16:42:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
16:42:07 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/07/31-ws-addr-irc
16:42:16 <bob> rrsagent, help
16:43:14 <bob> rrsagent, adminhelp
17:31:00 <bob> bye
17:31:28 <bob> rrsagent, bye
17:31:28 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
17:37:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
17:37:29 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/07/31-ws-addr-irc
17:37:51 <bob> actions?
17:41:07 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ws-addr
17:41:36 <bob> Zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
17:41:36 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, bob
17:42:06 <bob> bob has left #ws-addr
18:54:40 <David_Illsley> David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
19:58:27 <bob> bob has joined #ws-addr
19:58:52 <Katy> Katy has joined #ws-addr
19:58:55 <bob> zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
19:58:55 <Zakim> ok, bob; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
19:59:24 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
19:59:32 <agupta> agupta has joined #ws-addr
19:59:43 <Zakim> +Mark_Little
19:59:45 <Zakim> +[Sun]
19:59:51 <agupta> zakim, [Sun] is me
19:59:51 <Zakim> +agupta; got it
20:00:06 <Katy> Hi - just having skype problems - may be a few minutes late on the call...
20:00:07 <Zakim> +Bob_Freund
20:00:08 <Zakim> +David_Illsley
20:00:53 <Zakim> +Amelia_Lewis
20:01:11 <alewis> alewis has joined #ws-addr
20:01:37 <PaulKnight> PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
20:01:44 <TonyR> TonyR has joined #ws-addr
20:01:44 <Zakim> -Amelia_Lewis
20:02:03 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
20:02:39 <Zakim> +Paul_Knight
20:02:52 <bob> Meeting: WS Addressing Working Group
20:03:00 <Zakim> +Amelia_Lewis
20:03:02 <bob> Chair: Bob Freund
20:03:16 <Zakim> +??P10
20:03:24 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
20:03:25 <TonyR> zakim, ??p10 is me
20:03:25 <Zakim> +TonyR; got it
20:03:50 <bob> zakim, who is here?
20:03:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see agupta, Mark_Little, Bob_Freund, David_Illsley, Gilbert_Pilz, Paul_Knight, Amelia_Lewis, TonyR, [IPcaller]
20:03:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see TonyR, PaulKnight, alewis, agupta, Katy, bob, David_Illsley, Zakim, RRSAgent
20:03:53 <anish> anish has joined #ws-addr
20:04:09 <Zakim> +Pete_Wenzel
20:04:33 <prasad> prasad has joined #ws-Addr
20:04:40 <Zakim> +Prasad_Yendluri
20:05:23 <Zakim> +Anish_Karmarkar
20:07:07 <Gil> Gil has joined #ws-addr
20:07:23 <alewis> Scribe: alewis
20:08:03 <alewis> agenda: meeting minutes for 5 June 2006.  minutes accepted without objection.
20:08:35 <alewis> open action items include call for additional participants in testing effort.
20:08:49 <alewis> call for additional participants; no response.
20:09:07 <alewis> primary purpose of meeting: discuss WSDL tests so far, work done by Arun and David.
20:09:21 <alewis> Arun: review of work so far.
20:09:34 <agupta> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuitewsdl/report/
20:10:23 <alewis> URL posted just above summarizes and describes work to date, including the test design, tests themselves, and results so far, including the face to face
20:10:26 <agupta> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuitewsdl/testcases/
20:11:11 <alewis> Arun: expected to have fifteen to twenty test cases, but in fact have more.  IBM and Sun have implementations of all test cases.
20:12:09 <alewis> Arun: each test case has a number, which includes target WSDL version, target SOAP version, and a sequence number.  tests try to cover a variety of cases; there are short descriptions of each.
20:12:41 <alewis> Arun: each test should be associated with an assertion; each test is either required or optional (right now, only one is optional).
20:13:05 <alewis> Arun: report page includes a todo list at the top.
20:14:05 <alewis> Arun: describes format of table in list, results for IBM-IBM, IBM-SUN, SUN-SUN.
20:15:18 <alewis> Arun: discussion of action-based dispatch, tests related to that, questions arising around it.
20:16:00 <alewis> Arun: trouble correlating messages in some cases.
20:16:49 <alewis> Arun: where four white boxes appear, there are questions about the spec.
