19:02:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-async
19:02:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/04/06-ws-async-irc
19:02:05 <Zakim> +MarkN
19:02:12 <TonyR> TonyR has joined #ws-async
19:02:15 <Zakim> +Hugo
19:02:34 <GlenD> GlenD has joined #ws-async
19:02:40 <GlenD> zakim, who is here?
19:02:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see Dave_Hull, Glen, MarkN, Hugo
19:02:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see GlenD, TonyR, RRSAgent, hugo, Zakim, dhull, Marsh
19:03:36 <Zakim> +??P3
19:03:38 <marc> marc has joined #ws-async
19:03:47 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Marsh
19:04:00 <TonyR> zakim, ??p3 is me
19:04:00 <Zakim> +TonyR; got it
19:04:04 <Zakim> +DOrchard
19:04:32 <GlenD> zakim, ??p3 is TonyR
19:04:32 <Zakim> I already had ??P3 as TonyR, GlenD
19:04:35 <GlenD> oops
19:05:31 <Zakim> +MSEder
19:05:37 <hugo> Meeting: Web Services Async TF
19:05:38 <Zakim> +Umit_Yalcinalp
19:05:42 <hugo> Chair: Glen
19:05:59 <hugo> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-addressing/2005Apr/0005.html
19:06:11 <uyalcina> uyalcina has joined #ws-async
19:06:17 <GlenD> Present: Dave Hull, MarkN, Hugo, TonyR, Jonathan Marsh, MSEder, Umit, DOrchard
19:06:49 <Zakim> +Marc
19:06:57 <hugo> Scribe: Hugo
19:07:01 <hugo> Present+ Marc
19:07:38 <hugo> Glen goes over the agenda:
19:07:47 <hugo> - SOAP work
19:08:03 <hugo> - Scope our work into an issue in Addressing
19:08:24 <Zakim> +Greg_Truty
19:08:27 <hugo> Glen: I took an AI to frame our work into an issue
19:09:08 <hugo> ... Dave has also sent a blog entry about protocol independence; we'll see if we have time to get to it
19:09:16 <hugo> Topic: SOAP MEP
19:09:37 <hugo> Glen: there's been some discussion on the list within the last week
19:10:13 <hugo> DaveH: [giving his summary of the discussion]
19:10:16 <MSEder> MSEder has joined #ws-async
19:10:31 <MSEder> zakim, mute me
19:10:31 <Zakim> MSEder should now be muted
19:10:50 <hugo> ... the in-optional-out SOAP MEP is trying to address some async case
19:11:12 <mnot> mnot has joined #ws-async
19:11:13 <hugo> ... with the reply/address going somewhere else
19:11:21 <mnot> zakim, who is on the phone?
19:11:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see Dave_Hull, Glen, MarkN, Hugo, TonyR (muted), Jonathan_Marsh, DOrchard, MSEder (muted), Umit_Yalcinalp, Marc, Greg_Truty
19:11:34 <hugo> ... the HTTP response is what tells you if you're going to get an answer or not
19:11:53 <hugo> ... DaveO's blog entry is about this
19:12:39 <TonyR> http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2005/04/05/underlying_protocol_is_a_completely_leaky_abstraction
19:12:51 <hugo> ... my personal opinion is that we will always have something going back: you need either an application message or an ack
19:12:58 <hugo> ... otherwise you don't know
19:13:58 <hugo> Glen: how does that relate to a true one-way MEP? do we need a separate one-way MEP?
19:14:34 <hugo> Marc: do you always need anything back with this MEP?
19:14:51 <hugo> Umit: yes; if you think about HTTP, there's always something coming back
19:15:18 <MSEder> zakim, mute me
19:15:18 <Zakim> MSEder was already muted, MSEder
19:15:25 <MSEder> zakim, unmute me
19:15:25 <Zakim> MSEder should no longer be muted
19:15:48 <hugo> Marc: this can be abstracted, right?
19:16:02 <hugo> DaveH: sure, but this has to be taken into account
19:16:47 <hugo> ... I think in-optional-out is a misnommer; I prefer to call it in-(out-or-ack)
19:17:37 <hugo> Greg: the ack to me is QoS
19:17:57 <hugo> DaveO: the problem is not about QoS, it's about the HTTP error codes
19:18:10 <hugo> s/codes/codes for the response/
19:19:07 <marc> for the minutes, my point is that SOAP MEPs are about exchange of SOAP messages not underlying protocol artifacts
19:19:14 <hugo> DaveH: if your WSDL MEP is one-way, then you're happy with fire-and-forget one-way; if it's request-response, then we have to consider this MEP
19:20:26 <hugo> Glen: the question is: a thread is sending a message; when can the thread can go off and do something else?
