IRC log of ws-addr on 2006-04-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:50:20 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:50:20 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:50:37 [bob]
zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
19:50:37 [Zakim]
ok, bob; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
19:51:05 [bob]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference
19:51:12 [bob]
Chair: Bob Freund
19:52:21 [bob]
19:56:45 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
19:56:53 [Zakim]
19:57:21 [Zakim]
19:57:34 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
19:59:19 [Zakim]
19:59:41 [Zakim]
19:59:42 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
19:59:52 [Zakim]
20:00:25 [hugo]
Zakim, call hugo-617
20:00:25 [Zakim]
ok, hugo; the call is being made
20:00:27 [Zakim]
20:00:36 [Zakim]
20:00:48 [Zakim]
20:01:04 [Zakim]
20:01:43 [bob]
zakin, mark_peel is katy
20:01:51 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
20:02:03 [bob]
zakim, mark_peel is katy
20:02:03 [Zakim]
+katy; got it
20:02:08 [Zakim]
20:02:13 [Katy]
20:02:32 [Zakim]
20:02:42 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-addr
20:02:59 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
20:03:21 [Zakim]
20:03:42 [Zakim]
20:04:00 [Zakim]
20:04:02 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
20:04:19 [Zakim]
20:04:25 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p13 is me
20:04:25 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
20:04:31 [Zakim]
20:04:32 [Nilo]
Nilo has joined #ws-addr
20:04:55 [TRutt]
TRutt has joined #ws-addr
20:06:34 [Zakim]
20:06:43 [anish]
right on cue
20:06:57 [Paco]
Paco has joined #ws-addr
20:07:56 [bob]
Scribe: katy
20:08:17 [Zakim]
20:08:17 [Katy]
zakim, mute me
20:08:18 [Zakim]
katy should now be muted
20:08:31 [Katy]
thanks hugo - stops the phone from beeping
20:09:27 [Jonathan]
20:09:33 [PaulKnight]
PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
20:09:33 [Jonathan]
20:09:55 [Katy]
RESOLUTION: Minutes were accepted
20:10:32 [Katy]
20:10:44 [Katy]
Action Item complete - not checking in yet
20:10:57 [Katy]
20:12:07 [Katy]
jonathan: Action item on clarifying conformance point done
20:13:03 [Katy]
RESOLUTION: LC125 closed with proposed text
20:13:28 [Katy]
20:14:20 [Katy]
Confusion arose because space between using and addressing.
20:14:39 [Katy]
RESOLUTION: Editors modify element names with different font
20:15:20 [Katy]
TOPIC: New Issues
20:15:48 [Zakim]
20:15:52 [Katy]
LC 129 Accepted as new issue
20:16:01 [Katy]
LC 130 accepted as new issue
20:16:18 [GlenD]
GlenD has joined #ws-addr
20:16:24 [Katy]
Bob explained Last Call interval is now closed
20:16:45 [Katy]
Jonathan: 2 more issues for tomorrow
20:17:36 [Zakim]
20:18:11 [Katy]
Group agreed to 24 hour extension LC issues until COB CA time tomorrow
20:19:14 [Zakim]
20:20:23 [Katy]
20:21:03 [Katy]
Jonathan: Some discussion on email - still find issue a little confusing
20:21:18 [Katy]
optional value causing problems for WCF
20:21:36 [Katy]
similar concerns brought up but not the same as M/S does
20:22:06 [Katy]
dhull: Complaint is that by looking at WSDL endpoint can't tell whether want to use anonymous or not
20:22:14 [Katy]
this is as designed for spec
20:22:31 [Katy]
email thread confirmed issue
20:23:13 [Katy]
bob: can we respond by we understand but close with no change
20:23:42 [Katy]
ACTION: Bob to respond to cubmitter with close issue with no action
20:23:54 [Katy]
20:24:11 [Katy]
20:24:38 [Katy]
Jonathan: At th epoint of locking down what needs to be shipped for WCF
20:25:20 [Katy]
... OUt of box WCF can hav 2 soap bindings: AnonymousRequired with backchannel
20:25:43 [Katy]
... other binding is : anonymous prohibited
20:25:46 [bob]
Scribenick: katy
20:26:33 [Katy]
... No binding for WCF maps to optional anonymous on a WSDL operation. It's not supported 'out of box' for WCF
20:26:58 [Zakim]
20:27:02 [Katy]
... Other option that M/S considering is policy duplex binding
20:27:43 [Katy]
... this would be M/S propriatary and indicate that anonymous is prohibited. This is not a standard Policy assertion
20:28:13 [Katy]
... however, this policy assertion illustrates how the UsingAddressing marker is not easily mapped to Policy
20:28:50 [Zakim]
20:28:52 [Katy]
glen: if we don't put in anonymous then default to optional
20:29:30 [bob]
zakim, who is here?
