Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference

16 Nov 2010


See also: IRC log


Ashok Malhotra, Oracle Corp.
Asir Vedamuthu, Microsoft Corp.
Bob Freund, Hitachi, Ltd.
David Snelling, Fujitsu, Ltd.
Doug Davis, IBM
Gilbert Pilz, Oracle Corp.
Katy Warr, IBM
Li Li, Avaya Communications
Tom Rutt, Fujitsu, Ltd.
Vikas Varma, Software AG
Wei Jun Kong, CA
Wu Chou, Avaya Communications
Yves Lafon, W3C/ERCIM
Alessio Soldano, Red Hat
Bob Natale, MITRE Corp.
Fred Maciel, Hitachi, Ltd.
Jeff Mischkinsky, Oracle Corp.
Mark Little, Red Hat
Martin Chapman, Oracle Corp.
Nathan Burkhart, Microsoft Corp.
Orit Levin, Microsoft Corp.
Paul Fremantle, WSO2
Paul Nolan, IBM
Prasad Yendluri, Software AG
Ram Jeyaraman, Microsoft Corp.
Alessio Soldano, Red Hat
Ram Jeyaraman, Microsoft Corp.
Bob Freund, Hitachi, Ltd.
Katy Warr, IBM


<trackbot> Date: 16 November 2010


agenda accepted

approval of last minutes 5th oct

minutes accepted


<Bob> proposals in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11189

Ashok: would it be possible to separate out the inlining from the dialect attribute
... make it oorthogonal to dialect

Doug: Depends whether they are always orthogonal. Prop 1 restricts to one content for all metadata

Tom: Concerned that prop 1 would remove function at this point. Preference for 3

<dug> I'm leaning towards 3 too

<Zakim> asir, you wanted to ask a question

Asir: There is a similar content attribute on the delete message

Doug: I don't think that this is an issue as we don't have a notion of deleting all the metadata, hence tying content attribute to dialect is ok for delete

RESOLUTION: Proposal 3

<scribe> ACTION: Katy to write up text for proposal 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/16-ws-ra-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-171 - Write up text for proposal 3 [on Katy Warr - due 2010-11-23].

Issue 11202

Issue accepted, no objection

<asir> I vaguely recollect that this was requested by WSO2/Paul Freemantle

RESOLUTION: 11202 is resolved as proposed in issue

Issue 11210

Resolution: 11210 is resolved as proposed in issue

Gil: Have sent email containing new issue in eventing

Bob: I will use your proposal as potential resolution to 10960

Feature lists

Bob: Is there any more known work required for these feature lists?
... as no more known work will use these as base
... I will pull all the feature lists from emails and organise on page so people have a uniform place to find

<scribe> ACTION: rfreund to pull feature list info together [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/16-ws-ra-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-172 - Pull feature list info together [on Bob Freund - due 2010-11-23].


Bob: Make primers documents so we can start raising issues etc

Doug: Some text in transfer/frag is same for others
... so could consolidate

<scribe> ACTION: rfreund to organise documents in central location on our web page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/16-ws-ra-irc]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-173 - Organise documents in central location on our web page [on Bob Freund - due 2010-11-23].

Next F2F

Bob: would like to pick a date so that we get some testing started

Asir: Ram said that February (mid) would be provisionally ok but would like a checkpoint in early Jan prior to committing

Bob: A checkpoint a month before the scheduled date would seem resonable before commit
... suggest Jan 11th checkpoint for Feb 14th meeting

<dug> Anyone care about valentine's day?

Gil: need to check availability of conference centre

Bob: Tues 15th, Wed 16th, Thurs 17th Feb? Objections?

No objections

Bob: Gil please check that you can host

Resolution: F2F provisionally set for 15-17th Feb, focus interop testing, will perform checkpoint to confirm date one month before.