20:17:35 <alewis> Arun: testing raises some questions about the interactions of various properties; the behavior of the processor is not always well-defined for all cases of all combinations of properties.
20:17:47 <alewis> David: concurs with summary.
20:17:54 <alewis> Bob: call for questions on summary.
20:18:11 <alewis> Bob: issue from testing.  related to SOAP Action.
20:18:49 <alewis> Bob: issue raised on mailing list, Jonathan may have raised about a week earlier.
20:19:37 <alewis> Bob: issue #26: unclear soap action.
20:19:57 <anish> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/Overview.html#cr26
20:20:47 <alewis> Arun: concurs, this summarizes issue very well.
20:21:12 <alewis> David: have some other stuff that need to discuss; this is not what David has had problems with.
20:21:41 <alewis> Arun: David's issue with action-related dispatch and [scribe lost remainder]
20:21:44 <anish> q+
20:22:20 <Zakim> -Mark_Little
20:22:21 <bob> ack anish
20:22:26 <alewis> Arun: proposed resolution of unspecified soap action header, something on empty string.
20:23:11 <alewis> Anish: soap action "" actually is specified.  wsa:action is required to be an absolute URI; soap action is not.
20:23:38 <alewis> Anish: consequently, at least in the case when soap:action is specified as "", it can't be used for wsa:action.
20:23:48 <alewis> Anish: Arun's suggestion would solve both problems.
20:24:23 <alewis> Arun: if wsa:action is specified, use that.  If soap:action is present and is not an empty string, use that.  if that doesn't exist, construct the default.
20:24:30 <alewis> Bob: is this a new issue?
20:25:15 <alewis> Anish: specification doesn't handle the case in which a soap:action is specified, but is not a URI.
20:26:16 <alewis> Anish: spec says that wsa:action and soap:action must match, but also say that wsa:action must be a URI (which is not required for soap:action, even excluding the empty string case).
20:26:38 <agupta> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Jul/0000.html
20:27:08 <alewis> Arun: three issues: existing cr26, the case Anish seems to be raising, and [??]
20:27:12 <anish> s/must be a URI/must be an absolute URI/
20:28:32 <alewis> Arun: what is meant by specified soap:action?  empty string could be considered to be "specified", but should not be included.
20:28:59 <alewis> David: if soap:action is empty string, then use the default pattern.  need to clarify text to match this expectation.
20:29:52 <alewis> Bob: opening new issue, cr28, to deal with Arun's issue and the proposed resolution from the email referenced above.
20:30:05 <alewis> Paul: support resolution.
20:30:39 <alewis> Bob: call for specific text.  Arun: will post.  Bob: fine, let's get exact proposed replacement text.
20:31:04 <agupta> From section: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-ws-addr-wsdl-20060529/#explicitaction
20:31:07 <alewis> Arun: will post existing text and proposed revised text.
20:31:15 <agupta> Current text: In the absence of a wsaw:Action attribute on a WSDL input element where a SOAPAction value is specified,
20:31:30 <agupta> Proposed text: In the absence of a wsaw:Action attribute on a WSDL input element where a *non empty* SOAPAction value is specified,
20:32:22 <alewis> Bob: call for objections to accepting the proposal as resolution of cr28.
20:32:39 <alewis> RESOLVED: text proposed by Arun closes CR28.
20:33:01 <alewis> addition of "non-empty" before "SOAPAction value" in 4.4.1.
20:33:41 <alewis> Bob: David's issue.  Arun: need to open Anish's issue.  Bob: Anish said he will raise that issue.  back to David.
20:33:48 <David_Illsley> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Jul/0016.html
20:34:44 <alewis> David: this is clarification of the general understanding.
20:35:30 <alewis> David: there are tests which expect that if a WSDL does not describe a wsaw:action, then an UnsupportedActionFault is returned.
20:36:17 <alewis> David: however, the specification does not support UnsupportedActionFault as a requirement, in David's reading.
20:36:32 <alewis> David: Arun read this differently, that the fault is required.
20:36:50 <alewis> s/UnsupportedActionFault/ActionNotSupportedFault/g
20:37:39 <alewis> David: spec language is pretty clear in SOAP binding; action not supported is optional.  therefore it seems that it should be optional in the tests as well; Arun felt that it ought to be required.
20:37:52 <alewis> Bob: call for objections to making tests optional.  none heard.