20:29:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see David_Illsley, Bob_Freund, Tom_Rutt, Jonathan_Marsh, Hugo, Anish, Gilbert_Pilz, katy (muted), DOrchard, Dave_Hull, Pete_Wenzel, Nilo_Mitra, Andreas_Bjarlestam
20:29:33 [Zakim]
... (muted), TonyR, Marc_Hadley, Paco:Francisco_Curbera, Paul_Knight, GlenD, JeffM
20:29:34 [Zakim]
On IRC I see GlenD, PaulKnight, Paco, TRutt, Nilo, TonyR, dhull, dorchard, Katy, anish, David_Illsley, RRSAgent, Zakim, bob, Jonathan, hugo
20:29:46 [Katy]
jonathan: want to be able to say that anonymous is not constrained: I.e. No statement defaults to 'unspecified'
20:30:15 [dhull]
20:30:24 [Katy]
... currently not specified means 'optional' i.e. anon and anonymous are supported
20:30:29 [Zakim]
20:30:55 [Katy]
... anonymous is tied tightly to usingAddressing.
20:31:35 [anish]
20:31:38 [GlenD]
20:31:47 [bob]
ack hugo
20:31:58 [Katy]
... What is being standardised doesn't map to what we are going to ship. First choice would be not have anonymous until we have Policy
20:32:09 [anish]
20:32:44 [Katy]
Hugo: Concern is that such a big change will take us back to LC
20:32:59 [Katy]
Will defaulting to unspecified fix
20:33:41 [Zakim]
20:34:00 [Katy]
jonathan: Yes - would allow us to have something stable to ship on quickly. Although would be another LC we would be able to participate fully
20:34:09 [Zakim]
20:34:19 [bob]
ack dh
20:35:18 [Katy]
dhull: agrees with add unspecified but not default as best option
20:35:39 [Katy]
... removing default more intuitive but bigger change
20:35:57 [bob]
ack glen
20:36:00 [Katy]
... if we can get away with it then remove the defaulting otherwise just add unspecified
20:36:57 [Katy]
glen: Understand M/s close to a ship date. Are you going to have client support for duplex binding if Anon=Required
20:37:18 [Zakim]
20:37:57 [Katy]
jonathan: not sure will need to check
20:38:25 [Katy]
glen: Stack that I work on do optional and prefer that as default
20:39:08 [Katy]
glen: Like the optional default. Spec should reflect architectural concerns not implementation concerns
20:39:27 [Zakim]
20:39:46 [Katy]
jonathan: acknowledges different implementation approach for M/S but this stops involvement in CR
20:40:04 [bob]
ack anish
20:40:41 [Katy]
Anish: How would 'unspecified' helpin the WCF implementation
20:42:20 [Katy]
Jonathan: looking at policy as prefered vehicle for these kind of assertions. this fits better. 'unspecified' is simply a marker that does not require complete support for anonymous/non-anonymous
20:42:51 [Paco]
20:43:00 [Katy]
Anish: Unfortunately Policy is not there yet so would like to point out that we shouldn't hold up spec between this
20:43:41 [Katy]
... Katy expressed that should have default value to clarify support
20:43:56 [Katy]
(I still think this ;o) ideally )
20:44:19 [bob]
ack paco
20:44:33 [Katy]
jonathan: this is a compromise in order for us to reach CR
20:44:40 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:44:59 [Katy]
Paco: agree with jonathan about QName
20:45:29 [Katy]
... agree with concern about interoperability problems if there is no default
20:46:04 [Katy]
... can we agree on what clients should do when see anonymous='unspecified' for interoperabaility concerns
20:46:39 [Katy]
jonathan: If use unsupported address then might get a fault back if WSDL specifies 'unspecified'
20:47:25 [Katy]
... runtime negotiation. There is nothing that the client can assume about the handling of anonymous except that some addresses may be rejected
20:48:31 [Katy]
paco: Should consider what out most common case is for the default: perhaps the more common case is Anonymous only
20:48:55 [Katy]
jonathan: problem is composibility with other specs wrt assuming anon required is default
20:49:10 [Katy]
paco: understood.
