22:19:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
22:19:51 <RRSAgent> is logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/01/16-ws-addr-irc
22:20:15 <hugo> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0055.html
22:20:28 <hugo> Meeting: Web Services Addressing WG F2F
22:20:29 <scribe> No objection to accepting the minutes of the 2005-01-10 meeting
22:20:35 <scribe> minutes are therefore approved
22:20:39 <hugo> Chair: Mark Nottingham
22:20:46 <scribe> Schedule, Deliverables Review
22:23:08 <scribe> Draft spec review:
22:23:44 <scribe> 1. Introduction
22:23:50 <scribe> Core
22:24:24 <scribe> Glen: Generally pretty good but given the level of discussion we've had, it probably needs amending to include some of that discussion
22:24:29 <scribe> 2. Endpoint References
22:25:04 <scribe> 2.1 - Abstract properties
22:25:11 <scribe> 2.2 Serialization into INfoset
22:25:44 <scribe> MarkN: Has this changed much?
22:25:52 <scribe> Editors: Only to reflect closed issues
22:26:45 <scribe> Yin-Leng: Could do with a succint definition of EPR
22:27:21 <scribe> Glen: Could do with a definition of how extensibility works. We allow extra elements at the Infoset level but there is no definition of extensibility at the abstract property level
22:28:38 <scribe> Yin-Leng: All the examples have a mismatched end-tag
22:30:25 <scribe> 2.3 EPR Comparison
22:31:45 <Marsh> Marc: Do we need to specify how to compare properties?
22:31:52 <Marsh> Esp. Ref props and params?  C14N?
22:32:04 <scribe> Marc: Do we need to be more specific about how to compare EPRs (e.g. C14N )
22:32:07 <Marsh> s/Esp./... Esp./
22:34:28 <scribe> ACTION: MarcH to raise an issue re: C14N of EPRs
22:34:37 <scribe> 2.4 EPR Lifecycle
22:34:59 <scribe> 3. Message addressing properties
22:36:31 <scribe> 3.1 Infoset Rep of Message Addressing Properties
22:36:41 <scribe> 3.2 Formulating a Reply Messages
22:37:41 <bob> bob has joined #ws-addr
22:37:56 <scribe> Hugo: Text says it defines rules but there are no rules, just an example.
22:38:13 <scribe> Editors: We should define the rules
22:38:38 <scribe> ACTION: Hugo to raise an issue about lack of rules in section 3.2
22:39:21 <scribe> SOAP Binding
22:40:12 <scribe> Section 2: Binding EPRs
22:40:35 <scribe> Section 3 - Faults
22:41:52 <scribe> WSDL Binding
22:42:20 <scribe> 1. Introduction
22:42:24 <scribe> 2. Endpoint References
22:42:45 <scribe> 3. Associating Action with WSDL operations
22:45:27 <scribe> Yin-Leng: Need to change from port type to a generic term or point out that where we say port type we mean WSDL 1.1 
22:47:17 <scribe> Marc: We should define the wsa:Action attribute (just an example right now)
22:47:54 <scribe> ACTION: Editors to add a definition of wsa:Action to Section 3.1
22:48:20 <scribe> ACTION: Editors to amend reference to WSDL 2.4.5 to read WSDL 1.1 Section 2.4.5 in Section 3.
22:49:29 <scribe> Paco: Might want to be more explicit about where we talk about WSDL 1.1 and where we talk about WSDL 2.0
22:50:26 <scribe> Section 4.1: WSDL 1.1 MEPs
22:53:59 <scribe> Some discussion of whether this stuff really relates to WSDL or whether it's part of the core. 
22:54:39 <scribe> Editors: Really just used WSDL MEPs as the basis for building the property tables. WSDL not actually required.
22:57:13 <scribe> Anish: Do these tables correlate the destination of the response with the source in the request
22:58:06 <scribe> Gudge: No because the WSDL 2.0 spec doesn't define what 'same node' means
22:59:59 <scribe> Section 4.2: WSDL 2.0 MEPs
23:02:30 <scribe> Anish: Doesn't robust in-only use the message triggers fault model in WSDL 2.0
23:04:38 <jeffm> jeffm has joined #ws-addr
23:06:30 <scribe> Gudge: We had language that constrained source/fault/replyto values based on 'fault must go back to requestor' in WSDL 2.0. 
23:06:44 <scribe> Jonathan: Should we put this on the agenda for the joint meeting?
23:07:13 <scribe> MarkN: I think this is issue 21
23:08:38 <scribe> Chair: Postpone schedule review until after we've discussed other issues
23:09:09 <scribe> Chair: Logistics. We'll go to lunch at noon.
23:09:21 <scribe> Chair: Go to break now
23:09:48 <scribe> Chair: Review of Choreography last call after the break (20 minutes)
23:20:16 <Zakim> -Melbourne
23:20:25 <Zakim> +Hugo
23:21:19 <Zakim> -Hugo
23:23:01 <Zakim> +Hugo
23:24:39 <Zakim> -Hugo
23:25:31 <Zakim> +Hugo
23:25:42 <Zakim> -Hugo
23:25:43 <Zakim> +Hugo
23:26:35 <Zakim> -Hugo
23:26:45 <Zakim> +Hugo
23:27:41 <Zakim> -Hugo
23:28:07 <Zakim> +Hugo
23:30:14 <hugo> Zakim, who's on the phone?
