IRC log of ws-policy on 2006-09-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:01:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-policy
16:01:26 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:01:43 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-policy
16:02:02 [toufic]
zakim, this will be ws_policy
16:02:02 [Zakim]
ok, toufic, I see WS_Policy()12:00PM already started
16:02:20 [toufic]
scribe: toufic
16:03:04 [toufic]
meeting: WS-Policy F2F Day 3
16:03:14 [Yakov]
Yakov has joined #ws-policy
16:03:28 [toufic]
Chair: Paul Cotton
16:05:21 [toufic]
agenda for today's meeting is here
16:05:22 [toufic]
16:06:11 [vladB]
vladB has joined #ws-policy
16:06:33 [Zakim]
16:06:50 [prasad]
prasad has joined #ws-policy
16:06:55 [Fabian]
Zakim, ??P29 is Fabian
16:06:57 [Zakim]
+Fabian; got it
16:07:04 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-policy
16:07:55 [asir]
rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight
16:08:11 [asir]
rrsagent, do not start a new log at midnight
16:08:38 [FrederickHirsch]
FrederickHirsch has joined #ws-policy
16:11:44 [toufic]
Paul goes over summary of today's meeting
16:13:27 [toufic]
16:16:02 [toufic]
TOPIC: Issue 3672
16:16:10 [monica]
monica has joined #ws-policy
16:16:25 [toufic]
16:16:32 [PaulC]
16:17:17 [Yakov]
16:17:28 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-policy
16:18:10 [toufic]
paul: is there anyone that needs this text explained? people ready to vote/adopt?
16:18:34 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-policy
16:19:00 [toufic]
paul: consensus to adopt
16:19:03 [Zakim]
16:19:10 [toufic]
RESOLUTIO: 3672 adopted
16:19:15 [Fabian]
Fabian has joined #ws-policy
16:19:24 [toufic]
RESOLUTION: 3672 adopted
16:19:41 [asir]
RRSAgent, where am I?
16:19:41 [RRSAgent]
16:20:01 [Zakim]
16:20:06 [bijan]
zakim, ipcaller is me
16:20:06 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
16:20:10 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
16:20:10 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
16:20:35 [asir]
related editorial action is
16:20:49 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
16:20:49 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
16:21:05 [Zakim]
16:21:08 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
16:21:08 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
16:21:10 [JongLee]
JongLee has joined #ws-policy
16:21:29 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
16:21:29 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
16:21:37 [toufic]
TOPIC: Issue 3621
16:21:57 [toufic]
16:22:32 [dorchard]
16:22:37 [toufic]
16:23:23 [toufic]
bijan: if there's really no interest in WG suggests to drop it
16:23:50 [toufic]
bijan: found some of the text ambiguous
16:24:03 [GlenD]
GlenD has joined #ws-policy
16:24:10 [dorchard]
I think formal semantics might be useful IFF it helped interoperability
16:24:26 [toufic]
paul: work has some value, but it has to be work that whole WG to take on
16:24:36 [toufic]
paul: typically it's subset of WG
16:25:10 [dorchard]
Then it becomes a trade-off between working on formal semantics to help interop/clarity, or some other means like test cases.
16:25:11 [toufic]
paul: encourage participants to raise issues related to formal semantics
16:25:14 [dorchard]
Then it becomes a trade-off between working on formal semantics to help interop/clarity, or some other means like test cases.
16:25:16 [dorchard]
16:25:37 [toufic]
ashok: worth spending time on bijan's work on policy
16:25:45 [Zakim]
16:25:52 [toufic]
ashok: takes policy statements and translates them to rdf
16:26:08 [Zakim]
16:26:17 [toufic]
ashok: can generate policy models
16:26:17 [bijan]
technically to owl
16:26:25 [dorchard]
16:26:33 [toufic]
dan: that's cool. has there been any issues?
16:26:44 [toufic]
ashok: bijan has demo
16:26:52 [PaulC]
ac david
16:26:56 [PaulC]
ack david
16:27:01 [PaulC]
ack do
16:27:02 [Zakim]
16:27:06 [toufic]
daveo: seems a tradeoff in mechanism between clarity and interop
16:27:39 [toufic]
daveo: in general semantic work can help, but worries about tradeoff
16:27:57 [danroth]
danroth has joined #ws-policy
16:28:06 [danroth]
16:28:19 [toufic]
zakim, who is here?
16:28:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see F2F, Fabian, bijan, Jong_Lee, Dave_Orchard, Charlton_Barreto
16:28:21 [Zakim]
On IRC I see danroth, GlenD, JongLee, Fabian, dorchard, Ashok, monica, FrederickHirsch, asir, prasad, vladB, Yakov, Zakim, RRSAgent, PaulC, whenry, bijan, toufic, jeffm, maryann,
16:28:23 [Zakim]
... charlton, trackbot
16:28:27 [PaulC]
ack dan
16:28:47 [toufic]
dan: if there's a mapping of policy to rdf, then doesn't rdf define formal semantics to policy?
