IRC log of ws-addr on 2006-08-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:51:38 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
19:51:38 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:51:54 [bob]
zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
19:51:54 [Zakim]
ok, bob, I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM already started
19:52:14 [bob]
Meeting: Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference
19:52:23 [bob]
Chair: Bob Freund
19:53:50 [bob]
19:54:49 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
19:55:31 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
19:57:38 [Zakim]
19:57:49 [bob]
zakim, who is here?
19:57:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Dave_Hull, Bob_Freund
19:57:51 [Zakim]
On IRC I see dhull, David_Illsley, RRSAgent, Zakim, bob, Jonathan
19:58:23 [Zakim]
19:58:56 [Zakim]
19:59:12 [TonyR]
TonyR has joined #ws-addr
19:59:31 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
19:59:49 [Zakim]
20:00:15 [PaulKnight]
PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
20:00:29 [Zakim]
20:00:41 [TonyR]
zakim, ??p8 is tony
20:00:41 [Zakim]
+tony; got it
20:00:50 [agupta]
agupta has joined #ws-addr
20:00:51 [Zakim]
20:00:53 [yinleng]
yinleng has joined #ws-addr
20:01:25 [Zakim]
20:01:39 [Zakim]
20:01:41 [agupta]
zakim, [Sun] is me
20:01:41 [Zakim]
+agupta; got it
20:01:46 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has left #ws-addr
20:02:01 [Zakim]
20:02:37 [yinleng]
zakim, ??P12 is me
20:02:37 [Zakim]
+yinleng; got it
20:02:44 [Zakim]
20:02:47 [bob]
zakim, ??P12 is yinleng
20:02:47 [Zakim]
I already had ??P12 as yinleng, bob
20:03:06 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
20:03:16 [mlittle]
mlittle has joined #ws-addr
20:03:24 [plh]
plh has joined #ws-addr
20:03:27 [Zakim]
20:03:28 [Zakim]
20:03:40 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
20:03:41 [plh]
plh has changed the topic to: Agenda:
20:03:44 [Zakim]
20:03:59 [plh]
zakim, +??p15 is Katy
20:03:59 [Zakim]
sorry, plh, I do not recognize a party named '+??p15'
20:04:05 [prasad]
prasad has joined #ws-addr
20:04:05 [plh]
zakim, ??p15 is Katy
20:04:05 [Zakim]
+Katy; got it
20:04:11 [Zakim]
20:04:14 [pauld]
pauld has joined #ws-addr
20:04:16 [Dug]
Dug has joined #ws-addr
20:04:26 [Zakim]
20:04:38 [Zakim]
20:05:03 [plh]
zakim, who's here?
20:05:03 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Dave_Hull, Bob_Freund, David_Illsley, Jonathan_Marsh, mlittle, tony, [IBM], Paul_Knight, agupta, yinleng, Gilbert_Pilz, Katy, Plh, Marc_Hadley, Prasad_Yendluri,
20:05:03 [marc]
marc has joined #ws-addr
20:05:06 [Zakim]
... Anish, Paul_Downey
20:05:08 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Dug, pauld, prasad, anish, plh, mlittle, David_Illsley, yinleng, agupta, PaulKnight, Katy, TonyR, dhull, RRSAgent, Zakim, bob, Jonathan
20:05:22 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:05:28 [TonyR]
zakim, tony is TonyR
20:05:28 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
20:05:58 [Dug]
LOL thanks
20:06:55 [David_Illsley_]
David_Illsley_ has joined #ws-addr
20:08:07 [yinleng]
Minutes accepted.
20:08:51 [yinleng]
Because of invitation to Dug, his issue is first item of business now
20:08:52 [Zakim]
20:09:04 [PaulKnight]
scribe: yinleng
20:09:28 [GlenD]
GlenD has joined #ws-addr
20:10:11 [yinleng]
Dug: Described the problem of CR33
20:10:27 [bob]
Topic: cr33
20:11:11 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
20:11:32 [Jonathan]
20:11:45 [bob]
ack j
20:12:09 [yinleng]
Dug: Hopes WSDL spec will soften wording to allow change of wording of use of anon URI from MUST to SHOULD
20:14:14 [yinleng]
Dug: Considered using a ref param, but seems inappropriate for this use.
20:15:06 [pauld]
20:15:39 [yinleng]
JonM: You have to know out of band whether a URI is needed or not
20:16:38 [yinleng]
Dug: You need to know whether RM supports anon URI.