20:50:05 [Katy]
paco: another question WRT from mail option 2:Remove specification of anonymous altogether. Make no conformance statement that UsingAddressing necessarily implies full support.
20:50:27 [Katy]
...How is testing of this going to work
20:51:50 [Katy]
jonathan: Not sure of this. Extensions that we will be able to test are WSDL 1.1 only
20:52:02 [Katy]
bob: what are acceptable proposals
20:52:34 [Katy]
... Proposal 1: Anonymous removed from the spec
20:52:59 [Katy]
Few negative comments
20:54:20 [bob]
s/Few/A few
20:54:44 [Katy]
Glen: Can you get an 'I can't deal with anonymous address' fault when faultTo set to anonymous?
20:55:12 [Katy]
Anish: If there is a mustUnderstand fault and addressing has not been processed will get somehting back on backchannel anyhow
20:55:38 [Katy]
Bob: Porposal 2:Remove specification of anonymous altogether. Make no conformance statement that UsingAddressing necessarily implies full support
20:56:08 [Katy]
jonathan: Advantage of this is UsingAddressing does not imply anonymous function
20:56:46 [Katy]
Paco: this would be more appealing if we could understand the behaviour of the client for this
20:57:34 [Katy]
jonathan: perhaps another default will work if can cope with spec composition issues
20:57:46 [Katy]
Anish: I would prefer proposal 4
20:58:03 [Katy]
Proposal 4: Remove the default. Lack of wsaw:Anonymous means there are no claims about Anonymous support.
20:59:08 [anish]
20:59:20 [bob]
ack anish
21:00:09 [Katy]
Anish: Do we need to go back to last call again with this?
21:00:27 [Katy]
Hugo only if we remove the anonymous completely
21:00:37 [Katy]
Replace Anonymous with 2 or more likely 3 separate (from a conformance sense) assertions. The default value when just using the UsingAddressing assertion would make no design-time claims as to the handling of anonymous. We would likely support an AnonymousRequired assertion in this release, less likely an AnonymousProhibited assertion (we support this but not as an orthogonal option at this point), but unlikely an AnonymousOptional assertion at this point.
21:00:37 [Katy]
2.Remove specification of anonymous altogether. Make no conformance statement that UsingAddressing necessarily implies full support.
21:00:37 [Katy]
3.Introduce a new value to Anonymous of “unspecified” as the default. Make sure one can use UsingAddressing without fully supporting all values of wsaw:Anonymous.
21:00:40 [Katy]
4.(From Anish). Remove the default. Lack of wsaw:Anonymous means there are no claims about Anonymous support.
21:00:54 [Katy]
bob: are people leaning towards option 4
21:01:28 [Katy]
ACTION: Paco to extend option 4 to draft interoperablility asusmptions clients can make when no value for the anonymous option is provided
21:02:16 [bob]
21:03:11 [Katy]
Anish: What happens if there are 2 policy assertions that are conflicting
21:03:32 [Katy]
Paco: Validation creates an contradictory assertion that is thrown away
21:04:56 [Katy]
... nothing stopping 2 assertions e.g. usinganonymous and anonymous assertion so long as you define some conflict resolution for the different assertions
21:05:00 [Zakim]
21:06:51 [Katy]
Nilo: concern about this in the same domain
21:07:05 [Katy]
Paco: best practice would be no overlap
21:07:52 [Katy]
... UsingAddressing have no default wrt Anonymous => helps this problem
21:08:17 [Katy]
....UsingAddressing has no overlap wrt Anonymous => helps this problem
21:08:35 [Katy]
21:09:34 [Katy]
Jonathan: In section 4.1
21:09:37 [Katy]
The use of MUST in conjunction with "additional runtime information"
21:09:37 [Katy]
makes this phrase a bit confusing. The MUST implies that this condition
21:09:37 [Katy]
is testable, but the rest of the text shatters that implication.
21:09:37 [Katy]
Perhaps this could be reworded to remove the MUST, for example "the
21:09:37 [Katy]
value of [destination] ... typically matches the value of the {address}
21:09:38 [Katy]
21:10:07 [Katy]
jonathan: 2 qualifications on the must - what has preference here?