16:28:57 [toufic]
dan: if that work is done, what remains to be done?
16:29:07 [toufic]
paul: he hasn't found time to report that work
16:29:33 [toufic]
paul: not seeing people clamoring that WG needs to add semantic work
16:29:47 [toufic]
paul: asks bijan if he wants to take a formal AI
16:29:57 [toufic]
bijan: i'll do it on my own time
16:30:22 [toufic]
RESOLUTION: Close 3621 with no changes
16:30:32 [toufic]
zakim, where am i?
16:30:32 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, toufic.
16:31:03 [toufic]
RRSAgent, where am i?
16:31:03 [RRSAgent]
16:31:19 [toufic]
TOPIC: Issue 3622
16:33:00 [toufic]
16:34:12 [FrederickHirsch]
zakim, who is here
16:34:12 [Zakim]
FrederickHirsch, you need to end that query with '?'
16:34:18 [Fabian]
Fabian has joined #ws-policy
16:34:21 [FrederickHirsch]
FrederickHirsch has joined #ws-policy
16:35:09 [toufic]
scribe relacation done
16:35:33 [toufic]
bijan: ability to express relations between assertions is important
16:35:53 [dorchard]
glen, is this kind of like the re-use part of Features in F&P?
16:35:58 [dorchard]
16:36:03 [asir]
16:36:15 [PaulC]
ack do
16:36:28 [toufic]
daveo: wondering if this is similar to reuse part of features and properties
16:36:43 [toufic]
glen: yes, definitely
16:36:51 [toufic]
glen: one of the things that was intended
16:37:09 [PaulC]
ack asir
16:37:13 [toufic]
glen: not the same thing, but reflects similar ideas
16:37:33 [toufic]
asir: thought it was related to 3621, formal semantics, rdf. is that fair?
16:37:41 [toufic]
bijan: i think you misunderstand the issues
16:38:21 [toufic]
bijan: here we are talking about relationships between assertions, not policies in general
16:38:36 [toufic]
more about specific functionalities
16:39:26 [toufic]
paul: is there support for doing this work?
16:40:03 [toufic]
ashok: if you have an assertion with parameters, they all have the same qnames. is that what bijan wants?
16:40:13 [toufic]
paul: example about RM
16:40:32 [toufic]
paul: relationship of those things is then hidden inside parametric nature
16:40:40 [toufic]
paul: not seeing support for this work
16:41:01 [toufic]
RESOLUTION: Issue 3622 Closed (NotFixed)
16:41:08 [bijan]
RRSAgent where am I
16:41:08 [toufic]
RRSAgent, where am i?
16:41:08 [RRSAgent]
16:41:33 [toufic]
TOPIC: Issue 3623
16:42:20 [dorchard]
For the record, BEA was very slightly interested in pursuing this as a way of providing additional re-use mechanism, and this is an candidate for V.Next
16:42:33 [dorchard]
16:42:38 [toufic]
paul: related to 3694
16:42:49 [toufic]
paul: would rather process it then
16:43:28 [toufic]
TOPIC: Issue 3602
16:43:46 [toufic]
16:43:57 [PaulC]
16:43:59 [toufic]
paul: ashok took an AI for a revised proposal
16:45:09 [toufic]
ashok: we had a lot of discussion on this
16:45:23 [toufic]
ashok: turns out thanks to maryann that we figured out the actual text was exactly right
16:45:40 [toufic]
ashok: actual text conveys semantics
16:45:53 [toufic]
ashok: only problem is that one sentence difficult to understand
16:46:01 [toufic]
ashok: spelt it out with an example
16:47:15 [toufic]
monica has suggestion
16:47:16 [toufic]
16:47:37 [maryann]
16:47:44 [toufic]
ashok: monica suggests it's too early in the document
16:47:50 [Zakim]
16:48:20 [toufic]
ashok: with recast, it's not obvious what intent is, so example is required
16:48:33 [toufic]
monica: we have material later in document to address "optional"
16:48:49 [toufic]
monica: guideline to give guidance on how to use
16:49:58 [PaulC]
ack maryann
16:50:05 [toufic]
maryann: appreciate the spirit, but change doesn't help clarify difference
16:50:17 [toufic]
maryann: forward reference in document is good idea
16:50:28 [prasad]
16:50:29 [asir]
16:50:35 [toufic]
maryann: also guideline document to help, and include additional references
16:50:36 [monica]
16:51:05 [toufic]
paul: what about a forward reference to the example under "optional"
16:51:17 [toufic]
paul: likes example, example helps understanding
16:51:26 [toufic]
paul: that has worked in other WG's
16:51:51 [Fabian]
16:51:56 [toufic]
asir: there is an example in 4.3.1
16:52:12 [toufic]
paul: could we add at end of 4.3.1?