19:21:38 <hugo> Dave: in terms of coming up with one issue, I think that it is: what is needed in terms of WSDL to fully describe the combinations of SOAP/WSDL MEPs, and whether we need new SOAP MEPs for that
19:22:21 <dorchard> dorchard has joined #ws-async
19:23:57 <hugo> Greg: does the application care about whether things happen sync or asynchronously?
19:24:34 <hugo> DaveO: given what SOAP+HTTP is, does WSA give you the ability to do what you'd like to do with it?
19:25:14 <hugo> DaveH: I think we could address this by reducing the semantics of ReplyTo and FaultTo
19:25:23 <hugo> Glen: but that reduces interop
19:25:42 <hugo> ... every app using our spec should expect the same behavior
19:25:51 <uyalcina> +1 To Glen
19:26:27 <MSEder> zakim,mute me
19:26:27 <Zakim> MSEder should now be muted
19:26:40 <hugo> DaveH: we do define semantics in the core; I want to be careful that we don't say too much there, when things should be said in the WSDL binding
19:26:44 <dorchard> Issue text proposal: Are there any constructs in WS-Addressing and the specifications it uses, like WSDL and SOAP, necessary for the full range of interoperable WS-A scenarios, such as asynch request/response and Fault handling.
19:27:54 <dorchard> s/Are there any/What are the/g
19:28:35 <hugo> Umit: can we say that it's not possible to use FaultTo and ReplyTo other than for anonymous with the current combination of WSDL and SOAP MEPs
19:28:47 <hugo> s/MEPs/bindings/
19:28:48 <mnot> zakim, who is noisy?
19:29:00 <Zakim> mnot, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Dave_Hull (47%), Glen (9%), Jonathan_Marsh (28%), Umit_Yalcinalp (9%), Marc (5%)
19:29:25 <dorchard> Break #1: one-way
19:29:30 <hugo> ... if you put something else than anonymous, we don't know how it's going to behave
19:29:38 <GlenD> Issue text : We cannot reliably and interoperably use MAPs like ReplyTo/FaultTo with the current WSDL/SOAP constructs - the MEPs/behavior at the various layers are not clearly defined.
19:29:46 <dorchard> Break #2: FaultTo
19:30:29 <GregT> GregT has joined #ws-async
19:30:45 <hugo> DaveO: I'd like to spell it like: if FaultTo is specified, we don't know what to do with it
19:32:10 <hugo> Mark: I think we're going in the right direction
19:32:27 <marc> "What SOAP MEP should be used to send a fault in the presence of a non-anonymous FaultTo"
19:32:28 <dorchard> Break #2: FaultTo + HTTP
19:32:45 <dorchard> Issue around is use of HTTP connection.
19:33:38 <hugo> Glen: it is possible in any binding to have a transport error that may not be relayed to the app
19:33:55 <hugo> DaveO: but I'm talking about a SOAP error
19:34:04 <GlenD> s/may not/may or may not/
19:34:34 <hugo> ... if you generate a fault, what do you do with it? what HTTP error code do you use?
19:34:46 <hugo> Umit: what if you have a redirect and a fault
19:35:15 <hugo> DaveO: so you use a 400; can you send the fault back?
19:35:41 <hugo> ... right now we don't have a MEP like in-optional-fault
19:37:29 <hugo> Greg: over JMS, I can send a message that is going to be sent successfully or not, but I won't know and I won't care
19:37:44 <hugo> ... I could disregard the HTTP error code, the same way
19:38:40 <MSEder> zakim, unmute me
19:38:40 <Zakim> MSEder should no longer be muted
19:39:04 <hugo> DaveO: yes; either we are going to ignore the HTTP error codes and everything which makes HTTP special, or we can use them, and we need to carefully take them into account
19:41:48 <hugo> Umit: if you were to say that we need in and robust-in, can we have 2 different SOAP MEPs and bindings, and go from there
19:42:05 <hugo> Glen: can you close a connecting right after an HTTP request?
19:42:18 <MSEder> zakim, mute me
19:42:18 <Zakim> MSEder should now be muted
19:42:57 <dhull> q+
19:43:43 <hugo> ... the SOAP MEP will take care of ignoring any response
19:44:31 <hugo> Marc: what's the difference between the two cases in case of a 404?