20:38:21 <alewis> RESOLVED: tests in which ActionNotSupportedFault is returned are to be made optional, per David's recommendation.
20:38:36 <bob> Section 4.4.1 defines a mechanism to explicitly set the action value 
20:38:36 <bob>             (wsaw:Action).  It says "In the absence of a wsaw:Action attribute" use 
20:38:36 <bob>             the specified SOAP action. 
20:38:36 <bob>              
20:38:36 <bob>             Section 4.4.2 defines a defaulting mechanism.  It says "In the absence 
20:38:37 <bob>             of a wsaw:Action attribute" calculate the action using the algorithm 
20:38:39 <bob>             which follows. 
20:38:41 <bob>              
20:38:43 <bob>             The use of the same text ("In the absence...") for each of these 
20:38:45 <bob>             mechanisms renders it unclear whether the default action pattern or the 
20:38:47 <bob>             specified SOAP action is to take precedence.  I think the intention is 
20:38:49 <bob>             clear - use wsaw:Action if present, else use specified SOAP action if 
20:38:51 <bob>             present, otherwise use the default pattern. 
20:38:53 <bob>              
20:38:55 <bob>             There appear to be a number of straightforward editorial remedies. 
20:39:19 <alewis> Bob: paste from Jonathan's email.
20:39:38 <alewis> Bob: call for agreement to proposal.
20:39:51 <alewis> Tony: agreed.
20:40:02 <alewis> Bob: mark as editorial?
20:40:29 <alewis> (someone): non-empty is covered?
20:40:50 <alewis> Tony: covered in closure of earlier cr.
20:41:03 <anish> s/(someone)/paul knight/
20:41:25 <alewis> Bob: call for objections.
20:42:02 <alewis> RESOLVED: close cr26, adopting the proposal of Jonathan Marsh as offered, subject to editorial interpretation and inclusion of "non-empty".
20:42:37 <alewis> Arun: need to deal with question of action-based dispatch, as raised by David.
20:42:57 <alewis> Bob: if hasn't been raised in email, then hasn't got visibility.
20:43:06 <alewis> Arun: okay, will raise the issue.
20:43:26 <alewis> question asked: is the problem with addressing or with the WS-I BP?
20:43:57 <alewis> Arun: yes, this is a potential interaction between WS Addressing and WS-I; wants to get a sense of how to resolve.
20:44:35 <alewis> Arun: but the critical part of the question is: for this test case, what is the requirement/assertion that is being tested, using action-based dispatch?
20:45:08 <alewis> Bob: interpreted this as an understanding that there are some otherwise valid WSDL that are not accepted by the WS-I BP.
20:45:17 <alewis> Arun: will raise to list and record as issue.
20:46:03 <alewis> Bob: propose next meeting in two weeks.
20:47:25 <alewis> 14 August.  Arun, however, proposes earlier meeting.  Bob: if raised to list, will be in one week, 7 August.  call for objections.
20:47:38 <alewis> Next meeting: 7 August 2006, same bat time, same bat channel.
20:47:41 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
20:47:44 <alewis> meeting adjourned.
20:47:48 <Zakim> -David_Illsley
20:47:49 <Zakim> -Paul_Knight
20:47:50 <Gil> Gil has left #ws-addr
20:47:51 <Zakim> -Anish_Karmarkar
20:47:52 <Zakim> -TonyR
20:47:53 <Zakim> -agupta
20:47:55 <Zakim> -Prasad_Yendluri
20:47:56 <Zakim> -Bob_Freund
20:48:06 <bob> rrsagent, make logs world
20:48:07 <Zakim> -Amelia_Lewis
20:48:09 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
20:48:09 <Zakim> -Pete_Wenzel
20:48:11 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
20:48:12 <Zakim> Attendees were Mark_Little, agupta, Bob_Freund, David_Illsley, Amelia_Lewis, Gilbert_Pilz, Paul_Knight, [IPcaller], TonyR, Pete_Wenzel, Prasad_Yendluri, Anish_Karmarkar
20:48:19 <bob> rrsagent, generate minutes
20:48:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/07/31-ws-addr-minutes.html bob
20:48:39 <alewis> alewis has left #ws-addr
21:38:49 <agupta> agupta has left #ws-addr
22:56:12 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ws-addr