20:17:14 [yinleng]
JonM: RM assertion would have to extend the addressing layer
20:18:06 [bob]
ack p
20:18:14 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has left #ws-addr
20:18:36 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
20:18:42 [anish]
RM anon URL is not 'anonymous', there is an embeded identity in it
20:18:53 [anish]
so, can't use the ws-addr anon uri
20:19:08 [Jonathan]
exactly. It's a identifiable anonymous.
20:19:13 [Jonathan]
A named anonymous, if you will.
20:19:15 [anish]
20:19:24 [Jonathan]
An oxymoron.
20:19:41 [anish]
20:20:02 [anish]
the other issue with using refps is that, what happens when there are more than one refps in the EPR
20:20:17 [anish]
which makes use of refps for this purpose very tricky
20:20:34 [Jonathan]
Why would you have more than one?
20:20:57 [anish]
well, the user could be using refps for other purposes (outside of polling)
20:21:17 [anish]
i.e., interaction of polling refp with other refps
20:21:33 [bob]
20:22:13 [anish]
anonymous name is an oxymoron, has to do with its history
20:22:23 [anish]
it no longer means "anonymous", it means backchannel
20:22:28 [anish]
20:22:34 [yinleng]
JonM: The question comes down to exactly what anonymous means?
20:22:43 [yinleng]
Context dependent?
20:22:47 [pauld]
thinks if we were earlier in the process, I'd suggest an "anonymous=true" attribute. but given we're a rec ..
20:22:54 [TonyR]
20:23:30 [anish]
i should note that it is context-dependent, but the context is defined by the binding not the MEP
20:23:49 [yinleng]
JonM: In the spec, it is one to one mapping to anon URI. With RM it is no long one to one mapping of concept to the anon URI.
20:25:03 [bob]
ack t
20:25:04 [yinleng]
JonM: Anish has another type of anon URI use.
20:25:18 [bob]
q dhull
20:25:39 [dhull]
20:26:23 [yinleng]
Tony: Let's not make things sloppy, we should separate the concept of replying on the back channel, instead of changing it to SHOULD - that will weaken the spec
20:26:59 [mlittle]
20:27:18 [anish]
how about replacing wsaw:Anonymous with wsaw:Backchannel ?
20:27:56 [gpilz]
20:28:07 [GlenD]
20:28:08 [Dug]
I like the idea of anon=true attribute on the wsa:Address element
20:28:27 [Dug]
then it can be any URI - which would make sync and async much more alike :-)
20:28:46 [Dug]
no, in the EPR itself
20:29:03 [Dug]
I think that's what PaulD was suggesting, but I just guessing.
20:29:14 [Dug]
20:29:17 [Jonathan]
q+ to propose the nuclear option
20:29:25 [bob]
20:29:36 [bob]
ack g
20:29:49 [Zakim]
20:29:51 [yinleng]
Gil: Idea of anon attribute on the address element seems to solve the problem.
20:30:03 [bob]
ack gpilz
20:30:18 [bob]
q+ GlenD
20:30:39 [Dug]
+1 Gil
20:30:49 [TonyR]
20:30:54 [marc]
20:30:57 [bob]
ack GlenD
20:31:03 [yinleng]
GilP: Problem is we are rather late in how we define the anonymous
20:31:45 [yinleng]
GlenD: What is the point of the wsa:address markup?
20:33:06 [bob]
20:33:49 [yinleng]
GlenD: We are already using some contextual understanding of the URI, so is it really a problem?
20:35:13 [bob]
ack jon
20:35:13 [Zakim]
Jonathan, you wanted to propose the nuclear option
20:35:31 [gpilz]
20:36:06 [anish]
20:36:11 [yinleng]
JonM: The more we make the marker open-ended, the anon marker will lose its value.
20:36:13 [Dug]
killing the marker works too :-)
20:36:18 [bob]
ack marc
20:36:33 [Jonathan]
+1 to Marc!
20:36:41 [bob]
+2 to Marc
20:36:44 [Jonathan]
but, RM isn't a REc yet ;-)
20:36:59 [pauld]
we've shipped!
20:37:02 [TonyR]
20:37:04 [yinleng]
MarcH: This is already a RC, which should be stable
20:37:14 [bob]
ack gpi
20:39:13 [bob]
ack ani
20:39:55 [yinleng]
Anish: Agree with Jono that it is an oxymoron, but should not let that prevent us from moving forward.
