19:50:20 RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr 19:50:20 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/04/10-ws-addr-irc 19:50:37 zakim, this will be ws_addrwg 19:50:37 ok, bob; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 10 minutes 19:51:05 Meeting: Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference 19:51:12 Chair: Bob Freund 19:52:21 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/7D5D3FDA429F4D469ADF210408D6245A0391CB@jeeves.freunds.com 19:56:45 WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started 19:56:53 +David_Illsley 19:57:21 +Bob_Freund 19:57:34 David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr 19:59:19 +Mark_Little 19:59:41 +Tom_Rutt 19:59:42 anish has joined #ws-addr 19:59:52 +Jonathan_Marsh 20:00:25 Zakim, call hugo-617 20:00:25 ok, hugo; the call is being made 20:00:27 +Hugo 20:00:36 +Anish 20:00:48 +Gilbert_Pilz 20:01:04 +Mark_Peel/Katy_Warr 20:01:43 zakin, mark_peel is katy 20:01:51 Katy has joined #ws-addr 20:02:03 zakim, mark_peel is katy 20:02:03 +katy; got it 20:02:08 +DOrchard 20:02:13 thanks 20:02:32 +Dave_Hull 20:02:42 dorchard has joined #ws-addr 20:02:59 dhull has joined #ws-addr 20:03:21 +Pete_Wenzel 20:03:42 +Nilo_Mitra 20:04:00 +Andreas_Bjarlestam 20:04:02 TonyR has joined #ws-addr 20:04:19 +??P13 20:04:25 zakim, ??p13 is me 20:04:25 +TonyR; got it 20:04:31 +Marc_Hadley 20:04:32 Nilo has joined #ws-addr 20:04:55 TRutt has joined #ws-addr 20:06:34 +Paco:Francisco_Curbera 20:06:43 right on cue 20:06:57 Paco has joined #ws-addr 20:07:56 Scribe: katy 20:08:17 +Paul_Knight 20:08:17 zakim, mute me 20:08:18 katy should now be muted 20:08:31 thanks hugo - stops the phone from beeping 20:09:27 tp://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/6/04/03-ws-addr-minutes.html 20:09:33 PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr 20:09:33 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/6/04/03-ws-addr-minutes.html 20:09:55 RESOLUTION: Minutes were accepted 20:10:32 TOPIC: LC112 20:10:44 Action Item complete - not checking in yet 20:10:57 TOPIC: OTHER ACTION ITEMS 20:12:07 jonathan: Action item on clarifying conformance point done 20:13:03 RESOLUTION: LC125 closed with proposed text 20:13:28 TOPIC: LC126 20:14:20 Confusion arose because space between using and addressing. 20:14:39 RESOLUTION: Editors modify element names with different font 20:15:20 TOPIC: New Issues 20:15:48 +GlenD 20:15:52 LC 129 Accepted as new issue 20:16:01 LC 130 accepted as new issue 20:16:18 GlenD has joined #ws-addr 20:16:24 Bob explained Last Call interval is now closed 20:16:45 Jonathan: 2 more issues for tomorrow 20:17:36 -GlenD 20:18:11 Group agreed to 24 hour extension LC issues until COB CA time tomorrow 20:19:14 +GlenD 20:20:23 TOPIC: LC127 20:21:03 Jonathan: Some discussion on email - still find issue a little confusing 20:21:18 optional value causing problems for WCF 20:21:36 similar concerns brought up but not the same as M/S does 20:22:06 dhull: Complaint is that by looking at WSDL endpoint can't tell whether want to use anonymous or not 20:22:14 this is as designed for spec 20:22:31 email thread confirmed issue 20:23:13 bob: can we respond by we understand but close with no change 20:23:42 ACTION: Bob to respond to cubmitter with close issue with no action 20:23:54 s/cubmitter/submitter 20:24:11 TOPIC : LC129 20:24:38 Jonathan: At th epoint of locking down what needs to be shipped for WCF 20:25:20 ... OUt of box WCF can hav 2 soap bindings: AnonymousRequired with backchannel 20:25:43 ... other binding is : anonymous prohibited 20:25:46 Scribenick: katy 20:26:33 ... No binding for WCF maps to optional anonymous on a WSDL operation. It's not supported 'out of box' for WCF 20:26:58 -Mark_Little 20:27:02 ... Other option that M/S considering is policy duplex binding 20:27:43 ... this would be M/S propriatary and indicate that anonymous is prohibited. This is not a standard Policy assertion 20:28:13 ... however, this policy assertion illustrates how the UsingAddressing marker is not easily mapped to Policy 20:28:50 +JeffM 20:28:52 glen: if we don't put in anonymous then default to optional 20:29:30 zakim, who is here? 20:29:30 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 ... (muted), TonyR, Marc_Hadley, Paco:Francisco_Curbera, Paul_Knight, GlenD, JeffM 20:29:34 On IRC I see GlenD, PaulKnight, Paco, TRutt, Nilo, TonyR, dhull, dorchard, Katy, anish, David_Illsley, RRSAgent, Zakim, bob, Jonathan, hugo 20:29:46 jonathan: want to be able to say that anonymous is not constrained: I.e. No statement defaults to 'unspecified' 20:30:15 q+ 20:30:24 ... currently not specified means 'optional' i.e. anon and anonymous are supported 20:30:29 -DOrchard 20:30:55 ... anonymous is tied tightly to usingAddressing. 20:31:35 q? 20:31:38 q+ 20:31:47 ack hugo 20:31:58 ... 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 q+ 20:32:44 Hugo: Concern is that such a big change will take us back to LC 20:32:59 Will defaulting to unspecified fix 20:33:41 -David_Illsley 20:34:00 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 +David_Illsley 20:34:19 ack dh 20:35:18 dhull: agrees with add unspecified but not default as best option 20:35:39 ... removing default more intuitive but bigger change 20:35:57 ack glen 20:36:00 ... if we can get away with it then remove the defaulting otherwise just add unspecified 20:36:57 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 -Pete_Wenzel 20:37:57 jonathan: not sure will need to check 20:38:25 glen: Stack that I work on do optional and prefer that as default 20:39:08 glen: Like the optional default. Spec should reflect architectural concerns not implementation concerns 20:39:27 +Pete_Wenzel 20:39:46 jonathan: acknowledges different implementation approach for M/S but this stops involvement in CR 20:40:04 ack anish 20:40:41 Anish: How would 'unspecified' helpin the WCF implementation 20:42:20 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 q+ 20:43:00 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 expressed that should have default value to clarify support 20:43:56 (I still think this ;o) ideally ) 20:44:19 ack paco 20:44:33 jonathan: this is a compromise in order for us to reach CR 20:44:40 gpilz has joined #ws-addr 20:44:59 Paco: agree with jonathan about QName 20:45:29 ... agree with concern about interoperability problems if there is no default 20:46:04 ... can we agree on what clients should do when see anonymous='unspecified' for interoperabaility concerns 20:46:39 jonathan: If use unsupported address then might get a fault back if WSDL specifies 'unspecified' 20:47:25 ... 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 paco: Should consider what out most common case is for the default: perhaps the more common case is Anonymous only 20:48:55 jonathan: problem is composibility with other specs wrt assuming anon required is default 20:49:10 paco: understood. 20:50:05 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 ...How is testing of this going to work 20:51:50 jonathan: Not sure of this. Extensions that we will be able to test are WSDL 1.1 only 20:52:02 bob: what are acceptable proposals 20:52:34 ... Proposal 1: Anonymous removed from the spec 20:52:59 Few negative comments 20:54:20 s/Few/A few 20:54:44 Glen: Can you get an 'I can't deal with anonymous address' fault when faultTo set to anonymous? 20:55:12 Anish: If there is a mustUnderstand fault and addressing has not been processed will get somehting back on backchannel anyhow 20:55:38 Bob: Porposal 2:Remove specification of anonymous altogether. Make no conformance statement that UsingAddressing necessarily implies full support 20:56:08 jonathan: Advantage of this is UsingAddressing does not imply anonymous function 20:56:46 Paco: this would be more appealing if we could understand the behaviour of the client for this 20:57:34 jonathan: perhaps another default will work if can cope with spec composition issues 20:57:46 Anish: I would prefer proposal 4 20:58:03 Proposal 4: Remove the default. Lack of wsaw:Anonymous means there are no claims about Anonymous support. 20:59:08 q+ 20:59:20 ack anish 21:00:09 Anish: Do we need to go back to last call again with this? 21:00:27 Hugo only if we remove the anonymous completely 21:00:37 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 2. Remove specification of anonymous altogether. Make no conformance statement that UsingAddressing necessarily implies full support. 21:00:37 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 4. (From Anish). Remove the default. Lack of wsaw:Anonymous means there are no claims about Anonymous support. 21:00:54 bob: are people leaning towards option 4 21:01:28 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Apr/0019.html 21:03:11 Anish: What happens if there are 2 policy assertions that are conflicting 21:03:32 Paco: Validation creates an contradictory assertion that is thrown away 21:04:56 ... 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 -JeffM 21:06:51 Nilo: concern about this in the same domain 21:07:05 Paco: best practice would be no overlap 21:07:52 ... UsingAddressing have no default wrt Anonymous => helps this problem 21:08:17 ....UsingAddressing has no overlap wrt Anonymous => helps this problem 21:08:35 TOPIC: LC130 21:09:34 Jonathan: In section 4.1 21:09:37 The use of MUST in conjunction with "additional runtime information" 21:09:37 makes this phrase a bit confusing. The MUST implies that this condition 21:09:37 is testable, but the rest of the text shatters that implication. 21:09:37 Perhaps this could be reworded to remove the MUST, for example "the 21:09:37 value of [destination] ... typically matches the value of the {address} 21:09:38 property." 21:10:07 jonathan: 2 qualifications on the must - what has preference here? 21:10:18 q? 21:11:06 bob: any objections to accepting 21:11:22 lots of poor jokes 21:11:46 bob: no objections 21:12:09 RESOLUTION: Close LC130 by accepting the proposal 21:12:37 -Nilo_Mitra 21:12:47 TOPIC: LC124 conformance 21:13:07 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Apr/0010.html 21:14:00 q+ 21:14:17 Jonathan: explains issue 21:15:35 jonathan: What does UsingAddressing mean that you need to support in order to be conformant 21:15:57 ack ani 21:16:24 Anish: Please clarify: What do you mean by orthogal features that you don't need to support? 21:16:59 ... Conforming to binding spec requires understanding and recognising feature 21:17:03 ...? 21:18:03 concern between conflicting wsdl and wdsl contained in an epr 21:18:14 Anish: E.g. if you have 'action' and 'UsingAddressing' then you would understand what a consumer's responsibility is 21:19:31 jonathan: Action and USingAddressing naturally go well together so a conformance statement relating the 2 is relevant 21:20:31 Anish: Why not same conformance statement about reference parameters 21:21:01 Jonathan: I would agree to ReferenceParamaters, ACtion, Destination conformance statement with UsingAddressing 21:21:40 ... 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 ANish: What about Section 5? 21:23:16 Jonathan: If conforming to cor eiwll conform to section 5 by default 21:23:58 Anish: Would like some more concrete text stating what UsingAddressing implies wrt section 5 21:24:09 ... need to check the text again 21:25:00 Agreement that this is a boring issue 21:25:41 ACTION: Jonathan agrees to look at some real text for this issue 21:26:01 Chair: LIke to talk about where we are and schedule 21:26:30 ... Assuming a couple more issues over next 24 hours should be able to deal with next call 21:27:15 ... assuming we don't need to go back to LC - hope for resolution to LC issues next monday 21:27:59 ... Aim for final text for 24th April 21:28:08 ... to CR no later than F2F 21:28:27 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36696/May3MFA/ 21:28:29 ... so we can focus on test criteria in F2F 21:28:58 Jonathan has joined #ws-addr 21:29:03 ... New ballot for 3rd May at Boston museum fine arts plus dinner following 21:29:20 ... please answer poll no later than next monday for booking purposes 21:29:48 ... Next week's call also scheduled for 2 hours 21:32:04 Discussion on WDSL 2.0 testing 21:32:40 Chair: For us to declare victory we need WSDL 2 implementations 21:32:49 Hugo: That's correct 21:33:05 Chair: Need to evaluate options in this area 21:33:25 Jonathan: Need to also understand what test suite looks like for this material 21:33:44 jonathan, doesn't having wsdl in the mix makes interop testing easier? 21:33:45 ... especially as WSDL interop ability is not there yet 21:34:19 -Jonathan_Marsh 21:34:20 -Anish 21:34:20 -Marc_Hadley 21:34:21 -Gilbert_Pilz 21:34:21 -David_Illsley 21:34:23 -Paco:Francisco_Curbera 21:34:23 -Tom_Rutt 21:34:24 -TonyR 21:34:26 -Bob_Freund 21:34:28 -Paul_Knight 21:34:30 -Pete_Wenzel 21:34:32 -GlenD 21:34:34 -Hugo 21:34:35 TonyR has left #ws-addr 21:34:38 -katy 21:34:53 -Andreas_Bjarlestam 21:47:33 rrsagent, please make logs public 21:47:53 rrsagent, generate minutes 21:47:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/04/10-ws-addr-minutes.html bob 22:01:57 TRutt has left #ws-addr 22:05:01 disconnecting the lone participant, Dave_Hull, in WS_AddrWG()4:00PM 22:05:02 WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended 22:05:06 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 ... Andreas_Bjarlestam, TonyR, Marc_Hadley, Paco:Francisco_Curbera, Paul_Knight, GlenD, JeffM 22:10:54 bob has left #ws-addr 23:20:53 gpilz has joined #ws-addr