See also: IRC log
added F2F attendance
added discussion of f2f agenda
<Bob> Geoff's comments re minutes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Mar/0009.html
On (1) Agreement to add Bob's comment. No requests for other comments.
<Bob> bob will add his comment concerning pointer to ws-ra homepage and mixed list
<dug> Bob asked several times and ways to see if people had any more
<dug> questions about either proposal and no one spoke up.
<asir> but we did not discuss IBM proposal last week
<Bob> Geoff described summary section of proposal. the chair asked if there were any questions concerning the proposal - "People can read" was one comment made.
<asir> i recall that both Geoff and I asked for more discussion of Geoff's proposal (particularly given variations in geoff's proposal
<gpilz1> me thinks he probably typed that in IRC
On (2), decided to use text above by Bob
Discussion on (3)
<Bob> geoff: voting on it is too soon, need more time to discuss. My proposal was only submitted yesterday and there were new comments on the mailing list about it as little as 10 minutes before the start of this call.
Text above accepted
Discussion on (4)
<dug> Bob asked if anyone's position would change with more discussions and
<dug> no one spoke up. This wasn't specific to Geoff's proposal but rather
<dug> to the issue itself.
<Bob> Will any more discussion change anybody's minds?
<dug> the vote was clear on which proposal we were voting on - I didn't hear any objection/confusion on that point.
<asir> That is not what we heard ..
Bob will add his recollection of his statement
Aproval of minutes defered until corrections done
F2F: 11 people attending in person
F2F in November? Need decision in meeting next week.
<dug> SoTD note: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Mar/0000.html
First working draft comments: received comment that front matter not clear what
is the purpose of document
<Geoff> bob's proposal looks OK to us
<Geoff> +1 to Yves
<dug> The working group <a>page</a> provides additional information and the related specifications produced by this working group.
<asir> why not mention the issues list?
<dug> we discussed and voted on this last week
Alternative wording by dug accepted
Structure of f2f Agenda
Proposal by Bob on issues for F2F discussion accepted without discussion: Issues with proposals a week before teh meeting are to be considered ripe for discussion
<scribe> New issues: all accepted, with proposers as owners
Action Items marked as completed changed to closed
<Bob> proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Mar/0004.html
Curly brackets 1, 2, 4 accepted as partial resolution with no objection
<dug> no text needed in not.conv. - just let ... say "ignore unknown extensions"
<Katy> This text: ... If a receiver does not recognize an extension, the receiver SHOULD ignore it.
<asir> not consensus
Discussion on 3: contoversy centered on if it is a notational or a semantic change
Issue 6648 created for SOAP processing for Eventing
<Bob> proposal, move {3} to a point after notional conventions labeled extensibility behavior
<gpilz1> !
<asir> Bob's proposal is consistent with other Web Service specifications
<Geoff> +1
<asir> See http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-ws-policy-20070904/#Extensibility
Bob's proposal accepted
resolution: Resolve 6587 with {1,2,and 4} limit description of ... to simply denote an extensibility point, and move explicit description of extensibility behavior to a new section w/o
<Yves> +1
proposal, close with no action
resolution: Issue 6392 closed with no action w/o
proposal, close with no action
resolution: 6396 close with no action w/o
resolution: 6588 resolved with the change of soap: to http: w/o