20:40:02 [bob]
ack ton
20:40:11 [Dug]
20:40:27 [bob]
ack dug
20:40:39 [yinleng]
Tony: Suggest RM is changed rather than changing a spec that has gone to RC.
20:41:47 [gpilz]
20:41:55 [TonyR]
20:42:07 [dhull]
20:42:24 [bob]
ack gpi
20:42:52 [bob]
ack tony
20:44:05 [Dug]
20:44:13 [Jonathan]
20:44:17 [bob]
ack dhull
20:44:53 [Dug]
20:45:38 [GlenD]
IIRC, the reason we originally said "you can have other anon uris" was also for RM, but that was about the idea that RM endpoints might actually send you a message that IS NOT the response to your request down the HTTP response, even though you are doing a req/resp...
20:45:45 [yinleng]
Dhull: We are getting further away from the HTTP concept of anon.
20:46:55 [GlenD]
but I think since then we backed off a little on saying "anonymous URI == specifically the response of a SOAP req/resp"
20:47:01 [bob]
ack jon
20:47:12 [yinleng]
Dhull: Valid concern that WSA is already in RC, should look at how much room there is for change before seeing what to do
20:49:28 [marc]
20:49:49 [bob]
ack marc
20:50:06 [David_Illsley]
David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
20:52:38 [yinleng]
MarcH: If I am unaware of the RM spec, how do I know the meaning of the anon URI to be used?
20:53:19 [David_Illsley]
yes, CORE 3.2.1
20:53:39 [marc]
20:54:18 [yinleng]
JonM: not heard any solution that I am completely comfortable with
20:54:35 [bob]
20:54:35 [anish]
20:55:36 [yinleng]
What about talking about the endpoint instead. Turn it the other way round
20:56:14 [anish]
i.e, wsaw:NewConnection={prohibited|required|optional} ?
20:56:50 [GlenD]
yah, just have to get the specese right
20:56:54 [gpilz]
20:57:25 [bob]
ack gpi
20:58:25 [yinleng]
Dug: Not sure this will solve the problem.
20:59:54 [Zakim]
+ +44.207.704.aaaa
21:02:35 [yinleng]
JonM: is it possible to solve this in conjunction with the policy document?
21:03:31 [bob]
21:04:21 [Dug]
bob - if I'm allowed (not being a WSA member) I can work on some text with Anish
21:04:48 [yinleng]
Alistair: Have we established that they are completely orthogonal?
21:06:08 [yinleng]
JonM: We have established that the two specs doesn't allow the use of the RM URI in the use of our markup WSDL
21:06:42 [yinleng]
21:09:13 [yinleng]
ACTION: Dug and Anish to go away and work on a text by thurs/fri.
21:10:11 [Dug]
21:11:39 [Zakim]
- +44.207.704.aaaa
21:11:51 [yinleng]
Bob: invites Dug back to next Monday's call
21:12:10 [yinleng]
Bob: Action item review
21:12:44 [yinleng]
Bob: Still looking for testers
21:13:29 [PaulKnight]
zakim unmute agupta
21:13:43 [yinleng]
Bob: Arun not present, but the table is posted.
21:14:09 [Zakim]
21:14:15 [plh]
21:14:47 [yinleng]
Bob: CR27 Philippe - pending
21:15:05 [yinleng]
Bob: CR30 Tony - pending
21:15:31 [marc]
Updated table:
21:16:19 [anish]
21:16:25 [yinleng]
Bob: the intention was to include table in the spec.
21:16:25 [Jonathan]
21:16:35 [plh]
21:16:42 [bob]
ack ani
21:16:56 [yinleng]
Anish: Want to point to another issue that might change the content of this table.
21:18:05 [David_Illsley]
21:18:06 [gpilz]
21:18:08 [yinleng]
Anish: Also there is an issue with rule 4
21:18:20 [Jonathan]
21:18:25 [Jonathan]
q+ Jonathan
21:18:51 [yinleng]
Philippe: Is this related to CR32?
21:19:29 [bob]
ack plh
21:19:52 [plh]
q+ plh
21:20:30 [bob]
ack david
21:20:36 [TonyR]
21:21:16 [bob]
ack gpil
21:22:32 [plh]
q- later
21:23:04 [yinleng]
Gil: If Anish thinks 4 E is incorrect, is 8 D also incorrect?
21:25:14 [yinleng]
JonM: Will this also affect 9, 10 , 11, 12?
