IRC log of ws-addr on 2005-10-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:42:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:42:23 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:42:32 [mnot]
zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
19:42:33 [Zakim]
ok, mnot; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 18 minutes
19:42:43 [mnot]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference
19:42:48 [mnot]
Chair: Mark Nottingham
19:43:11 [mnot]
19:43:52 [mnot]
Scribe: hugo
19:43:59 [mnot]
Scribe: Hugo Haas
19:44:03 [mnot]
ScribeNick: hugo
19:49:19 [Marsh]
Marsh has joined #ws-addr
19:51:44 [marc]
marc has joined #ws-addr
19:53:03 [swinkler]
swinkler has joined #ws-addr
19:56:53 [RebeccaB]
RebeccaB has joined #ws-addr
19:57:28 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
19:57:33 [Zakim]
19:57:35 [Zakim]
19:57:36 [TomRutt]
TomRutt has joined #ws-addr
19:57:55 [Zakim]
19:58:15 [Arun]
Arun has joined #ws-addr
19:58:31 [Zakim]
19:58:41 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
19:58:54 [Zakim]
19:59:11 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
19:59:20 [Zakim]
19:59:21 [mlpeel]
mlpeel has joined #ws-addr
19:59:29 [Arun]
zakim, [Sun] is me
19:59:29 [Zakim]
+Arun; got it
19:59:43 [Zakim]
19:59:53 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p17 is me
19:59:53 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
20:00:12 [Zakim]
20:00:23 [Zakim]
20:00:30 [Zakim]
20:00:32 [Zakim]
20:00:45 [Zakim]
20:01:09 [Zakim]
20:01:21 [Zakim]
20:01:30 [Zakim]
20:01:34 [Zakim]
20:02:01 [Zakim]
20:02:07 [pauld]
pauld has joined #ws-addr
20:02:35 [vikas]
vikas has joined #ws-addr
20:03:02 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
20:03:34 [Zakim]
20:03:56 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:04:04 [bob]
bob has joined #ws-addr
20:04:16 [Zakim]
20:04:42 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
20:04:44 [hugo]
Topic: Agenda review, AOB
20:04:51 [Zakim]
20:04:56 [pauld]
zakim, mute me
20:04:56 [Zakim]
pauld should now be muted
20:04:57 [uyalcina]
uyalcina has joined #ws-addr
20:05:00 [MSEder]
MSEder has joined #ws-addr
20:05:14 [Zakim]
20:05:31 [hugo]
Jonathan: I sent a new proposal for i064
20:05:45 [hugo]
Mark: we'll take this up in this call
20:06:03 [MSEder]
MSEder has joined #ws-addr
20:06:23 [hugo]
Jonathan: I sent a couple of issues that are not on the issues list
20:06:30 [MSEder]
zakim,mute me
20:06:30 [Zakim]
MSEder should now be muted
20:06:53 [hugo]
Mark: one is on the issues list, and the other one was a typo and it was dispatched to Marc
20:07:17 [hugo]
Topic: Call for corrections to the minutes
20:07:21 [prasad]
prasad has joined #ws-Addr
20:07:40 [Zakim]
20:07:42 [hugo]
Umit: I would like more time to review the minutes
20:07:54 [hugo]
Mark: we'll approve them next week then
20:08:12 [hugo]
Topic: Review action items
20:08:35 [hugo]
ACTION: Marc Hadley to incorporate namespace policy into drafts and RDDL. [PENDING]
20:08:49 [hugo]
DONE ACTION: Arun Gupta to iterate his testing document to categorize and reformat. Due 2005-10-10.
20:09:11 [hugo]
ACTION: Editors to ensure we meet our charter with regard to backward compatibility warnings for WSDL 1.1, aligning it with the direction we took for SOAP 1.1 [PENDING]
20:09:26 [hugo]
DONE ACTION: Jonathan Marsh to formulate a proposal for a migration guide.