21:10:18 [bob]
21:11:06 [Katy]
bob: any objections to accepting
21:11:22 [Katy]
lots of poor jokes
21:11:46 [Katy]
bob: no objections
21:12:09 [Katy]
RESOLUTION: Close LC130 by accepting the proposal
21:12:37 [Zakim]
21:12:47 [Katy]
TOPIC: LC124 conformance
21:13:07 [bob]
21:14:00 [anish]
21:14:17 [Katy]
Jonathan: explains issue
21:15:35 [Katy]
jonathan: What does UsingAddressing mean that you need to support in order to be conformant
21:15:57 [bob]
ack ani
21:16:24 [Katy]
Anish: Please clarify: What do you mean by orthogal features that you don't need to support?
21:16:59 [Katy]
... Conforming to binding spec requires understanding and recognising feature
21:17:03 [Katy]
21:18:03 [bob]
concern between conflicting wsdl and wdsl contained in an epr
21:18:14 [Katy]
Anish: E.g. if you have 'action' and 'UsingAddressing' then you would understand what a consumer's responsibility is
21:19:31 [Katy]
jonathan: Action and USingAddressing naturally go well together so a conformance statement relating the 2 is relevant
21:20:31 [Katy]
Anish: Why not same conformance statement about reference parameters
21:21:01 [Katy]
Jonathan: I would agree to ReferenceParamaters, ACtion, Destination conformance statement with UsingAddressing
21:21:40 [Katy]
... if anonymous was a separate policy assertion need not be tied to UsingAddressing, at the moment when not a Policy assertion, not so sure
21:22:59 [Katy]
ANish: What about Section 5?
21:23:16 [Katy]
Jonathan: If conforming to cor eiwll conform to section 5 by default
21:23:58 [Katy]
Anish: Would like some more concrete text stating what UsingAddressing implies wrt section 5
21:24:09 [Katy]
... need to check the text again
21:25:00 [Katy]
Agreement that this is a boring issue
21:25:41 [Katy]
ACTION: Jonathan agrees to look at some real text for this issue
21:26:01 [Katy]
Chair: LIke to talk about where we are and schedule
21:26:30 [Katy]
... Assuming a couple more issues over next 24 hours should be able to deal with next call
21:27:15 [Katy]
... assuming we don't need to go back to LC - hope for resolution to LC issues next monday
21:27:59 [Katy]
... Aim for final text for 24th April
21:28:08 [Katy]
... to CR no later than F2F
21:28:27 [bob]
21:28:29 [Katy]
... so we can focus on test criteria in F2F
21:28:58 [Jonathan]
Jonathan has joined #ws-addr
21:29:03 [Katy]
... New ballot for 3rd May at Boston museum fine arts plus dinner following
21:29:20 [Katy]
... please answer poll no later than next monday for booking purposes
21:29:48 [Katy]
... Next week's call also scheduled for 2 hours
21:32:04 [Katy]
Discussion on WDSL 2.0 testing
21:32:40 [Katy]
Chair: For us to declare victory we need WSDL 2 implementations
21:32:49 [Katy]
Hugo: That's correct
21:33:05 [Katy]
Chair: Need to evaluate options in this area
21:33:25 [Katy]
Jonathan: Need to also understand what test suite looks like for this material
21:33:44 [anish]
jonathan, doesn't having wsdl in the mix makes interop testing easier?
21:33:45 [Katy]
... especially as WSDL interop ability is not there yet
21:34:19 [Zakim]
21:34:20 [Zakim]
21:34:20 [Zakim]
21:34:21 [Zakim]
21:34:21 [Zakim]
21:34:23 [Zakim]
21:34:23 [Zakim]
21:34:24 [Zakim]
21:34:26 [Zakim]
21:34:28 [Zakim]
21:34:30 [Zakim]
21:34:32 [Zakim]
21:34:34 [Zakim]
21:34:35 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
21:34:38 [Zakim]
21:34:53 [Zakim]
21:47:33 [bob]
rrsagent, please make logs public
21:47:53 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:47:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
22:01:57 [TRutt]
TRutt has left #ws-addr
22:05:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, Dave_Hull, in WS_AddrWG()4:00PM
22:05:02 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
22:05:06 [Zakim]
Attendees were David_Illsley, Bob_Freund, Mark_Little, Tom_Rutt, Jonathan_Marsh, Hugo, Anish, Gilbert_Pilz, Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr, katy, DOrchard, Dave_Hull, Pete_Wenzel, Nilo_Mitra,
22:05:09 [Zakim]
... Andreas_Bjarlestam, TonyR, Marc_Hadley, Paco:Francisco_Curbera, Paul_Knight, GlenD, JeffM
22:10:54 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr
23:20:53 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr