WS Policy Working Group
27 Sep 2006

<GlenD> Chairs, I'm going to need to take off a little early today - may be able to continue via cellphone from the car for the last .5 hr

1. Next meeting

Picking new scribe for next week

Sergey will scribe next week

2. Review and approval of F2F minutes, Chair

Umit had question about resolution of 3617

Umit: Resolution is not clear

<vladB> not yet, will do it

Paul's emal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0180.html

Resolution: Minutes adopted unaminously

Chris to chair next week

3. Future WG meetings, Chair

Deadline for registration page: 3rd week in October approximately

Get hotel reservations ASAP

<fsasaki> deadline for registration is October 27th

4. Editorial team report

Prasad: all resolutions from F2F are being incorporated
... 27 out of 44 closed
... item a is done (action 98)
... action 98 should be marked done
... Issue 3720 has been opened for action 98

Paul: Editors should say how 3720 is done when they provide an editor's draft
... 3720 should stay open until we get the editor's draft

Chris: will update the issue to say it's assigned to the editors

Prasad: item b is in progress
... item c is done (action 95)

Chris: will close action 95

<cferris> done

Prasad: item d is still pending
... item e is done (action 107)

Chris: will mark 107 as done

Prasad: item f is pending. Paul has given feedback that needs to be incorporated

<PaulC> Paul's comment on Primer: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0165.html

Prasad: item g is pending
... action 102 and 108 are in progress

Paul: In answer to Umit's question . . .

Umit: We would like to review and send comments on the primer
... overlap of concerns may result in more issues

Prasad: We (temporarily) lost one of the editors (Asir) and we needed to pick up some of his AIs. We will have an editors call following this call and review our status. We will target to deliver as soon as possible.

Paul: Question to Felix, is the working draft published?

Felix: It's published

<PaulC> http://www.w3.org/News/2006#item171

5. Review action items, Chair

Paul: Action 39 is done

DavidO provided the logistics

<PaulC> SFO Jan meeting: http://www.w3.org/2006/09/ws-policy-f2f-logistics.html

<fsasaki> http://www.w3.org/2007/01/ws-policy-f2f-logistics.html

Ashok: Logistics page looks empty

Possibly just a refresh issue

Paul: Information is missing from the page
... We know it's in downtown San Fransisco
... Avoid a rental car

Chris: Action 92 is pending, he will update the date

Action 96 is pending, Glen will have this done by next week

Paul: Toufic has stated that he does not plan on doing Action 101

Chris: will close the issue

6. Liaison items

<scribe> ACTION: Paul to reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0130.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-117 - Reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0130.html [on Paul Cotton - due 2006-10-04].

7. Discussion threads without an open issue

Sergey: planning to open issue concerning policy expressions with no wire manifestation

Fredrick: This seems related to http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3564

Umit: These issues are related but are not the same
... I could open up a new issue

<scribe> ACTION: Sergey to open new issue related to thread on policy expressions with no wire manifestation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Sergey

<scribe> ACTION: sberyozkin to open new issue related to thread on policy expressions with no wire manifestation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - sberyozkin

<cferris> ACTION: Chris to ensure that today's agenda items 7a and 9a s/b clustered together in next week's agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-118 - Ensure that today\'s agenda items 7a and 9a s/b clustered together in next week\'s agenda [on Christopher Ferris - due 2006-10-04].

8. New issues not yet discussed by WG

<cferris> 3721 is also related to the issue we just discussed

<PaulC> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3721

a) New Attribute keyword to identify 'local' policies

<GlenD> This totally relates to the optionality/requirements-capabilities discussions.

<umit> we should delay the discussion until he is here and the new issue is open. I believe there is a dependency

<PaulC> Dan's reply:

<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0151.html

<FHirsch> +1, part of 3564 thread

Fredrick: Seems related to the other thread

Ashok: Did William mean local policies or local assertions?

Umit: Propose we defer this issue until William can clarify his issue on whether he is talking about polcies or assertions

Sergey: local is not related to optional

<umit> who is the consuming entity? I believe there are several consuming entities here.

<umit> ... it depends on which consumer is ignoring the assertion.

Ashok: Are you asking for the attribute on the assertions or on policies?

<umit> ... We would not need an assertion to be present if the assertion was not meaningful for someone.

Sergey: I don't think we want a local assertion
... We want an assertion that is ignorable by the consuming entity
... The consuming entity is the entity that is consuming the policy

Fredrick: Recommend delay

<FHirsch> Appears to be related to "advisory" assertions, those to advertise provider capability but not impacting client policy selection

Glenn: Prudent to wait for William

<cferris> paul reminds us all that we can always ask these sorts of clarifying issues via email

b) Non-normative recommendation on how effective polices should be calculated when a policy is associated with an arbitrary XML element.

Segey 3723 marked as Invalid

<PaulC> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3723

Resolution: Working group agrees that 3723 is invalid
... Working group agrees that 3723 is invalid

<PaulC> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3730

<fsasaki> ACTION: Ashok to draft a proposal for issue 3730 - due to 2006-10-09 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-ws-policy-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-119 - draft a proposal for issue 3730 [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2006-09-27].

<fsasaki> Chris: Ashok will not be at that call. Should someone represent the position?

<fsasaki> Ashok: I will try until next week

d) NEW ISSUE 3752: Clarify restrictions of ID type usage

<fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki

<PaulC> New text is:

<PaulC> The constraints of the [XML 1.0] ID type MUST be met.