20:09:32 [hugo]
Topic: WSDL Responses
20:09:32 [yinleng]
yinleng has joined #ws-addr
20:09:35 [mnot]
20:09:44 [abbie]
abbie has joined #ws-addr
20:09:46 [mnot]
20:09:57 [hugo]
Mark: it seems that the Group is happy with our comments
20:09:58 [mnot]
20:10:02 [abbie]
hi, can u please add me for the roll call
20:10:28 [hugo]
Jonathan: no, there was no pushback
20:10:49 [Zakim]
20:11:01 [yinleng]
zakim, ??P7 is me
20:11:03 [Zakim]
+yinleng; got it
20:11:09 [pauld]
zakim, unmute me
20:11:09 [Zakim]
pauld should no longer be muted
20:11:13 [pauld]
zakim, mute me
20:11:13 [Zakim]
pauld should now be muted
20:11:20 [Zakim]
20:11:25 [hugo]
Hugo: what's the status of our discussion about wsoap:action granularity?
20:11:37 [hugo]
Jonathan: we haven't made a decision yet
20:11:56 [swinkler]
swinkler has joined #ws-addr
20:12:12 [hugo]
Hugo: in case we don't adopt this proposal, we should make this WG aware of it
20:12:29 [hugo]
Topic: Proposed: When, if ever, MUST action be used for dispatch?
20:12:36 [hugo]
20:12:39 [pauld]
zakim , who is here?
20:12:48 [pauld]
zakim, who is here?
20:12:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Steve, Gilbert_Pilz, Rebecca_Bergersen, Vikas_Deolaliker, MarkN, Arun, TonyR, Mark_Little, Jonathan_Marsh, Tom_Rutt, Marc_Hadley, Bob_Freund,
20:12:51 [Zakim]
... Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr, Mark_Peel.a, Hugo, Nilo, MSEder (muted), ??P12, Umit_Yalcinalp, pauld (muted), Anish, Prasad_Yendluri, yinleng, Abbie_Barbir
20:12:54 [Zakim]
On IRC I see swinkler, abbie, yinleng, prasad, MSEder, uyalcina, anish, bob, gpilz, vikas, pauld, mlpeel, TonyR, Katy, Arun, TomRutt, RebeccaB, marc, Marsh, RRSAgent, Zakim, mnot,
20:12:57 [Zakim]
... hugo
20:14:50 [hugo]
[ DaveH goes over his proposed issue ]
20:15:05 [pauld]
20:16:02 [hugo]
Hugo: I thought we had agreed not to talk about dispatching in the spec
20:16:14 [hugo]
DaveH: in that case, we should maybe be a little more explicit
20:16:28 [hugo]
... I find this sentence in our spec very vague
20:16:44 [mnot]
ack anish
20:16:47 [mnot]
ack hugo
20:17:01 [hugo]
... I'm happy with not getting into dispatching in the core, but the SOAP bining may be different in that regards
20:17:07 [pauld]
zakim, unmute me
20:17:07 [Zakim]
pauld should no longer be muted
20:17:11 [mnot]
ack paul
20:17:16 [hugo]
... we're not really taking on dispatching, but we're implying we are
20:17:38 [hugo]
Paul: it seems to me that you're talking about what WSDL does with the message
20:18:18 [hugo]
DaveH: my assumption about the outbound side is that the value of action will be used in outgoing messages
20:19:08 [hugo]
Paul: I don't think we should consider SOAP+WSDL as a big lump when it comes to action
20:19:21 [Zakim]
20:19:59 [Zakim]
20:20:03 [hugo]
DaveH: we say action is mandatory, but we don't say what it means
20:20:14 [yinleng]
zakim, ??P7 is me
20:20:14 [Zakim]
+yinleng; got it
20:20:24 [pauld]
zakim, mute me
20:20:24 [Zakim]
pauld should now be muted
20:21:58 [hugo]
Hugo: action identifies the semantics of the message, and it is possible to have identical actions for multiple messages in the same operation if they have the same meaning
20:22:19 [hugo]
i/Hugo:/... how about its meaning, uniqueness, etc.