21:26:16 [bob]
ack tony
21:26:22 [yinleng]
Anish: Need to decide on None/Anon mismatch
21:26:31 [dhull]
21:26:48 [plh]
21:27:05 [GlenD]
+1 to Tony
21:27:07 [anish]
may i suggest that we resolve the other issue first, it might make this much clearer
21:28:25 [dhull]
21:29:51 [agupta]
got pulled over, now back
21:34:19 [dhull]
21:34:19 [GlenD]
gotta run....
21:34:30 [Zakim]
21:34:50 [yinleng]
Discussion on Anish's and Tony's differing viewpoints
21:35:05 [bob]
ack dhull
21:36:44 [anish]
21:37:37 [bob]
ack ani
21:40:51 [yinleng]
Tony: there are two issues
21:42:32 [yinleng]
Anish: Do we need to say None URI is prohibited in response?
21:42:39 [yinleng]
Tony: Don't think so
21:42:53 [bob]
Folks agree that none is acceptable for use when anon=required or anon=prohibited
21:45:28 [bob]
Action: TonyR to propose mods to table to reflect discussion of resp on bacjchannel when wsa headers are invalid
21:45:46 [yinleng]
ACTION: Tony is to propose modifications to the table on discussions of sending notifications to the backchannel when wsa headers are invalid
21:46:05 [bob]
ack jon
21:47:12 [David_Illsley]
21:47:24 [anish]
21:47:31 [bob]
21:47:53 [anish]
21:47:55 [David_Illsley]
21:49:11 [David_Illsley]
21:50:10 [anish]
21:50:35 [bob]
ack david
21:51:02 [dhull]
21:51:09 [dhull]
21:51:31 [bob]
ack ani
21:52:33 [TonyR]
21:53:33 [bob]
21:53:58 [bob]
ack dhull
21:54:46 [bob]
ack ton
21:56:09 [dhull]
21:57:09 [gpilz]
21:57:53 [bob]
ack dhull
21:58:02 [Zakim]
21:58:06 [David_Illsley]
gpilz, I can agree that there might be those situations but I think thery're edge cases and predictability is more valuable
21:58:17 [Dug]
Dug has left #ws-addr
21:58:28 [bob]
ack gpil
21:59:57 [Jonathan]
I don't want to force lazy evaluation, but I'm interested in enabling it.
22:00:04 [dhull]
do we have an issue for this?
22:00:10 [Zakim]
22:00:26 [gpilz]
Jonathan, it's a little like being "slightly pregnant"
22:00:34 [Zakim]
22:00:36 [Zakim]
22:00:37 [Zakim]
22:00:38 [Zakim]
22:00:40 [Zakim]
22:00:41 [Zakim]
22:00:42 [Zakim]
22:00:44 [Zakim]
22:00:46 [Zakim]
22:00:47 [Zakim]
22:00:48 [Zakim]
22:00:49 [Zakim]
22:00:50 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
22:00:52 [Zakim]
Attendees were Dave_Hull, Bob_Freund, David_Illsley, Jonathan_Marsh, mlittle, [IBM], Paul_Knight, agupta, yinleng, Gilbert_Pilz, Plh, Marc_Hadley, Katy, Prasad_Yendluri, Anish,
22:00:53 [anish]
i'm begining to think that this (lazy eval as a MAY) is a good idea
22:00:54 [Zakim]
... Paul_Downey, TonyR, GlenD, +44.207.704.aaaa
22:00:55 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr
22:00:56 [bob]
yinleng, thanks for scribing
22:00:58 [plh]
zakim, bye
22:00:58 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-addr
22:01:08 [yinleng]
Bob: Do I need to do anything else wrt to the notes on IRC?
22:01:10 [plh]
rrsagent, make logs member-visible
22:01:10 [bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
22:01:18 [plh]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:01:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate plh
22:01:35 [bob]
plh, you beat me to the draw
22:01:51 [plh]
your last command should have the last effect :)
22:02:09 [plh]
btw Bob, I won't be around next week
22:02:22 [plh]
I'll send the proposed working for cr27 by the end of the week
22:02:31 [bob]
ok, thanks for helping out last monday
22:02:45 [yinleng]
yinleng has left #ws-addr
22:02:53 [bob]
thanks, It would be nice to close an easy (I hope) one
22:03:27 [plh]
rrsagent, make logs public
22:03:30 [plh]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:03:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate plh
22:05:38 [bob]
now, we have asked rrsagent to do minutes twice, the poor fellow might resentful
22:06:20 [plh]
shouldn't be
22:08:17 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr
22:46:25 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
23:09:02 [agupta]
agupta has left #ws-addr