19:44:55 <MSEder> zakim, mute me
19:44:55 <Zakim> MSEder was already muted, MSEder
19:44:56 <hugo> DaveO: they would both have an empty 404
19:45:04 <MSEder> zakim, unmute me
19:45:04 <Zakim> MSEder should no longer be muted
19:46:09 <hugo> Umit: the robust-in is close to what the BP does
19:46:29 <hugo> Glen: but something's going to happen in the in-only case too
19:46:47 <hugo> ... it may be an implementation difference about the kind of feedback you get
19:46:53 <GlenD> ack dhull
19:47:15 <hugo> DaveH: there's another possible approach
19:47:31 <MSEder> zakim, mute me
19:47:31 <Zakim> MSEder should now be muted
19:47:36 <hugo> ... we could have an in-only MEP, with a reply expected property
19:47:45 <hugo> ... and the binding could take care of that
19:49:00 <hugo> ... you know from the ReplyTo and FaultTo whether you're expecting something
19:49:13 <hugo> DaveO: which MEP are you talking about?
19:49:22 <hugo> DaveH: SOAP MEP req-resp
19:49:35 <dorchard> hugo, he's talking about WSDL mep
19:49:50 <hugo> s/SOAP/WSDL/
19:51:02 <hugo> DaveO: I think that you have to say at some point at the SOAP level if you're sending just a request, or if you're expecting anything back
19:51:16 <hugo> ... there's only 4 MEPs at the SOAP level that we could have
19:52:14 <dhull> DaveH: So why not say so explicitly?
19:52:50 <dhull> +1 multiple issues
19:52:59 <hugo> Glen: do we want multiple issues, or a generic issue covering them all?
19:53:16 <hugo> DaveO: I'd prefer 1 issue from a managerial perspective
19:54:21 <hugo> Glen: I'm proposing to take a crack at writing this issue
19:54:39 <hugo> Umit: I prefer my approach to the issue
19:55:08 <hugo> DaveH: it's good to have 1 over-arching issue, but it clearly has multiple facets
19:55:50 <hugo> ACTION: Glen and Umit to write text for issue
19:56:29 <hugo> Glen: can we get together in CA just before the F2F?
19:56:40 <dorchard> I can be available monday afternoon?
19:56:46 <hugo> Some agreement around meeting at 1pm on the 18th
19:56:55 <TonyR> Sounds like a good idea
19:56:58 <hugo> Umit proposes to hold the meeting at SAP
19:57:08 <hugo> ACTION: Glen to send mail about meeting in CA
19:57:15 <hugo> RRSAgent, make log public
19:57:47 <hugo> RRSAgent, draft minutes
19:57:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/04/06-ws-async-minutes.html hugo
19:58:06 <dorchard> SFO does have BART from airport to city...
19:58:53 <Zakim> -Greg_Truty
19:58:54 <Zakim> -Marc
19:58:55 <Zakim> -Glen
19:58:56 <TonyR> TonyR has left #ws-async
19:58:56 <Zakim> -Dave_Hull
19:58:57 <Zakim> -Jonathan_Marsh
19:58:59 <Zakim> -Umit_Yalcinalp
19:59:00 <Zakim> -Hugo
19:59:02 <MSEder> MSEder has left #ws-async
19:59:02 <Zakim> -MarkN
19:59:03 <Zakim> -DOrchard
19:59:04 <Zakim> -MSEder
19:59:05 <Zakim> -TonyR
19:59:06 <GregT> GregT has left #ws-async
19:59:07 <Zakim> WS_TF(async)3:00PM has ended
19:59:08 <Zakim> Attendees were Dave_Hull, Glen, MarkN, Hugo, Jonathan_Marsh, TonyR, DOrchard, MSEder, Umit_Yalcinalp, Marc, Greg_Truty
20:00:05 <hugo> RRSAgent, draft minutes
20:00:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/04/06-ws-async-minutes.html hugo
20:00:16 <hugo> RRSAgent, please excuse us
20:00:16 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items:
20:00:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Glen and Umit to write text for issue [1]
20:00:16 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/06-ws-async-irc#T19-55-50
20:00:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Glen to send mail about meeting in CA [2]
20:00:16 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/06-ws-async-irc#T19-57-08
20:00:16 <hugo> Zakim, please excuse us
20:00:16 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ws-async