20:23:02 [hugo]
Mark: do people want to see this on our issues list?
20:23:22 [hugo]
Jonathan: it doesn't seem to harm
20:23:25 [uyalcina]
+1 to Marc Hadley
20:23:36 [hugo]
Marc: I'd like to understand how the current draft is broken
20:25:00 [hugo]
DaveH: nowhere in this spec do we ever define what dispatching off of action means
20:25:15 [uyalcina]
20:25:20 [hugo]
Marc: I don't think we should go there
20:26:05 [pauld]
WSDL position on dispatching is a rather unhappy compromise resulting from a lot of discussion and a minority opinion or two
20:26:06 [hugo]
Mark: we talked about raising the bar for accepting as issue
20:26:07 [RebeccaB]
+1 to Marc's position that we don't need to go there
20:26:26 [hugo]
... I would like to have issues seconded by somebody
20:26:37 [mnot]
ack uyal
20:26:41 [hugo]
... does somebody want to second this issue?
20:27:33 [hugo]
Umit: given the history in WSDL, I don't think we should talk about this issue
20:27:53 [hugo]
RESOLUTION: proposed issue not accepted in the issues list
20:28:06 [mnot]
20:28:19 [hugo]
i/http/Topic: UsingAddressing with other bindings than our SOAP binding.
20:29:07 [hugo]
[ Jonathan describes the issue ]
20:30:10 [mnot]
Minutes of i021 decision:
20:30:18 [hugo]
Mark: my concern is that we may be reopening a previous issue (i021)
20:31:22 [swinkler]
swinkler has joined #ws-addr
20:32:42 [hugo]
... it's not clear that an explicit decision was made at the time
20:33:12 [Zakim]
20:33:19 [hugo]
Hugo: I thought we considered wsoap:module, but ended up with UsingAddressing because we wanted to go beyond SOAP
20:33:27 [hugo]
... is that what we want to reconsider?
20:33:54 [hugo]
Mark: my recollection is that we wanted to have a cross-WSDL versions mechanism
20:34:23 [hugo]
Marc: I think the minutes are pretty clear about defining UsingAddressing beyond SOAP
20:34:40 [hugo]
Jonathan: so how would you use it beyond SOAP?
20:35:11 [hugo]
Rebecca: how about if you use multiple bindings, e.g. multiple ports with different bindings?
20:36:24 [hugo]
Marc: does that mean that you want to highlight the use Addressing for our SOAP binding regardless of the underlying protocol?
20:36:29 [hugo]
Jonathan: yes
20:36:49 [hugo]
Marc: I think that we have some mentions of SOAPAction that may be HTTP specific
20:37:11 [hugo]
Jonathan: I'm assuming that it's only applying to cases when SOAPAction makes sense
20:38:02 [hugo]
... if we leave it the way it is, it's not clear with WS-A binding is in use
20:38:22 [hugo]
Mark: is that a lie down on the road issue for you?
20:38:43 [hugo]
Jonathan: no, it's a spec consistency issue
20:38:51 [mnot]
ack hugo
20:39:21 [uyalcina]
it is implicit in the context
20:40:41 [hugo]
Hugo: have you considered using having a marker for specifying what exact binding is in use?
20:41:10 [hugo]
Jonathan: no, I think that you can do that in WSDL in already, so we don't need to architect an extensibility point here
20:41:11 [marc]
the location of UsingAddressing extension in the WSDL gives the necessary context to determine th ebinding in use
20:41:45 [hugo]
Mark: anyone seconding this issue?
20:41:50 [hugo]
[ silence ]
20:41:55 [hugo]
RESOLUTION: proposed issue not accepted in the issues list
20:42:39 [hugo]
Topic: Propose: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict?