16:52:16 [monica]
16:52:26 [monica]
16:53:07 [PaulC]
ack prasad
16:54:14 [toufic]
prasad: example illustrates one scenario where assertion does not occur should be prohibited
16:54:30 [PaulC]
ack asir
16:54:40 [vladB]
16:54:42 [PaulC]
ack Fabian
16:54:42 [toufic]
prasad: we should give forward references to concept instead of moving example
16:54:56 [toufic]
fabian: would like to discuss original issue (not example location)
16:55:22 [toufic]
paul summarizes what occured so far on this issue
16:55:54 [toufic]
fabian: maybe just me not understanding second sentence
16:56:11 [toufic]
fabian: example - RM optional
16:56:48 [toufic]
fabian: after normalizing, two different policies that apply to same endpoint, one of which prohibits RM
16:57:04 [danroth]
16:58:16 [toufic]
paul: consensus is that is correct
16:58:17 [maryann]
16:58:45 [toufic]
dan: that's not what fabian is saying. asserts that this is causing confusion because impression is that client is prohibited
16:58:48 [PaulC]
ack monica
16:58:53 [toufic]
monica: still thinks this is for guidance document
16:58:53 [PaulC]
ack vla
16:59:43 [danroth]
16:59:45 [PaulC]
ack danroth
16:59:45 [toufic]
vladb: what about introducing a new assertion?
17:00:13 [toufic]
maryann: one solution is a new binding that handles the new assertion and supports the old
17:00:32 [toufic]
maryann: wondering if changing "client" to "entities"
17:00:57 [Ashok]
17:01:11 [toufic]
dan: people are reading the spec and interpreting it in two ways
17:01:20 [asir]
17:01:20 [toufic]
dan: we need them to interpret it in one way
17:02:04 [toufic]
maryann: what they're trying to indicate with alternatives/optional is that one alternative doesn't
17:02:09 [monica]
17:02:18 [toufic]
maryann: and since you know about the other assertion and you don't include it, then it's prohibited
17:02:37 [toufic]
dan: that's how we understand it, but we need everybody else to understand it that way too
17:03:29 [Yakov]
17:03:59 [toufic]
paul: possible compromise is to add monica's text and example
17:04:47 [Yakov]
17:05:35 [Yakov]
+1 to Maryann
17:06:23 [toufic]
17:06:30 [PaulC]
ack maryann
17:06:36 [PaulC]
ack ashok
17:07:01 [toufic]
ashok: spec speaks of situation where i have to select one policy alternative
17:07:10 [prasad]
17:07:18 [toufic]
ashok: when you use the word "provider" it looks like policy applies to one direction
17:07:28 [toufic]
ashok: wsp framwork has no direction
17:07:33 [whenry]
17:07:43 [toufic]
ashok: we don't speak of provider, requester, etc
17:07:59 [toufic]
paul: that's agenda item 29a
17:08:32 [maryann]
17:08:41 [PaulC]
ack asir
17:08:50 [toufic]
asir: supports monica's text with the changes, and provide example and references
17:08:52 [PaulC]
ack monica
17:08:54 [toufic]
monica: +1
17:09:06 [PaulC]
ack yak
17:09:14 [toufic]
yakov: deep reservations about text - talks about provider, and "applies" policy
17:09:15 [monica]
17:09:17 [asir]
changes to Monica's text are drop 'but'
17:09:40 [toufic]
yakov: not clear what that means about provider applying policy
17:10:02 [asir]
second change to Monica's text is s/provider/provider of the service/
17:10:04 [PaulC]
17:10:10 [toufic]
yakov: reluctant support, and changes in 3.2 section later
17:10:11 [PaulC]
ack prasad
17:10:27 [toufic]
prasad: wanted to address ashok's point in case of optional assertion
17:10:47 [toufic]
prasad: it's up to the client to use which alternative since provider has no preference
17:11:06 [toufic]
prasad: then provider of service decides which alternative was selected
17:11:07 [PaulC]
ack wh
17:11:26 [toufic]
whenry: couldn't you just use monica's text and use "provider" and "consumer"?
17:11:32 [danroth]
17:11:34 [PaulC]
ack mary
17:11:51 [toufic]
maryann: don't know if there is consensus in the group, can we take another round?
17:12:12 [PaulC]
ack monica
17:12:26 [toufic]
monica: should go ahead and make decision then defer to 29a
17:12:32 [PaulC]
ack dan
17:12:50 [maryann]
17:12:53 [toufic]
dan: we want to allow people to try to send a message, even if they don't understand
17:13:03 [PaulC]
ack maryann
17:13:09 [toufic]
dan: word "prohibited" is at issue
17:13:59 [toufic]
paul: proposal on table is to add monica's text, example, and references
17:14:30 [toufic]
paul: pushback is about using the "provider" (maryann, ashok, yakov)
17:14:57 [toufic]
paul: will changing "provider" fix things?
