Minutes WS Choreography WG conference call 6 December 2004


To review and process editorial comments from section 2.4.2 thru to 2.5.2 (inclusive)
		           	comments will be relative to an ed draft delivered by cob pst on 3rd December.

Dec 3rd version at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Dec/att-0004/cdl_v1-editors-dec03-2004-XML-sent.pdf


Greg Ritzinger scribed

IRC log at: http://www.w3.org/2004/12/06-ws-chor-irc

Roll Call:

Martin Chapman
Gary Brown
Nickolas Kavantzas
Greg Ritzinger
Charlton Barreto
Anthony Fletcher

Comments on Document

2.5.2 Interaction p49,line 11: leave as is.

ACTION Gary to raise issue requesting clarification.

Martin: pg 45, line 22 WS-Addressing text is out of context. Suggest removing this paragraph.

Martin: we could get away with adding a section "to be filled out" when WS_Addressing settles out.

ACTION: Charleton will author a paragraph to replace the one Martin objects to in the spec. It will be insterted as new section after relationship to reliability

Greg's editorial suggestions: deferred to editors for resolution.

Nick was concerned with wording of last paragraph of 2.2.1 Package, after group discussion he was comfortable w/ it.
Nick reintroduced the "notation" concept.
Martin was happy with this as is in the current document (12/3).

Tony's questions from "Comments on the W3C Choreography Description Language up to section 2.4.2"

ACTION Bullet on WSDL Rationale:  Web Service descriptions only describe an aspect of a protocol, they do not provide a complete specification of a protocol. Change: "It defines the protocol and ..."
  to "It defines the message set and ..."

ACTION Change fig 1.0 to reflect official name of BPEL specification

ACTION Change to:  Security layer: ensures that exchanged information are not modified or forged in a verifiable manner and that parties can be authenticated

Charlton's comments

Section 2.3.4, page 18, paragraph 12,line 513-517

Charlton: there is potential for confusion unless we tighten/loosen this section up re: MEPs
Nick: what the spec says was accepted at F2F.
Charlton: After re-reading agrees that text is OK.
The rest of comments are editorial.