20:42:45 [hugo]
20:42:45 [mnot]
20:44:47 [hugo]
Marc: I'd like to think about it more
20:45:06 [hugo]
... it looks like a backwards compatibility feature
20:45:09 [anish]
20:45:17 [mnot]
ack anish
20:45:23 [hugo]
... but it may complicate the defaulting rules
20:45:32 [uyalcina]
I prefer getting this into the issues list
20:45:54 [hugo]
Anish: I think we can put it on the issues list
20:46:01 [uyalcina]
lets discuss next week
20:46:04 [hugo]
... I am seconding it
20:46:38 [hugo]
RESOLUTION: Issue added to the issues list
20:47:00 [hugo]
Topic: Migration of @Action from WS-A 200408 to WS-A 1.0 [i064]
20:47:10 [hugo]
New proposal:
20:48:32 [hugo]
Mark: are people comfortable with this new text or do they want more time?
20:48:41 [hugo]
Anish, Hugo: we're OK
20:49:28 [hugo]
Marc: what's the point of the last paragraph?
20:49:50 [hugo]
Jonathan: letting people know that they may want to go and fix their action values
20:50:44 [hugo]
Marc: I'm OK to aprove it now
20:50:55 [hugo]
Mark: any objection to this proposal?
20:51:09 [hugo]
[ silence ]
20:51:38 [hugo]
RESOLUTION: i064 closed and resolved as proposed in
20:51:49 [hugo]
Topic: cr6 - wsa:InvalidAddress: redundancy and wsa:ProblemIRI error
20:51:57 [hugo]
20:54:31 [hugo]
[ Hugo summarizes where we're at ]
20:54:37 [Marsh]
+1 if it'sn not substantial
20:54:53 [hugo]
Mark: we wanted to make sure the proposal wasn't a substantial change
20:55:02 [hugo]
Tony: I agree it isn't
20:55:30 [hugo]
RESOLUTION: cr6 closed and resolved with
20:55:43 [hugo]
[ nobody objected to this resolution ]
20:55:56 [hugo]
Topic: cr8 - SOAPAction
20:56:31 [anish]
20:56:37 [hugo]
20:57:21 [hugo]
Anish: if we have quotes in an HTTP header, are the quotes significant?
20:57:32 [hugo]
Mark: it's specified per header
20:58:01 [hugo]
Marc: I'd like to go and check the media type definition
20:58:11 [hugo]
ACTION: Marc to come up with a proposal for cr8
20:58:28 [hugo]
Topic: CR Testing
20:58:46 [mnot]
20:59:17 [hugo]
CR test cases:
20:59:38 [hugo]
[ Arun introduces the document ]
21:02:04 [pauld]
zakim, unmute me
21:02:04 [Zakim]
pauld should no longer be muted
21:03:00 [hugo]
DaveH: I don't think that test 1 is a valid test as it's not tied to a requirement
21:03:23 [hugo]
Paul: I think that a "none" URI identifies a one-way message
21:03:59 [pauld]
zakim, mute me
21:03:59 [Zakim]
pauld should now be muted
21:04:18 [hugo]
DaveH: the "none" sort of turns a req-resp into a one-way
21:04:19 [Jonathan]
Jonathan has joined #ws-addr
21:04:21 [mnot]
"Messages sent to EPRs whose [address] is this value MUST be discarded (i.e. not sent). This URI is typically used in EPRs that designate a reply or fault endpoint (see section 3.1 Abstract Property Definitions) to indicate that no reply or fault message should be sent."
