldn't be used for identifiers.
chair asked Philippe how TAG issues relate to general issues?
Philippe: TAG isn't invested with any special authority in this case.
paco: sees note as an indication
that the current Web architecture document is a statement of
its time and use cases are now pushing the boundary of it as it
currently stands.
... reference to Reference Parameters in note should be
specific to their usage in identity and nothing else.
<plh> "In certain circumstances, use of such additional properties as identifiers may be convenient or beneficial, perhaps due to the availability of QName-based tools."
davido agrees with paco's interpretation.
marcgoodner: still looking at text and response, but text seems a little bit strong at the moment.
<scribe> chair: so adding something that says "if you do this you don't get the benefits of the web architecture" may be acceptable?
marcgoodner: perhaps. discuss at f2f.
chair asks davido to discuss with TAG (next meeting tomorrow) how currently discussed options might be taken before the f2f.
davido (and paco) think it would be better to have a fully-formed proposal before going back to TAG. Maybe come up with something for f2f.
<mnot> ACTION: DaveO to propose modification for cr10 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/31-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]
<mnot> http://www.w3.org/mid/436125A3.8080101@oracle.com
Discussion around specifying in EBNF to avoid confusion.
chair let's discuss at f2f next week?
chair any further discussion on issue? None.
pauld gave overview of last weeks telecon.
chair to schedule significant amount of time at f2f around this. Asks for summary of where things stand at that point?
chair asks pauld when he thinks people will be able to sit down and do some preliminary testing work (exposng endpoints etc.)?
chair to try to nail down interop. session (mid-January) soon.
<pauld> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/features/
chair any questions about f2f?
anish: cancel the con-call after the f2f?
<scribe> chair: yes
<scribe> chair: week after that is Thanksgiving. Call on 21st. Has anyone got problems?
No
chair cancel call on 14th, but keep 21st and 28th
chair to request extension to group to June 2006 timeframe.