Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference

20 Mar 2006


See also: IRC log


Andreas Bjarlestam (ERICSSON)
Francisco Curbera (IBM Corporation)
Glen Daniels (Sonic Software)
Vikas Deolaliker (Sonoa Systems, Inc.)
Paul Downey (BT)
Robert Freund (Hitachi, Ltd.)
Hugo Haas (W3C)
Marc Hadley (Sun Microsystems, Inc.)
David Hull (TIBCO Software, Inc.)
Yin-Leng Husband (HP)
David Illsley (IBM Corporation)
Anish Karmarkar (Oracle Corporation)
Paul Knight (Nortel Networks)
Bozhong Lin (IONA Technologies, Inc.)
Mark Little (JBoss Inc.)
Jonathan Marsh (Microsoft Corporation)
Gilbert Pilz (BEA Systems, Inc.)
Tony Rogers (Computer Associates)
Tom Rutt (Fujitsu Limited)
Katy Warr (IBM Corporation)
Pete Wenzel (Sun Microsystems, Inc.)
Prasad Yendluri (webMethods, Inc.)
Abbie Barbir (Nortel Networks)
Dave Chappell (Sonic Software)
Eran Chinthaka (WSO2)
Jacques Durand (Fujitsu Limited)
Marc Goodner (Microsoft Corporation)
Arun Gupta (Sun Microsystems, Inc.)
Philippe Le Hegaret (W3C)
Amelia Lewis (TIBCO Software, Inc.)
Jeff Mischkinsky (Oracle Corporation)
Eisaku Nishiyama (Hitachi, Ltd.)
Ales Novy (Systinet Inc.)
David Orchard (BEA Systems, Inc.)
Davanum Srinivas (WSO2)
Jiri Tejkl (Systinet Inc.)
Mike Vernal (Microsoft Corporation)
Steve Vinoski (IONA Technologies, Inc.)
Steve Winkler (SAP AG)
Umit Yalcinalp (SAP AG)
Nilo Mitra (ERICSSON)
Bob Freund
Vikas Deolaliker




<scribe> Agenda:

1) AI and 2) Some new isssues 3) Status of Director call

dhull: Wants to add editorial comments as agenda item

<pauld> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Mar/0070.html

bob: Objections to the minutes of the March 2nd F2F?
.. .No objections minutes of March 2nd F2F are accepted
... Objections to the minutes of the March 3rd F2F?
... No objections, minutes of March 3rd are accepted
... Objections to the March 13th minutes?
... No objections raised; minutes are accepted and will be posted to the website
... LC for WSDL is end of month; Not seeing many comments; but if we can stay real-time in our response it woudl be great
... Jonathan mentioned that there are comments coming and is urged to get comments out to the list

Jonathan: Work in progress

Action Item Review

bob: Hugo's AI on Infoset Reference update to 2nd edition was completed

marc: AI on LC116 resolution text: complete and checked in

bob: LC112 (mapping of UsingAddressing to component model) Owner: Hugo, AI remains pending

hugo:Will be complete before the next meeting

bob: My AI to respond to originator of lc117 was completed

Issue Review

lc118: Typo in example

marc:Responded to submitter and incorporated comments; complete and checked in

RESOLUTION: lc118 accepted as submitted

lc119 submitted by David Hull http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2006Mar/0004.html

dhull: Describes the bullets in the issues (link posted above)

bob: Any objections to bullet one?

... Hearing none, bullet one is accepted as submitted

RESOLUTION: lc119 bullet one accepted as submitted

<bob> Bullet 2:

<bob> Section 3.2.1 defines the {anonymous required} WSDL property that

<bob> reflects the value of the wsaw:Anonymous element. This may have

<bob> one of the three values "optional", "required" or "prohibited".

<bob> The name {anonymous required} (unlike wsaw:Anonymous) strongly

<bob> suggests a boolean, and having "prohibited" as a value for

<bob> {anonymous required} seems confusing. Either calling it

<bob> {anonymous} in line with wsa:Anonymous or something like

bob: Could we come up with something specific instead of (a) or (b) Choices

<bob> {anonymous EPR constraint} might be less potentially confusing.

<Jonathan> {anonymous addresses}?

bob: Why not use {anonymous addresses} in response to bullet 2

... Hearing no objections {anonymous addresses} will be the response to bullet 2

RESOLUTION: lc119 bullet two: {anonymous addresses} will be used as the response

Bullet 3:

The first paragraph of section 4.2.1 refers to the [action]

property of messages and says that if no value is given it reverts

to the SOAPAction if any. This isn't referring to the actual

[action] property of the message in question -- putting something

in a WSDL doesn't automatically cause messages to contain that

property. Instead it's talking about what the endpoint is saying

it will accept and produce for the [action] property.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how the wording can be improved (but I

would take an action to come up with a better wording if need be)

RESOLUTION: lc119 Bullet 3: Close with no action

Bullet 4:

RESOLUTION: lc119 bullet 4 is withdrawn by submitter

Bullet 5:

Nit: In section 5, we talk about properties being "mandatory" or

"optional". "Required" might be better than "mandatory", since

things like RFC 2119 use "required"/"optional" and not

"mandatory"/"optional". On the other hand, WSN ended up changing

a few instances of "optional" in the case of "optional elements"

because we didn't think it really matched the RFC 2119 sense. I

believe we settled on "can be omitted". The main issue is whether

we specifically want use RFC 2119 terms here, specifically don't

want to use them, or don't care.

RESOLUTION: lc119 bullet 5: Strike the words "or optional" where it appears in Section 5

Next F2F Meeting, IBM hosted at Cambridge, MA

When: May 3-4

<anish> do we need 2 hr weekly calls?

Wrapping up...

ACTION: Editors to do RFC 2119 scan of the wsdl document by next meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/20-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]

End of Meeting Adjourned at 4:40

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Editors to do RFC 2119 scan of the wsdl document by next meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/20-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/03/21 14:27:20 $