<cferris> acribeNick: fsasaki

<cferris> scribeNick: fsasaki

RESOLUTION: WG agrees with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0107.html to resolve 3752

<toufic> chris, i actually just signed on to say that I'm pretty sick in bed today and won't be attending

e) NEW ISSUE 3753: Example 1-1 is not a complete security policy, Fabian Ritzmann

<toufic> i apologise to the WG

<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0108.html

<PaulC> Tony's proposal is in: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3753#c2

Fabian: there are assertations from security policy, but not in a valid context
... this is confusing for people who are not from the security context
... we should state "the example is from sec. pol, but not a valid one"
... that was my initial proposal.
... Tony made another proposal, Dan said that is good to him

Paul: adopting Tonys proposal would be o.k. with you?

Fabian: yes, I only think the reference to the example does not fit anymore
... in sec. 4.1 or 4.3.1
... removing the reference might resolve this. The reference is in section 4.1, not 4.3.1

Paul: so change example 1.1., and this example here to give both normal and not-normal form of a policy?

Fabian: yes

<PaulC> Issue 3753

<PaulC> Proposal:

<PaulC> 1. Replace Example 1-1 with Tony's example from http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3753#c2

<PaulC> 2. Move the old Example 1-1 down to the location where it is referred to in Section 4.1

RESOLUTION: fixing 3753 with Pauls proposal

9. Issues ready for resolution

Paul: this will be delayed

10. Open Issues with pending actions

a) Definition of Interaction

Paul: action 38 is still open

<PaulC> Issue 3639

b) Which policy alternative was selected?

<PaulC> ACTION: 115 to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0175.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06]

Fabian: this is a policy with at least 2 alternatives
... and you can't infer which policy applies to a message

Ashok: how would this situation arise?

Paul: why is it not clear how the server would reply?

Fabian: not sure

Paul: handle this via mail

c) Need a URI structure to refer to WSDL 1.0 definitions, etc.

Ashok: still working on this

<Yakov> welcome back too

<PaulC> Issue 3599 is pending Ashok's study.

<PaulC> Issue 3602

d) The absence of an assertion should not mean that the behavior is "explicitly prohibited"

Maryanne: action 109 is completed

<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0176.html

Ashok: Also need to add an example

<PaulC> Ashok suggests:

<PaulC> We should also add a pointer here to an example such as the one I proposed at the f2f which would appear later in the document after optional and alternative has been defined.

Ashok's example: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0094.html

<maryann> that sounds like a good suggestion to me

Dan: Can we just reuse the example in this section: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Optional_Policy_Assertions

<Yakov> +1

<maryann> i would rather use examples already in the spec if possible

<PaulC> Example at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-20060731/#Optional_Policy_Assertions

<monica> +1

<PaulC> Issue 3602 Proposal:

<PaulC> 1. Adopt text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0176.html

<PaulC> 2. Add a forward pointer to the example in Section 4.3.1 Optional Policy Assertions

<PaulC> 3. Add words in the reference to explain that the assertion should not apply.

Monica: There seems to already be text in 4.3.1 that describes the example

Ashok: The text in 4.3.1 looks reasonable
... Maybe we need something stronger: must not be applied or processed for example
... Maryann's text is fine

<monica> The @wsp:Optional attribute in Line (02) of the first policy expression indicates that the assertion in Line (02) is to be included in a policy alternative whilst excluded from another; it is included in Lines (03-05) and excluded in Line (06). Note that @wsp:Optional does not appear in the normal form of a policy expression.

<maryann> i think the line you need is right before 4.3.2- ashok

<umit> it seems to me that Ashok is actually looking for the negation of the assertion to be applied to the alternative...

<monica> reference: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Optional_Policy_Assertions

<umit> i got in the queue to ask whether that is what is being asked.

<maryann> there are 2 examples

RESOLUTION: Accept two part proposal to resolve 3602

<PaulC> Issue 3719

<PaulC> See Dan's reply: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0148.html

<PaulC> Awaiting reply to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0159.html

<scribe> ACTION: danroth to get a response for message 158 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-ws-policy-minutes.html#action07 (double of action08)]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - danroth

<fsasaki> ACTION: Daniel to get a response for message 158 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-ws-policy-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-120 - Get a response for message 158 [on Daniel Roth - due 2006-10-04].

<PaulC> Issue 3619

<PaulC> Action 113 on Glen is pending.

3619

g) wsp:PolicyReference can be used in any place where you can use wsp:Policy

<fsasaki> issue 3712

<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0187.html

<PaulC> Proposal is in two parts:

<PaulC> 1. Attached word doc contains changes to Framework

Vlad: I'm fine with this proposal

<PaulC> 2. Addition in email message 0187.html for Attachment.

RESOLUTION: Adopt the proposal in message in 187
... Adopt the proposal in message in 187 (for issue 3712) to close 3712

Umit: Why are we considering XPointer?

Paul: there is no WSDL 1.1 specific MIME type
... if you try and use a fragment ID, its definition is applicable to the MIME type
... Ashok's proposal used an undefined MIME type

Ashok: We could request a MIME type for WSDL 1.1

Umit: Concerned about implementation support for XPointer

Paul: to follow up with the W3C about the possibility of assigning a MIME type to WSDL 1.1
... Felix stated this was out of scope