Issue 8284

<dug> http://ws-i.org/profiles/BasicProfile-1.2-2010-11-09.html#wsdlcorrections

Bob: WS-I BP are final so we can add the final URIs

<asir> is there a specific text that we should be looking at

<dug> http://ws-i.org/profiles/BasicProfile-2.0-2010-11-09.html#wsdlcorrections

<Bob> original proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0142.html

Bob: How is it best to wrap this into our wsdl references

Asir: there is a proposal from Gil dated Nov 13th 2009

<Bob> The version of WSDL 1.1 at http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-wsdl-20010315 has

<Bob> known problems and inconsistencies. These were addressed in BasicProfile

<Bob> Version 1.1. The WS-RA specs should reference the BP-corrected-version of WSDL

<Bob> 1.1 via ISO IEC 29361:2008:

<Bob> http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=45422

<Yves> but it's not a freely available copy

<asir> of course we need to replace ISO link to BP 12 and 20

asir: Whereever link to wsdl 1.1 with a note saying that there are issues to wsdl 1.1 that are addressed in latest BP 1.2 and 2.0 plus linke. In normative reference section.

Bob: Annotate references

Resolution: existing wsdl references (in bibliographies) should be annotated with appropriate links to BP 1.2 and 2.0

Issue 10960 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10960

<dug> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/10/10/wseventing-expires.doc

<Bob> Doug and I have put together the following proposal to address the WS-Eventing issues we have raised: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/10/10/wseventing-expires.doc

<Bob> To highlight the major changes:

<Bob> * The wse:Subscribe/wse:Expires element is no longer receiver-optional, but it remains sender-optional; an implementation of an Event Source MUST support the wse:Expires element, but a Subscriber is not required to include it. If the Subscriber does not include it, the Event Source/Subscription Manager is required to pick some expiration value ("PT0S" meaning infinite is a valid choice)...

<Bob> ...and communicate this using wse:SubscribeResponse/wse:GrantedExpires.

<Bob> * The ExpiresNotSupported fault has been removed.

<Bob> * The wse:SubscribeResponse/wse:GrantedExpires and wse:RenewResponse/wse:GrantedExpires elements are no longer optional.

<Bob> * The ExpiresSupported policy parameter has been removed.

<Bob> * The MaxExpires policy parameter has been renamed "Expires" and now supports both min and max supported expiration times.

<Bob> ~ gp

Bob: this has been available for comment for a while
... any objection to accepting the combined proposal in the word document as a resolution to this issue?

Resolution: Issue 10960 resolved based on proposal

<Bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access-comments/2010Nov/0000.html

Gil: REfered to message on public comment list from Anish - link above

Doug: Basically looking for EventDescription spec to have a file extension for event description files (like .wsdl)
... is this just a de-facto 'standard'

Asir: Other specs specify a MIME type. This is probably what Anish is refering to.

<asir> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-ws-policy-20070904/#media-type

<asir> Additional Information / File Extension

Asir: there is a process for getting the mime type

Bob: Do folk think this might be an appropriate solution - think about for next time

<Yves> I would note http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html

Bob: Also reviewing of primers for next time
... I would like to get to CR status
... Any objections to end of 2nd week of December for CR
... Will open a bug for Anish's comment
... CR is formal step saying we think we are done and call for implementations
... any formal objections that exist need to be presented

Tom: will all the at-risk stuff be done during CR?

Bob: yes in order to promote to cr at risk needs to be identified, we think we have 2 implementations for each spec (except enum)
... I will be asking between now and CR to check whether implementors will be covering optional apsects of the spec in order to establish the at risk features.

Yves: We can progress to CR and then indicate that we require additional implementations

Doug: Gil recently sent a scenario doc for WS-Eventing, I think it would be good to extend this scenario to all specifications

Katy: this will also illustrate how specs compose together

Bob: This suggestion may have an impact of the maintenence independence of the specs but as scenarios are not normatively referenced, this should not cause a problem

<asir> Asir: apologies - we have not yet considered this one

Bob: consider this and make a decision asap in order to move along
... Next week intend to have a very brief call
... This does not suit all so next meeting on 30th November (no meeting next week)

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Katy to write up text for proposal 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/16-ws-ra-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: rfreund to organise documents in central location on our web page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/16-ws-ra-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: rfreund to pull feature list info together [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/16-ws-ra-irc]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010-12-15 00:15:20 $