Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference

2 Jul 2007


See also: IRC log


Anish Karmarkar (Oracle Corporation)
David Hull (TIBCO Software, Inc.)
Katy Warr (IBM Corporation)
Mark Little (JBoss Inc.)
Paul Knight (Nortel Networks)
Philippe Le Hégaret (W3C)
Ram Jeyaraman (Microsoft Corporation)
Rama Pulavarthi (Sun Microsystems, Inc.)
Robert Freund (Hitachi, Ltd.)
Tom Rutt (Fujitsu Limited)
Tony Rogers (Computer Associates)
Amelia Lewis (TIBCO Software, Inc.)
David Illsley (IBM Corporation)
David Orchard (BEA Systems, Inc.)
Eisaku Nishiyama (Hitachi, Ltd.)
Francisco Curbera (IBM Corporation)
Gilbert Pilz (BEA Systems, Inc.)
Glen Daniels (Sonic Software)
Jacques Durand (Fujitsu Limited)
Marc Goodner (Microsoft Corporation)
Yin-Leng Husband (HP)
Yves Lafon (W3C)
Bob Freund
Mark Little


approval of minutes of 18th of June

bob: no cleanup yet, should be ok?
... any objections to accepting? No objections. Minutes accepted.

What happened to CR? - Philippe

philippe: request was rejected because process says that minimal duration should be long enough to allow time for comments. Given we weren't able to publish CR draft after decision, we only allowed 1 week for comments. Not long enough. Were allowed to go to last call and go to 2 weeks comment period. Only removing a section. Then Philippe realised no tests on section on impact on WSDL 2.0.
... WSDL 2.0 working group tests were against previous versions of WS-A and did not involve on-the-wire testing. Not an implementation. Therefore not sufficient. Since changing this part there needs to be tests. Director was not happy about this fact.

bob: WSDL sections are modest. Philippe agrees.

Test status and re-assignment for consolidated report

Anish: 2.1 and 2.2 tests?

Katy and rama go through tests around 2.1 and 2.2. There are tests for 2.1 for mandatory and optional (IBM and Sun have done this) but no tests for 2.2.

Ram: so these tests are unit or interop tests?

rama: testing EPRs only.

bob: these tests are documented.
... so we have tests for 2.1 but not for 2.2.
... Are Oracle interested in testing for 2.2?

Anish: still trying, but timelines are tough at the moment. Will keep trying.

bob: section 2.1 will make it in the document, but 2.2 is still at risk and will be dropped without two implementations by July 20. We still need a consolidated set of tests. Rama, you need guidance on that? Did Arun work on that in the past?

rama: yes.
... having trouble duplicating the build environment.

bob: I believe everything is there. Not sure what the problems are.

rama: not sure about the original format of the testing. Need help from the original members.


bob: let's get all of the original prime parties on a call to get this done. Is that possible in a week's time?

ram: agrees.

<scribe> ACTION: ram to get as much information as he can before the call, or to get the principles from MSFT on the call. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/02-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]

WSDL 2.0 sections and testing

bob: can we get testing through IBM in a couple of weeks time?

katy: yes, for the 20th of July.
... don't we need another implementation.

bob: yes, but we don't have that. One implementation is better than none.
... yes, anish is correct, i.e., go straight to PR from LC.
... call next week around testing only. All principles should attend where possible.

tomr: does this mean everyone needs to attend?

bob: no, only the principles need to attend.
... if we can get those things completed by the end of the month then we should aim to get this out asap after that.
... end of July target for release.

Consolidated errata against Core and SOAP binding

bob: recorded actions of two minor errata. Plus removal of misleading text around anonymous addresses. When do we consolidate and publish an edited specification?  Is there anyone who believes errata is urgent?
... will prepare material for transition to some maintenance group for work rather than address within this group. Just double check: no urgency?


everyone agrees.

existing work should be covered by IPR, right?

possibility for transition to pr what and when?

bob: does the working group agree that pending successful conclusion of wsdl 2.0 tests that we can then go to PR?


bob: any opposition 20th of July making transition request to PR?
... hearing no opposition, we resolve to do that.

RESOLUTION: group will make a transition request to PR after 20th of July if wsdl 2.0 testing completes successfully.

ram: principles for testing should do due diligence to make sure they go into the call prepared.

bob: agreed.


Deferred issues Proposal for note on attachment of policy to an endpoint Tom Rutt

bob: tom, any further thoughts?

tomr: maybe best way forward would be let this be a matter for W3C. Member submission would stimulate this.

bob: if the issue exists then it may make a member submission more difficult to accept.

tomr: understood. in that view I would be happy to drop this issue.

bob: any opposition to dropping issue?

tomr: dropping this issue would help any member submission around this?

bob: dropping the issue is less prejudicial than the issue existing (for any hypothetical member submission).
... we could declare this issue outside the scope of this working group.

tomr: can we say that it's against this version of the document?

anish speak up ;-)

anish: hyopthetical question on hyopthetical question. Let's assume we close the issue, the W3C can deal with any member submission in any way it wants. If we close this issue as "not interested at present", then someone can reopen the issue if new information (member submission) comes along. Right?

bob: agree.
... hoping that on 23rd of July we can go PR and get the specification to a rec. This working group has then completed its charter. Policy work is really outside the scope of this working group. Further moving on to more policy issues is definitely outside of scope.
... in reality, this issue is out of scope of this working group. W3C could change the charter. But as the charter stands, it's not in scope. We could agree that and close the issue as such. Or we could close it as no action. Either way will allow way to be clear for further actions.

katy: in this new maintenance group you'd be able to raise issues?

philippe: no new features, only maintenance. No new IP. bug fixes only.
... works well in the XML working group.

tomr: WS-Policy working group could deal with this, but they had a close vote 8-to-7 to say no.

bob: yes, and maybe that could change.

anish: agree to close as no action. Then let's see what happens.

RESOLUTION: close issue lc137 with no action without objection.

bob: AOB?

tony: I put out emails while resolving changes. No feedback.


<dhull> +1 to Tony's changes and apologies for not responding

I +1-ed. Will check, because we (Red Hat) had network issues a week or so ago. Lost emails, but didn't check these ones. Sorry.

<dhull> Whose servers are you running with? :-)

<Katy> +1 again - yes - sorry for not replying Tony

bob: propose that group thanks editors. Tony especially.

<dhull> +1 (at least!)

RESOLUTION: record that the group thanks Tony and the editors for all their work.


bob: hold open 16th to 23rd and 30th of July in case we have a meeting.
... lack of agenda means no meeting.
... will call one meeting to recognise the fact that a PR transition has occurred.
... with any luck only one more meeting :-)

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: ram to get as much information as he can before the call, or to get the principles from MSFT on the call. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/02-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/08/07 20:27:24 $