21:05:30 [hugo]
Marc: could we have an endpoint which always generates faults, except when the recipient is the "none" URI
21:05:37 [hugo]
21:05:45 [hugo]
DaveH: that's a way indeed
21:07:03 [hugo]
Mark: we could have an HTTP transport response, without a SOAP response
21:07:40 [hugo]
... we need to work with keeping in mind that we need to demonstrate features using these tests
21:08:43 [hugo]
Marc: the way I saw this is that you'd better use "none" in a one-way message becouse of the defaulting rule
21:11:07 [hugo]
Arun: so we're not going to do the the 1&2 sub-bullets as specified; we're going to use a request-response with a "none" URI which will degenerate into a one-way
21:11:25 [hugo]
-- 2. Endpoint Reference Infoset Representation (2.2) - REQUIRED
21:11:41 [Zakim]
21:11:46 [hugo]
i/DaveH: I don't think that/-- 1. "none" URI (2.1) - REQUIRED/
21:11:58 [hugo]
RRSAgent, make log public
21:12:02 [hugo]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:12:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate hugo
21:12:56 [hugo]
Mark: this seems to be a behovioral text of a reply
21:13:12 [hugo]
Arun: we can add more tests about how a FaultTo gets represented
21:14:49 [hugo]
Katy: is this text just to test the serialization of an EPR?
21:14:52 [hugo]
Mark: yes
21:15:22 [hugo]
DaveH: how do you get out the abstract properties from these?
21:15:29 [hugo]
Mark: it's implementation specific
21:16:46 [hugo]
Arun: I'll add some information about success criteria
21:16:55 [hugo]
Mark: we talked about using XPath for this
21:17:05 [hugo]
-- 3. Endpoint Reference Extensibility (2.5) - REQUIRED
21:17:31 [pauld]
i can build test cases from these, and build XPath expressions to compare, however some complete example messages would be useful
21:18:10 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
21:19:35 [hugo]
Anish: if the test doesn't define what these extensions mean, how do we know if the receiving end saw them?
21:20:57 [hugo]
... for SOAP 1.2, we had defined a header whose function was to be echo'ed back
21:22:01 [hugo]
Mark: could you make some proposals around this?
21:22:34 [hugo]
ACTION: Anish to propose meaningful EPR extensions for test 3. Endpoint Reference Extensibility (2.5)
21:24:48 [hugo]
Katy: it's not clear what we're testing here: the sending agent or the receiving one?
21:24:59 [hugo]
DaveH: I don't think that we could test the client side
21:26:21 [pauld]
zakim, unmute me
21:26:22 [Zakim]
pauld should no longer be muted
21:26:24 [hugo]
Mark: I think that these differences will become more clear when we put those tests into Paul's framework
21:26:58 [hugo]
DaveH: I'd like to have some tags indicating the entity tested
21:27:21 [pauld]
zakim, mute me
21:27:21 [Zakim]
pauld should now be muted
21:27:29 [hugo]
-- 4. XML Infoset Representation of Message Addressing Properties (3.2)
21:27:57 [hugo]
Arun: 2.1. may apply here
21:28:06 [hugo]
-- 5. wsa:To defaulting (3.2)
21:29:20 [hugo]
[ no comments ]
21:29:30 [hugo]
-- 6. wsa:ReplyTo defaulting (3.2)
21:30:26 [hugo]
DaveH: in that case, you don't need to talk about the client at all, it's a server test
21:31:09 [hugo]
-- 9. Formulating a normal Reply (3.3)
21:32:15 [hugo]
Arun: More tests can be added here
21:32:58 [hugo]
-- 5. wsa:To defaulting (3.2)
21:33:09 [hugo]
[ Going back as requested by Umit ]
21:34:03 [hugo]
Umit: you're talking about the reply message here, right?
21:34:07 [hugo]
Arun: that's correc
21:34:14 [hugo]
21:34:22 [hugo]
-- 10. Formulating a Fault Reply (3.3)
21:35:21 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
21:35:39 [hugo]
s/-- /-- Core /g
21:35:46 [hugo]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:35:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate hugo
21:36:16 [hugo]
Katy: do we need the isRefParam="true" in the EPR?