23:30:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see Mark_Peel, Hugo, Hugo
23:30:21 <hugo> Zakim, Hugo is Melbourne
23:30:21 <Zakim> sorry, hugo, I do not recognize a party named 'Hugo'
23:32:10 <scribe> Restarting after break
23:32:36 <scribe> Review of WS-Choreography specification
23:33:08 <scribe> Yin-Leng's e-mail is at
23:33:53 <mlpeel> Definitely better!!
23:33:58 <scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0059.html
23:34:45 <scribe> Yin-Leng: Overall no real direct impact between WS-CDL and WS-Addressing because WS-CDL defines very abstract choreography across businesses
23:35:06 <scribe> Yin-Leng: The two main concepts that might impact WS-Addressing are channels and interactions
23:35:16 <anish> anish has joined #ws-addr
23:35:27 <scribe> Yin-Leng: But because the spec defines a contract there is no direct impact on WS-Addressing
23:35:46 <scribe> Yin-Leng: Channel is a point of collaboration between parties. Interaction talks about information that is exchange between parties
23:36:17 <scribe> Yin-Leng: Second comment; they use abstractions to avoid specifics
23:36:29 <scribe> Yin-Leng: Insulates them from datatypes (e.g. in XML Schema )
23:37:01 <scribe> Yin-Leng: Also abstracts them from WSDL messages
23:37:25 <scribe> Yin-Leng; There may need to be some mapping between the abstract concepts in WS-CDL to the constructs in WS-Addressing
23:37:41 <scribe> Yin-Leng: Should the mapping be standardized? If yes, which WG should do the work?
23:38:34 <scribe> Jeff: This seems fairly simple. WS-CDL can use WS-Addressing. 
23:38:57 <scribe> jeff: Other specs that want to use WS-Addressing should just be able to use it however they like.
23:39:08 <scribe> Jeff: Within the constraints of the WS-Addressing spec
23:39:57 <scribe> Marc: Do the WS-CDL WG know they are a user of WS-Addressing?
23:40:03 <scribe> Jeff/Yin-Leng: Yes they do.
23:40:30 <scribe> Yin-Leng: Our comments back to them may be that they should do a binding
23:41:12 <scribe> Gudge: Agree with Jeff, specs that use WS-Addressing should define the binding ( rather than our WG doing it )
23:43:32 <scribe> Yin-Leng: Main impact for us is whether we want to provide guidance on how to write a binding to WS-Addressing
23:44:06 <scribe> Yin-Leng: They need to update their reference to our spec ( currently references an old version )
23:44:29 <scribe> Yin-Leng: They will review and comment on our spec.
23:45:48 <pauld> pauld has joined #ws-addr
23:45:56 <scribe> ACTION: Yin-Leng to draft an e-mail response to WS-CDL WG. To be reviewed 2005-01-24 latest.
23:46:56 <scribe> Chair hands out various copies of the agenda
23:47:00 <scribe> Issues:
23:47:13 <scribe> Issue 41 - Use cases for testing
23:49:19 <scribe> Harris' e-mail is at
23:49:19 <scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0039.html
23:49:58 <scribe> MarkN: This is fairly general. Need to specify all sorts of things (WSDL MEP is use, relationship to other specs etc )
23:50:18 <scribe> Anish: Might be better to have a structure that test submitters can easily fill in.
23:51:16 <scribe> Anish: Do we expect people outside this group to submit test cases? If so, I think Hugo has a template for submission that deals with copyright issues
23:51:55 <Paco> Paco has joined #ws-addr
23:52:14 <scribe> Hugo: I did investigate copyright for test cases for the WS-Desc WG. I can't remember exact conclusion but I do remember sending e-mail about IP and test cases
23:52:25 <Zakim> hugo, you wanted to mention copyright
23:53:01 <scribe> ACTION: Hugo to find his e-mail to WS-Desc on IP and test cases and forward to WS-Addr
23:53:20 <scribe> MarkN: Does anyone want to send out e-mail detailing what a test-case would cover
23:53:50 <scribe> ACTION: Anish to help Harris on issue 41 by preparing a more specific template that people can use to submit test cases.
23:54:16 <scribe> MarkN: Once that's done I'd like some people to generate an initial set of (probably simple) test cases.
23:54:52 <scribe> Greg: Do all implementations have to pass all test cases?
23:55:06 <scribe> MarkN: Test cases will be used to help us drive the design of the spec.
23:55:24 <scribe> MarkN: The test cases will then be used in CR to determine exit criteria
23:57:14 <scribe> ACTION 7 = Anish to help Harris on issue 41 by preparing a more specific template that people can use to submit test cases. Due 2005-01-21.
23:57:43 <scribe> zakim, ack hugo
23:57:43 <Zakim> hugo, you wanted to ask about the link to interop tests
23:57:45 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
23:58:13 <scribe> Hugo: Dims has sent a URL pointing to a document that has interop scenarios we might be able to harvest
23:58:53 <hugo> http://131.107.153.195/wsa/doc/WSE_Addressing_Scenarios.doc
23:59:37 <scribe> ACTION: Gudge to determine copyright of test cases at above URL
23:59:38 <jeffm> jeffm has joined #ws-addr
23:59:41 <scribe> Issue 40
23:59:53 <dorchard> dorchard has joined #ws-addr