17:15:10 [toufic]
maryann: don't have words right now that can provide consensus
17:15:21 [Yakov]
17:15:24 [toufic]
maryann: intent here is to clarify, and not sure if that clarifies
17:15:41 [toufic]
ashok: unhappy because it implies it works one way and does not work the oterh
17:15:42 [whenry]
17:15:48 [toufic]
17:15:51 [FrederickHirsch]
17:15:54 [danroth]
what about changing provider to policy subject?
17:15:54 [toufic]
ashok: policies work both ways
17:16:22 [toufic]
paul: problem is that piece of text
17:16:40 [toufic]
paul: give dissenters an explicit AI to respond with an alternative by email
17:16:56 [toufic]
paul: we should not constrain them to that phrase
17:17:19 [toufic]
ACTION: maryann, ashok, yakov to respond with alternative text
17:17:19 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - maryann,
17:17:38 [PaulC]
17:17:41 [Yakov]
17:17:43 [PaulC]
ack yak
17:17:45 [toufic]
17:17:48 [PaulC]
ack wh
17:18:12 [toufic]
whenry: in terms of provider issue, would be useful to explain what they're afraid of (rationale)
17:18:18 [PaulC]
ack fred
17:18:19 [toufic]
whenry: maybe issue doesn't exist
17:18:32 [toufic]
fred: has alternative
17:18:45 [toufic]
fred: concern is that this might affect other things
17:19:27 [danroth]
17:20:17 [JongLee]
JongLee has joined #ws-policy
17:20:57 [toufic]
ashok: if we could get fabian to write email about why the old text wasn't right, that would help
17:20:59 [danroth]
17:21:03 [FrederickHirsch]
s/concern is that this might affect other things/desire to record clearly current revised proposal, perhaps record concerns with it as issue/
17:21:06 [danroth]
17:21:17 [PaulC]
ack toufic
17:22:07 [danroth]
17:22:27 [toufic]
toufic: to put in email issue about which policy alternative the "provider" selects to enforce
17:23:01 [danroth]
17:23:15 [toufic]
TOPIC: Issue 3703
17:23:33 [toufic]
17:23:34 [prasad]
ashok: I request fabian to put his concern in a short email. His concern is not clear to me
17:23:44 [PaulC]
17:23:45 [toufic]
17:24:23 [PaulC]
17:24:46 [PaulC]
17:26:54 [toufic]
glen: two kinds of extensions - assertions, and extensions to the framework
17:27:07 [toufic]
glen: in either case you should recognise the element
17:27:59 [toufic]
RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed in
17:28:05 [toufic]
rrsagent, where am i?
17:28:05 [RRSAgent]
17:28:32 [toufic]
TOPIC: Issue 3707
17:28:40 [dorchard]
glen, pls read the material I wrote for the primer on versioning
17:28:50 [toufic]
asir: this one is already done
17:28:51 [asir]
related editorial action is
17:29:54 [toufic]
paul: defn of "nested policy expression" in 2.4 of editors draft resolves this issue
17:30:43 [toufic]
RESOLUTION: Already done
17:30:50 [toufic]
rrsagent, where am i?
17:30:50 [RRSAgent]
17:30:58 [toufic]
TOPIC: Issue 3708
17:31:18 [toufic]
17:32:12 [toufic]
17:33:11 [toufic]
fred: security considerations are informative
17:34:03 [toufic]
fred: therefore should be "elevated" to the spec document
17:34:14 [toufic]
maryann: isn't that a topic for primer?
17:34:29 [toufic]
fred: most specs have a "security considerations" section
17:35:02 [toufic]
fred: ok with primer if it wants to elaborate, but main point is that it should be in main document
17:35:16 [toufic]
paul: primer might want to point to section in main document
17:35:42 [toufic]
paul: two part proposal: 1. move security considerations into the framwework doc
17:35:50 [toufic]
2. have primer point to that section
17:36:06 [toufic]
prasad: what about attachment doc?
17:36:20 [toufic]
fred: if there are issues unique to the framwork
17:36:54 [toufic]
ACTION: prasad to review next editors draft to see if there are any security considerations from framework doc that apply to attachment doc
17:36:54 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-110 - Review next editors draft to see if there are any security considerations from framework doc that apply to attachment doc [on Prasad Yendluri - due 2006-09-21].
17:37:37 [PaulC]
17:38:05 [toufic]
asir: clarification - it's going to be part of security considerations section
17:38:42 [toufic]
RESOLUTION: 3708 accept Frederick's proposal AND add pointer in primer
17:38:49 [toufic]
rrsagent, where am i?
17:38:49 [RRSAgent]
17:39:14 [toufic]
17:40:08 [Zakim]
17:40:42 [Zakim]
17:41:03 [asir]
related editorial actions are
17:41:03 [asir]
17:41:08 [asir]
17:59:16 [Zakim]
17:59:30 [Fabian]
Zakim, ??P2 is Fabian
17:59:31 [Zakim]
+Fabian; got it
18:01:35 [toufic]
back from break
18:01:56 [Zakim]
18:02:25 [toufic]
TOPIC: 3694
18:02:57 [toufic]
asir and jonathan marsh to present
18:03:24 [asir]
WSDL 20 is;%20charset=utf-8
18:03:42 [PaulC]
18:03:56 [PaulC]
is the email proposal for this issue
18:04:17 [toufic]
jon: section 9. XML syntax summary
18:04:50 [toufic]
jon: port became endpoint
18:05:08 [toufic]
jon: extensibility model in 2.0 is open content model
18:05:31 [toufic]
jon: there is an order of element at top level
18:06:04 [danroth]
danroth has joined #ws-policy
18:08:49 [toufic]
jon: section 2.14 service component
18:10:40 [toufic]
jon: section 2.3.1 interface faulrs
18:10:47 [toufic]
18:11:07 [toufic]
jon: faults have been elevated to peers of operations
18:11:40 [toufic]
jon: operations can refer to faults, and policies can be attached to faults
18:11:53 [toufic]
section 2.2.1 Interface component
18:13:07 [toufic]
section 2.9.1 binding component
18:16:05 [PaulC]
18:16:49 [toufic]
asir presents contribution: WS-Policy Attachment for WSDL 2.0
18:17:02 [toufic]
4 major pieces:
18:17:10 [toufic]
1. enumerated attachment points
18:17:17 [toufic]
2. describes policy subjects
18:17:34 [toufic]
3. defines an extension to the component model from wsdl 2.0
18:17:46 [toufic]
4. explains how to calculate effective policy for each policy subject
18:18:00 [toufic]
18:20:34 [toufic]
ashok: clarification - not required to have policies in wsdl document?
18:20:39 [toufic]
asir: no, just an example
18:30:01 [toufic]
glen: do we make clear enough that the fact a policy exists inside a description doesn't apply to the entire description?
18:30:14 [toufic]
asir: no, there are only four policy subjects
18:33:31 [toufic]
glen: wondering if there is a term that can be introduced to mean "the merge of Policy or PolicyReference elements"?
18:33:38 [toufic]
paul: looking for a macro
18:34:12 [toufic]
asir: probably should use "element policy" as a macro
18:36:06 [Zakim]
18:36:21 [toufic]
glen: section 4, eliminate second column and change table title to inclide {policy}
18:36:27 [toufic]
18:38:22 [toufic]
fred: having trouble understanding how to follow the diagram. inheritance?
18:38:28 [toufic]
asir: these are aggregations
18:38:57 [toufic]
paul: fred wants to know what arrows mean
18:39:10 [toufic]
fred: e.g. between binding and bindingFault
18:40:30 [toufic]
jon: no significance to colour in arrows, just overlap issue
18:41:18 [toufic]
paul: might want to use the same colour for arrows
18:46:24 [toufic]
s/policy" as a macro/policy" as a macro (editorial action)/
18:46:51 [toufic]
s/same colour for arrows/same colour for arrows (editorial action)/
18:47:09 [toufic]
paul: do you think this is complete? any areas that you don't think are covered?
18:47:15 [toufic]
asir: thinks it's complete
18:47:44 [toufic]
ashok: when you're doing policy merging to compute effective policy, can you have errors if something goes wrong?
18:48:25 [toufic]
the merge is a very simple operation
18:48:40 [toufic]
asir: the merge is a very simple operation
18:48:54 [toufic]
asir: it's a cross product, nothing more
18:49:31 [toufic]
ashok: suppose an assertion has parameters, and the identical assertion with different values for the parameter...
18:49:55 [toufic]
paul: is this a question about this proposal, or about the merge operation definition?
18:50:18 [toufic]
ashok: question is about merge definition
18:50:26 [toufic]
suppose an assertion has parameters, and the identical assertion with different values for the parameter...
18:50:30 [PaulC]
Attachment defn of "merge":a merge consists of serializing each policy as a policy expression, replacing their wsp:Policy element with a wsp:All element, and placing each as children of a wrapper wsp:Policy element.
18:50:30 [PaulC]
Attachment defn of "merge":
18:50:32 [toufic]
what happens?
18:50:49 [toufic]
s/what happens/ashok: what happens/
18:51:00 [toufic]
asir: aggregate behaviour is delegated to domain
18:51:34 [toufic]
asir: example SignedParts - specifics on how to interpret the merge behaviour
18:52:16 [toufic]
paul: section 3.2 in framework doc about aggregate behaviour
18:52:17 [PaulC]
Mechanisms for determining the aggregate behavior indicated by the assertions (and their Post-Schema-Validation Infoset (PSVI) content, if any) are specific to the assertion type and are outside the scope of this document.
18:52:59 [toufic]
18:53:03 [PaulC]
18:53:28 [toufic]
ashok: doc does not talk about using external attachment mechanism from wsdl 2.0
18:54:16 [toufic]
no, it doesn't do that. requirements that the doc satisfy are spelled out in section 1. Introduction
18:54:38 [toufic]
paul: question was asked yesterday in the context of proposal we have for 1.1
18:55:02 [toufic]
paul: i said we can ask the same question about 2.0
18:56:40 [toufic]
paul: when we adopted conformance text, was it only for framework?
18:56:47 [toufic]
asir: also attachments
18:56:55 [toufic]
paul: so same needs to be done for wsdl 2.0
18:57:15 [toufic]
18:58:11 [toufic]
ACTION: ashok to ask question/raise issue about what WG wants to do about attachments for WSDL 2.0
18:58:11 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-111 - Ask question/raise issue about what WG wants to do about attachments for WSDL 2.0 [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2006-09-21].
18:59:08 [toufic]
paul: do we believe that this proposal, modified by editorial changes, and addition of conformance text for wsdl 2.0 based on text from yesterday, resolves wsdl attachment issue?
18:59:31 [toufic]
RESOLUTION: 3694 with proposal as amended
18:59:36 [toufic]
rrsagent, where am i?
18:59:36 [RRSAgent]
19:00:38 [toufic]
s/3694 with proposal as amended/3694 accepted with proposal as amended/
19:02:05 [toufic]
ACTION: paul to send an email to the chair of SAWSDL WG informing of the proposal adopted today
19:02:05 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-112 - Send an email to the chair of SAWSDL WG informing of the proposal adopted today [on Paul Cotton - due 2006-09-21].
19:02:33 [toufic]
TOPIC: Agenda Item 29a
19:03:02 [asir]
3694 editorial action is
19:03:08 [toufic]
agenda is at
19:05:31 [jeffm]
jeffm has joined #ws-policy
19:05:37 [toufic]
19:07:08 [toufic]
asir: 3705 deals with this issue
19:08:29 [toufic]
19:09:13 [asir]
19:09:28 [toufic]
when you select one policy alternative, does that apply to all messages between two participants?
19:09:30 [toufic]
19:09:30 [GlenD]
19:10:14 [PaulC]
ack asir
19:10:28 [toufic]
asir: a message exchange may be described by a policy on policy subjects
19:10:44 [toufic]
asir: also may be one for input, one for output, one for fault
19:10:50 [toufic]
asir: multiple possibilities
19:11:23 [toufic]
asir: all policies are chosen from the different policy subjects, which describes the exchange
19:11:36 [toufic]
ashok: reading of the spec is you select effective policy
19:11:45 [toufic]
glen: which portion of the spec?
19:11:55 [toufic]
maryann: intersection
19:12:37 [toufic]
intersection is an operation which takes in two policies and produces one
19:13:13 [PaulC]
ack GlenD
19:13:26 [toufic]
glen: the reality is that you have a hierarchical set of policies
19:13:37 [toufic]
ashok: maybe we should put words behind it?
19:14:13 [toufic]
asir: attachment spec, Section 4.1
19:14:39 [asir]
q+ Jonathan
19:16:18 [toufic]
glen: in WS model section there is mention of requester, provider, etc
19:16:33 [toufic]
glen: for each message that is exchange, there is an agreed upon policy set
19:17:22 [toufic]
jon: effective policy vs. relevant policy is confusing
19:17:36 [toufic]
paul: move on to Q2
19:18:37 [toufic]
glen: we said moot to the question - the notion of a single policy alternative applying to the whole interaction between client and server does not apply
19:18:48 [toufic]
paul: different selected policies at different levels
19:19:15 [Zakim]
19:19:21 [toufic]
glen: authors of assertions should make clear the direction
19:19:31 [toufic]
glen: guidelines should clarify
19:19:58 [toufic]
paul: Q3 is delayed - will deal with it on 3639
19:20:43 [toufic]
TOPIC: Issue 3619
19:21:05 [toufic]
19:22:04 [PaulC]
19:23:35 [toufic]
asir: talking about example in 3.4 (external attachment mechanisms)
19:24:33 [toufic]
asir: bob is asking for a normative description, not a fictitious example
19:24:48 [toufic]
paul: this is an example of normative material above
19:24:52 [Fabian]
19:25:06 [toufic]
paul: does the normative material address the issue, or are they asking us to add to the normative material
19:25:20 [toufic]
ashok: there is no normative material, just a statement that you may use it
19:25:46 [toufic]
paul: using EPR in appliesTo
19:26:04 [toufic]
this means to me that the scope of it is the EPR
19:26:49 [toufic]
paul: we can a sentence that clarifies that this is the scope
19:26:55 [toufic]
glen: don't believe that's sufficient
19:27:32 [toufic]
paul: we can try to answer that question as it applies to EPR
19:27:47 [toufic]
paul: but that's an extensibility point. why do we do it for EPR?
19:28:13 [toufic]
ashok: because it's a particular usage
19:30:41 [toufic]
paul: our response maybe should be: we think you should, but in this case, here's an example
19:30:54 [toufic]
ashok: if we have done the work, why don't we put it in?
19:31:03 [toufic]
glen: because it might not apply to our spec
19:31:23 [toufic]
glen: ok with doing the work, and deciding later where it goes
19:33:14 [toufic]
ACTION: glen to draft a response to the WS-A WG, and keep it on member list
19:33:14 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-113 - Draft a response to the WS-A WG, and keep it on member list [on Glen Daniels - due 2006-09-21].
19:33:51 [toufic]
lunch break
19:34:13 [PaulC]
19:35:28 [Zakim]
19:35:36 [charlton]
be back at 13.30
19:36:25 [Fabian]
For the log: I pointed out to Paul that I still have a question pending on issue 3619. I posted it to the mailing list yesterday. I will resend if nobody picks up on it in time.
19:37:12 [Zakim]
19:39:37 [Fabian]
My email is archived at
19:57:10 [vladB]
vladB has joined #ws-policy
20:31:25 [maryann]
maryann has joined #ws-policy
20:31:46 [maryann]
20:36:23 [Zakim]
20:36:26 [Zakim]
20:36:27 [Zakim]
20:53:25 [danroth]
danroth has joined #ws-policy
20:58:26 [PaulC]
20:58:47 [toufic]
back from lunch breaks
20:59:43 [toufic]
TOPIC: Issue 3709
21:00:47 [asir]
RRSAgent, where am I>
21:00:47 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'where am I>', asir. Try /msg RRSAgent help
21:00:50 [asir]
RRSAgent, where am I?
21:00:50 [RRSAgent]
21:00:55 [toufic]
RESOLUTION: Fixed deemed editorial, assigned to editors
21:01:23 [asir]
related editorial action is
21:01:57 [toufic]
TOPIC: Issue 3710
21:02:23 [toufic]
fred: text of proposal has two different topics
21:03:03 [toufic]
fred: we can deal with this in two parts
21:04:07 [PaulC]
21:04:09 [toufic]
asir: a & b sound ok
21:04:25 [toufic]
asir: I don't understand item 3 - what does it say?
21:04:44 [toufic]
paul: descendant is not a defined term
21:05:09 [toufic]
paul: this is the best text we could capture
21:05:22 [toufic]
dan: this text is saying what we dont' do
21:05:31 [toufic]
dan: this space is very large
21:05:46 [toufic]
dan: if this text never existed, would anyone have a problem?
21:05:58 [maryann]
21:06:00 [toufic]
paul: combination with item a is what led us here
21:06:59 [toufic]
remember we're writing for an audience of people who will develop these policies, not just for us
21:07:21 [toufic]
maryann: it only says what it doesn't do about arbitrary processing, but it's specific about the rest
21:07:30 [toufic]
maryann: definitely support this
21:08:08 [toufic]
RESOLUTION: 3710 resolved by material in the bug report
21:08:10 [asir]
RRSAgent, where am I?
21:08:10 [RRSAgent]
21:08:48 [toufic]
TOPIC: Issue 3711
21:09:14 [toufic]
21:09:36 [FrederickHirsch]
21:11:16 [PaulC]
Proposed text is: Similarly, by repeatedly distributing wsp:All over wsp:ExactlyOne,"
21:11:53 [toufic]
paul: no objections to resolving it with this text
21:12:08 [toufic]
RESOLUTION: accept text in the bug report
21:12:14 [toufic]
rrsagent, where am i?
21:12:14 [RRSAgent]
21:12:19 [toufic]
thanks asir :)
21:12:25 [toufic]
TOPIC: 3712
21:12:41 [toufic]
21:12:53 [asir]
related editorial action for 3711 -
21:12:57 [Zakim]
21:13:03 [PaulC]
21:13:34 [vladB]
21:14:39 [FrederickHirsch]
21:14:45 [asir]
21:15:14 [PaulC]
ack Jonathan
21:15:20 [maryann]
ack maryann
21:15:22 [PaulC]
ack Fabian
21:15:28 [PaulC]
ack Fred
21:15:58 [toufic]
fred: sounds like it trats policyReference as a standalone definition
21:16:04 [toufic]
paul: that is the intent
21:16:21 [PaulC]
ack asir
21:16:33 [toufic]
asir: policyReference is a global element in schema
21:16:44 [toufic]
framework doesn't provide semantics
21:17:09 [toufic]
asir: how it applies to others such as wsdl 2.0, uddi, etc
21:17:39 [maryann]
21:17:41 [toufic]
paul: anybody that wants to use policyReference has to define the semantics where it's used
21:18:02 [toufic]
vladB: this is an artificial division between the two specs
21:18:26 [toufic]
vladB: if I receive a wsdl with this specification, and i don't see it here
21:18:30 [FrederickHirsch]
21:18:58 [toufic]
paul: vlad is saying when I see a policyReference mentioned, it's not clear which spec it's referring to
21:19:23 [toufic]
asir: when it's near an attachment point, attachment spec applies
21:19:32 [toufic]
asir: when it's elsewhere, it's framework
21:19:42 [toufic]
vladB: maybe we need two different elements
21:19:47 [PaulC]
ack maryann
21:19:52 [toufic]
maryann: could we define it more clearly here?
21:20:00 [dorchard]
dorchard has joined #ws-policy
21:20:24 [PaulC]
ack Fred
21:20:27 [toufic]
maryann: the words you said are not in this spec
21:21:00 [toufic]
fred: it seems that what's being said is that policyReference is a first class
21:21:37 [toufic]
fred: in section 3 of framework we could have a section between 3.2 and 3.3 that talks about policyReference
21:21:48 [toufic]
fred: explains how it's used
21:21:55 [toufic]
fred: other documents would refer to it
21:22:12 [toufic]
asir: section 3 is about data model. no reference at this level
21:22:23 [toufic]
fred: maybe should be between sec 3 and 4
21:22:43 [toufic]
fred: where would i put it in the table of contents?
21:24:17 [toufic]
paul: at the heart of the proposal and request is to pull the text and make it standalone
21:24:25 [toufic]
paul: so both specs can refer to it
21:25:24 [toufic]
paul: i agree it belongs in section 4, not 3
21:25:52 [toufic]
paul: need a proposal to take it out, and add a statement that mentions that the semantics are defined elsewhere, and refer to it
21:26:52 [toufic]
ACTION: asir to provide a proposal for 3712
21:26:53 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-114 - Provide a proposal for 3712 [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2006-09-21].
21:27:59 [toufic]
TOPIC: Issues 3719/3722
21:28:17 [toufic]
Duplicates (committed twice?)
21:28:44 [toufic]
rrsagent, where am I?
21:28:44 [RRSAgent]
21:29:25 [toufic]
RESOLUTION: duplicate of 3719
21:29:46 [toufic]
TOPIC: 3719
21:30:23 [toufic]
s/duplicate of/3722 is duplicate of/
21:30:38 [toufic]
paul: he's asking for more levels of indirection
21:30:57 [toufic]
paul: e.g. policy reference to uddi entry which points to another policy
21:31:07 [toufic]
does the current spec restrict you?
21:32:54 [toufic]
the current specs combined (framework and attachment) provide for that requirement
21:33:48 [toufic]
ACTION: Dan to respond back explaining the description we just had, and asking whether that satisfies the requirement
21:33:48 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Dan
21:34:16 [toufic]
zakim, dan is danroth
21:34:16 [Zakim]
sorry, toufic, I do not recognize a party named 'dan'
21:34:25 [toufic]
zakim, danroth is dan
21:34:25 [Zakim]
sorry, toufic, I do not recognize a party named 'danroth'
21:35:38 [danroth]
I'm here
21:36:12 [Ashok]
ACTION: ACTION: danroth to respond back explaining the description we just had, and asking whether that satisfies the requirement
21:36:12 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - ACTION:
21:36:25 [Ashok]
ACTION: danroth to respond back explaining the description we just had, and asking whether that satisfies the requirement
21:36:25 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - danroth
21:37:08 [toufic]
zakim, bye
21:37:08 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were F2F, Fabian, Dave_Orchard, bijan, Jong_Lee, Charlton_Barreto, DOrchard
21:37:08 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-policy
21:37:22 [toufic]
rrsagent, draft minutes
21:37:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate toufic
21:37:37 [toufic]
rrsagent, bye
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
I see 9 open action items saved in :
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: maryann, ashok, yakov to respond with alternative text [1]
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: prasad to review next editors draft to see if there are any security considerations from framework doc that apply to attachment doc [2]
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ashok to ask question/raise issue about what WG wants to do about attachments for WSDL 2.0 [3]
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: paul to send an email to the chair of SAWSDL WG informing of the proposal adopted today [4]
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: glen to draft a response to the WS-A WG, and keep it on member list [5]
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: asir to provide a proposal for 3712 [6]
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Dan to respond back explaining the description we just had, and asking whether that satisfies the requirement [7]
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ACTION: danroth to respond back explaining the description we just had, and asking whether that satisfies the requirement [8]
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: danroth to respond back explaining the description we just had, and asking whether that satisfies the requirement [9]
21:37:37 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:37:45 [asir]
rrsagent, please set these logs world-visible