21:36:35 [hugo]
... there's a typo in sub-bullet 1
21:36:40 [hugo]
Arun: thank you
21:37:02 [hugo]
-- SOAP 1. SOAP 1.2 Feature interaction with Action (2.4)
21:38:00 [hugo]
[ No comments ]
21:38:10 [hugo]
-- SOAP 3. SOAP 1.2 Anonymous Address (3.5)
21:39:00 [hugo]
[ No comments ]
21:39:15 [hugo]
-- SOAP 5. SOAP 1.1 interaction with Action (4.2)
21:40:05 [hugo]
[ No comments ]
21:40:17 [hugo]
-- SOAP 6. SOAP 1.1 Anonymous Address (3.5)
21:40:43 [hugo]
[ No comments ]
21:40:54 [hugo]
-- SOAP 8. InvalidAddressingFailure Fault (5, 3.2)
21:41:40 [hugo]
[ No comments ]
21:41:49 [dhull]
21:42:07 [pauld]
zakim, unmute me
21:42:07 [Zakim]
pauld should no longer be muted
21:42:12 [hugo]
Mark: I think that the next step is for Arun and Paul to integrate those in Paul's framework
21:42:35 [hugo]
Paul: we will need messages for inclusion in the framework
21:43:42 [hugo]
Mark: I'd like us to identify which features are not tested by those tests
21:44:05 [hugo]
ACTION: Paul to take Arun's work and integrate it in his framework with Arun's help
21:44:49 [hugo]
Paul: do you think that we have good coverage with those base on the list we discussed in Palo Alto 2 weeks ago?
21:45:36 [hugo]
Mark: have you guys changed the spec so that we have a section called creating a message from an EPR?
21:45:43 [hugo]
Tony: not yet, but soon
21:46:48 [hugo]
Mark: we will be considering Paul's document in the coming weeks to make user we understand it and we have enough tests to test implementation in CR
21:47:06 [pauld]
zakim, mute me
21:47:06 [Zakim]
pauld should now be muted
21:47:16 [hugo]
s/help/help by 2005-10-17/
21:48:00 [hugo]
Mark: we have 3 concalls between now and Tokyo
21:48:14 [hugo]
... we're going to continue revising the test doc
21:48:30 [hugo]
... does that seem reasonable?
21:48:36 [hugo]
[ silence ]
21:48:39 [Zakim]
21:48:40 [hugo]
21:48:40 [Zakim]
21:48:41 [Zakim]
21:48:42 [Zakim]
21:48:43 [Zakim]
21:48:44 [Zakim]
21:48:45 [Zakim]
21:48:47 [Zakim]
21:48:48 [Zakim]
21:48:49 [Zakim]
21:48:50 [Zakim]
21:48:51 [hugo]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:48:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate hugo
21:49:02 [Zakim]
21:49:02 [Zakim]
21:49:02 [Zakim]
21:49:02 [Zakim]
21:49:02 [Zakim]
21:49:02 [Zakim]
21:49:03 [yinleng]
yinleng has left #ws-addr
21:49:04 [Zakim]
21:49:06 [Zakim]
21:49:08 [Zakim]
21:49:10 [Zakim]
21:49:22 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
21:49:25 [MSEder]
MSEder has left #ws-addr
21:50:08 [hugo]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
21:50:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Vikas_Deolaliker
21:50:47 [hugo]
Zakim, drop Vikas
21:50:47 [Zakim]
Vikas_Deolaliker is being disconnected
21:50:48 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
21:50:50 [Zakim]
Attendees were Gilbert_Pilz, Steve, Rebecca_Bergersen, Vikas_Deolaliker, MarkN, Arun, TonyR, Mark_Little, Jonathan_Marsh, Tom_Rutt, Marc_Hadley, Bob_Freund, Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr,
21:50:53 [Zakim]
... Mark_Peel, Hugo, Nilo, MSEder, Umit_Yalcinalp, pauld, Anish, Prasad_Yendluri, yinleng, Abbie_Barbir
21:52:23 [hugo]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:52:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate hugo
22:59:02 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr