Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference -- 10 Apr 2006

<bob> zakin, mark_peel is katy

thanks

<anish> right on cue

<bob> Scribe: katy

thanks hugo - stops the phone from beeping

<Jonathan> tp://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/6/04/03-ws-addr-minutes.html

<Jonathan> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/6/04/03-ws-addr-minutes.html

RESOLUTION: Minutes were accepted

LC112

Action Item complete - not checking in yet

OTHER ACTION ITEMS

jonathan: Action item on clarifying conformance point done

RESOLUTION: LC125 closed with proposed text

LC126

Confusion arose because space between using and addressing.

RESOLUTION: Editors modify element names with different font

New Issues

LC 129 Accepted as new issue

LC 130 accepted as new issue

Bob explained Last Call interval is now closed

Jonathan: 2 more issues for tomorrow

Group agreed to 24 hour extension LC issues until COB CA time tomorrow

LC127

Jonathan: Some discussion on email - still find issue a little confusing

optional value causing problems for WCF

similar concerns brought up but not the same as M/S does

dhull: Complaint is that by looking at WSDL endpoint can't tell whether want to use anonymous or not

this is as designed for spec

email thread confirmed issue

bob: can we respond by we understand but close with no change

<scribe> ACTION: Bob to respond to submitter with close issue with no action [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> TOPIC : LC129

Jonathan: At th epoint of locking down what needs to be shipped for WCF
... OUt of box WCF can hav 2 soap bindings: AnonymousRequired with backchannel
... other binding is : anonymous prohibited

<bob> Scribenick: katy

Jonathan: No binding for WCF maps to optional anonymous on a WSDL operation. It's not supported 'out of box' for WCF
... Other option that M/S considering is policy duplex binding
... this would be M/S propriatary and indicate that anonymous is prohibited. This is not a standard Policy assertion
... however, this policy assertion illustrates how the UsingAddressing marker is not easily mapped to Policy

glen: if we don't put in anonymous then default to optional

jonathan: want to be able to say that anonymous is not constrained: I.e. No statement defaults to 'unspecified'
... currently not specified means 'optional' i.e. anon and anonymous are supported
... anonymous is tied tightly to usingAddressing.
... 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

Hugo: Concern is that such a big change will take us back to LC

Will defaulting to unspecified fix

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

dhull: agrees with add unspecified but not default as best option
... removing default more intuitive but bigger change
... if we can get away with it then remove the defaulting otherwise just add unspecified

glen: Understand M/s close to a ship date. Are you going to have client support for duplex binding if Anon=Required

jonathan: not sure will need to check

glen: Stack that I work on do optional and prefer that as default
... Like the optional default. Spec should reflect architectural concerns not implementation concerns

jonathan: acknowledges different implementation approach for M/S but this stops involvement in CR

Anish: How would 'unspecified' helpin the WCF implementation

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

Anish: Unfortunately Policy is not there yet so would like to point out that we shouldn't hold up spec between this
... Katy expressed that should have default value to clarify support

(I still think this ;o) ideally )

jonathan: this is a compromise in order for us to reach CR

Paco: agree with jonathan about QName
... agree with concern about interoperability problems if there is no default
... can we agree on what clients should do when see anonymous='unspecified' for interoperabaility concerns

jonathan: If use unsupported address then might get a fault back if WSDL specifies 'unspecified'
... runtime negotiation. There is nothing that the client can assume about the handling of anonymous except that some addresses may be rejected

paco: Should consider what out most common case is for the default: perhaps the more common case is Anonymous only

jonathan: problem is composibility with other specs wrt assuming anon required is default

paco: understood.
... another question WRT from mail option 2:Remove specification of anonymous altogether. Make no conformance statement that UsingAddressing necessarily implies full support.
... How is testing of this going to work

jonathan: Not sure of this. Extensions that we will be able to test are WSDL 1.1 only

bob: what are acceptable proposals
... Proposal 1: Anonymous removed from the spec

A few negative comments

Glen: Can you get an 'I can't deal with anonymous address' fault when faultTo set to anonymous?

Anish: If there is a mustUnderstand fault and addressing has not been processed will get somehting back on backchannel anyhow

Bob: Porposal 2:Remove specification of anonymous altogether. Make no conformance statement that UsingAddressing necessarily implies full support

jonathan: Advantage of this is UsingAddressing does not imply anonymous function

Paco: this would be more appealing if we could understand the behaviour of the client for this

jonathan: perhaps another default will work if can cope with spec composition issues

Anish: I would prefer proposal 4

Proposal 4: Remove the default. Lack of wsaw:Anonymous means there are no claims about Anonymous support.

Anish: Do we need to go back to last call again with this?

Hugo only if we remove the anonymous completely

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.

2. Remove specification of anonymous altogether. Make no conformance statement that UsingAddressing necessarily implies full support.

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.

4. (From Anish). Remove the default. Lack of wsaw:Anonymous means there are no claims about Anonymous support.

bob: are people leaning towards option 4

<scribe> ACTION: Paco to extend option 4 to draft interoperablility asusmptions clients can make when no value for the anonymous option is provided [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]

<bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Apr/0019.html

Anish: What happens if there are 2 policy assertions that are conflicting

Paco: Validation creates an contradictory assertion that is thrown away
... nothing stopping 2 assertions e.g. usinganonymous and anonymous assertion so long as you define some conflict resolution for the different assertions

Nilo: concern about this in the same domain

Paco: best practice would be no overlap
... UsingAddressing have no default wrt Anonymous => helps this problem
... UsingAddressing has no overlap wrt Anonymous => helps this problem

LC130

Jonathan: In section 4.1

The use of MUST in conjunction with "additional runtime information"

makes this phrase a bit confusing. The MUST implies that this condition

is testable, but the rest of the text shatters that implication.

Perhaps this could be reworded to remove the MUST, for example "the

value of [destination] ... typically matches the value of the {address}

property."

jonathan: 2 qualifications on the must - what has preference here?

bob: any objections to accepting

lots of poor jokes

bob: no objections

RESOLUTION: Close LC130 by accepting the proposal

LC124 conformance

<bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Apr/0010.html

Jonathan: explains issue
... What does UsingAddressing mean that you need to support in order to be conformant

Anish: Please clarify: What do you mean by orthogal features that you don't need to support?
... Conforming to binding spec requires understanding and recognising feature
... ?

<bob> concern between conflicting wsdl and wdsl contained in an epr

Anish: E.g. if you have 'action' and 'UsingAddressing' then you would understand what a consumer's responsibility is

jonathan: Action and USingAddressing naturally go well together so a conformance statement relating the 2 is relevant

Anish: Why not same conformance statement about reference parameters

Jonathan: I would agree to ReferenceParamaters, ACtion, Destination conformance statement with UsingAddressing
... if anonymous was a separate policy assertion need not be tied to UsingAddressing, at the moment when not a Policy assertion, not so sure

ANish: What about Section 5?

Jonathan: If conforming to cor eiwll conform to section 5 by default

Anish: Would like some more concrete text stating what UsingAddressing implies wrt section 5
... need to check the text again

Agreement that this is a boring issue

<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan agrees to look at some real text for this issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> Chair: LIke to talk about where we are and schedule

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: Assuming a couple more issues over next 24 hours should be able to deal with next call
... assuming we don't need to go back to LC - hope for resolution to LC issues next monday
... Aim for final text for 24th April
... to CR no later than F2F

<bob> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36696/May3MFA/

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: so we can focus on test criteria in F2F

<scribe> ... New ballot for 3rd May at Boston museum fine arts plus dinner following

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: please answer poll no later than next monday for booking purposes
... Next week's call also scheduled for 2 hours

Discussion on WDSL 2.0 testing

<scribe> Chair: For us to declare victory we need WSDL 2 implementations

Hugo: That's correct

<scribe> Chair: Need to evaluate options in this area

Jonathan: Need to also understand what test suite looks like for this material

<anish> jonathan, doesn't having wsdl in the mix makes interop testing easier?

Jonathan: especially as WSDL interop ability is not there yet

- DRAFT -

Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference

10 Apr 2006

Attendees

Contents