See also: IRC log
Discussion about interop and f2f. group wondering if a day and a half is enough for interop testing.
mnot: incorporated Katy's missing
minutes from the f2f, you might want to review the minutes
again for accuracy
... last change was on Tuesday the 15th, mostly in the second around the second day in the morning
... umit's action item stays open for now, umit is still working on it
hugo: Proposal 4 seems to be the favored one but not decided yet.
jmarsh: emailed a revised proposal earlier today trying to clean up the language around these proposals
<mnot> proposal 5: The W3C Architecture of the World Wide Web [AoWWW] recommends as Best Practice [Section 2.1] the use of URIs to identify resources. Following this best practice precludes the use of abstract properties of an EPR other than [destination] to identify resources. In certain circumstances, such a use of additional properties may be convenient, beneficial, or even necessary. However, when building systems, the benefits or convenience of identifying a resource parameters should be carefully weighed against the benefits of identifying a resource solely by URI.
jmarsh: this proposal attempts to use language from the W3C architecture document
<uyalcina> ship it.
<bob> +1 (I think)
marc: asks about whether ref params are "necessary"
jmarsh: architectural or legacy constraints often seem to make them "necessary"
hugo: also wonders about the word "necessary", seems more "convenient" than "necessary"
marc: suggests dropping the "necessary" part, as it might attract unwanted TAG attention
umit: use the word "useful" rather than "necessary"
<bob> me thinks that salubrious might be nice
mnot: recording jonathan's proposal as proposal 5, minus the "necessary" wording (friendly amendment)
hugo: prefers proposal 1
marc: also prefers the original proposal
mnot: next week we'll discuss the
CR10 proposals more
umit: summarizes proposals for i059
jmarsh: raises a variety of concerns with the proposals
glen: if you understand addressing, then you understand "wsdl required". there's a difference between understanding something and processing something
jmarsh: on a related note, would
like to keep the notion of engaging addressing at the binding
level rather than at the operation level
... would like to keep the granularity at the binding or endpoint level
<Zakim> anish, you wanted to say that using an attribute on wsdl:operation is problematic for WSDL 1.1 (without BP 1.1, that extensibility is not allowed)
<GlenD> right... good point.
jmarsh: feels that the proposals need clearer specification of how the different levels interact
umit: should be able to work out
how defaulting works. some issues discussed go away with option
1 through use of elements rather than attributes
... what does the chair want to do
mnot: don't want to use voting unless we have to, but would rather achieve consensus through discussion
<anish> if make BP 1.1 required then we can use attributes on wsdl:operation
anish: likes jmarsh attribute proposal, seems simpler to understand, even though it has the BP 1.1 extensibility problem for WSDL 1.1. what if we required BP 1.1 for addressing?
<uyalcina> it would be a problem if we require attr extensibility and not require BP 1.1.
mnot: wonders if BP 1.1 and addressing are compatible
umit: jmarsh proposal is an elegant reworking of option 1. suggests reworking option 1 to avoid BP 1.1 requirement
mnot: from a working group
standpoint it would be easier to avoid referencing WS-I
... umit will rework options 1 and 3 for next week
jmarsh: options 2 and 3 fail to differentiate control of addressing and control of async at operation level, something to think about
<mnot> ACTION: Umit to rework i059 syntax options 1 and 3, incorporating jonathan's proposal into 1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/21-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
<pauld> I raised a concern over the semantics of 202 here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Nov/0024.html
<uyalcina> ACTION: Anish to respond to Neil [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/21-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]
<anish> ACTION: anish to respond to Neal Hudson's email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/21-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]