20:50:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
20:50:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/11/27-ws-addr-irc
20:50:21 <bob> zakim, this will be #ws_addrwg
20:50:21 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, bob
20:50:36 <bob> zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
20:50:36 <Zakim> ok, bob; I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
20:51:07 <bob> meeting: WS-Addressing Working Group Teleconference
20:51:18 <bob> chair: Bob Freund
20:53:49 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has now started
20:55:53 <David_Illsley> David_Illsley has joined #ws-addr
20:58:53 <gpilz> gpilz has joined #ws-addr
20:59:22 <Dug> Dug has joined #ws-addr
20:59:54 <bob> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Nov/0072.html
21:00:34 <bob> zakim, who is here?
21:00:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
21:00:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see Dug, gpilz, David_Illsley, RRSAgent, Zakim, bob
21:02:02 <mlittle> mlittle has joined #ws-addr
21:02:14 <anish> anish has joined #ws-addr
21:02:15 <TomRutt> TomRutt has joined #ws-addr
21:02:29 <MrGoodner> MrGoodner has joined #ws-addr
21:02:46 <TonyR> TonyR has joined #ws-addr
21:03:32 <mlittle> mlittle has joined #ws-addr
21:04:24 <Paco> Paco has joined #ws-addr
21:04:40 <pauld> pauld has joined #ws-addr
21:06:20 <bob> scribe: Bob Freund
21:07:47 <bob> resolution: minutes of 2006-11-13
21:08:55 <bob> Tom: the proposals are using policy parameters, which are not being used by the intersection algoritm
21:09:53 <anish> q+
21:10:03 <bob> Tom: I did not see any problems
21:10:04 <gpilz> q+ to ask a question about our intent
21:10:50 <bob> Paco: Intersection only looking at qnames, we are not leveraging the policy framework
21:11:13 <bob> Marc: Nested approach taken only foe aesthetic reasons
21:11:34 <bob> s/foe/for
21:11:54 <pauld> zakim, who is on the phone?
21:11:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
21:12:02 <bob> ack anish
21:12:34 <bob> Anish: Would be better to have independant assertions that are not parameterized
21:12:56 <bob> ack gp
21:12:56 <Zakim> gpilz, you wanted to ask a question about our intent
21:13:28 <bob> Gil: Agrees with marcH, we should not have to define our own intersection model
21:13:31 <anish> q+
21:13:37 <bob> ack anish
21:14:14 <bob> Anish: If we are going that route, would addressingrequired be replaced with anonresponse etc at the top level?
21:14:21 <gpilz> q+
21:14:35 <bob> ... there is a lot of  duplication
21:14:39 <bob> ack gp
21:15:17 <anish> q+
21:15:21 <MrGoodner> q+
21:16:14 <bob> Gil: there is a difference in meaning between missing wsdl markers and missing policy asssertions
21:17:07 <anish> q=
21:17:08 <anish> q-
21:17:26 <bob> Anish: there are a lot of implementations that use usingaddressing as a policy assertion
21:17:57 <bob> MarcG: usingaddressing works fine since it works well as mapped to a policy assertion
21:18:13 <bob> ... anonymous did not map well
21:18:30 <anish> q+
21:18:36 <bob> ... current proposals focused on policy assertions for anonymous
21:18:47 <bob> ack mrg
21:18:52 <bob> ack anish
21:20:03 <bob> Anish: There is no fundemental problem in using the same QNames
21:20:20 <bob> ... the problem is parameterizing the assertion itself
21:20:53 <David_Illsley> q+
21:21:43 <bob> Marc: three assertions; usingaddressing usinganon using nonanon?
21:22:21 <bob> Anish: If we keep the structure as is, with children elements, we are not solving the problem with parameterization
21:22:33 <bob> ... thus we need top level independednt QNames
21:23:00 <David_Illsley> q-
21:24:00 <Dug> do we have a URL?
21:24:46 <bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Nov/0026.html
21:25:05 <marc> marc has joined #ws-addr
21:25:23 <gpilz> q+
21:26:29 <bob> topic: cr33 proposal 7
21:26:55 <bob> gil: UsingAddressing is equivalent to addressing required
21:27:06 <TomRutt> q+
21:27:22 <bob> ack gp
21:27:54 <bob> Anish: I don't think that we need to have a distinction between the WSDL and Policy assertion QNames
21:28:10 <bob> ... I think that we could used the same QNames for both
21:28:34 <Dug> +1 to wsaw:BunnyRabbits
21:29:07 <Dug> LOL
21:29:44 <bob> Marc: UsingAddressing says nothing about the forms of addresses required
21:30:27 <anish> q?
21:30:50 <anish> q+
21:30:59 <bob> ack tomr
21:31:40 <bob> Tom: Is it important to say that I can never have applies?
21:32:02 <bob> Marc: allows others to define other assertions with their own assertions
21:32:58 <bob> Gil: we cannot define all kinds of addresses
21:32:59 <Dug> hate to ask but does wsa:None need to be taken into account here or is it just assumed to always be allowed?
21:33:47 <bob> Anish: will never use usingaddressing alone because no address form is used
21:34:09 <bob> ... even one way messages might use replyto
21:34:48 <bob> Anish: likes the proposal since it states things in the positive
21:34:59 <David_Illsley> Dug, it's assumed to be allowed.. see reply from Marc to me somewhere down the thread
21:35:03 <gpilz> I had another ugly thought: what if the message contains a ReplyTo that is not targeted at the receiving node?
21:35:14 <bob> ... it is composable with other specs if they define their own form of anonymous addresses
21:35:15 <gpilz> q+ to speak to David's proposal
21:35:25 <Dug> gil - very common scenario
21:35:59 <TomRutt> q+
21:36:10 <bob> ack anish
21:36:15 <bob> ack gp
21:36:15 <Zakim> gpilz, you wanted to speak to David's proposal
21:36:35 <bob> Gil: DaveO was concerned with default behavior
21:37:11 <bob> ... his problem with positive assertions and because of the lack of positive assertions, a client might give up
21:37:31 <bob> ... with neg assertions, SW will try to communicate 
21:38:24 <bob> Gil: need to weigh default behavior with the cr33 trap
21:38:49 <bob> ... need to avoid cr33 trap trumps default behavior
21:39:16 <bob> Tom: Negative assertions from a high level might have intersection issues
21:39:25 <Paco> q+
21:39:27 <anish> q+
21:39:34 <bob> ack: tom
21:39:40 <bob> ack tom
21:40:03 <bob> ... first lets decide on removing nesting
21:40:53 <anish> q-
21:41:12 <bob> ack paco
21:41:48 <bob> Paco: likes additive behavior, but still have an issue with an assertion that does not have enough meaning by itself
21:42:44 <bob> ... I would like to keep using addressing, but would like to have single assertions that has whole meaning without the need for an additional assertion
21:43:30 <anish> q+
21:44:33 <gpilz> q+
21:44:40 <bob> ack anish
21:45:01 <bob> ack gil
21:45:09 <bob> ack gp
21:45:43 <anish> q+
21:46:44 <Paco> (i) <wsaw:AddressingRequired/> - the endpoint supports and requires WS-Addressing, no constraint is placed on the replies the end point ca send. 
21:46:48 <bob> Gil: prefers that marc's approach is closer to the bone
21:46:49 <Dug> why do we need wsaw:AnonymousRequired - why not just  wsaw:FullWSASupport  to mean anon and non-anon is supported?
21:47:11 <Dug> if you want just one then use just  wsaw:AnonReplies  
21:47:26 <Dug> no assertion means no WSA support at all
21:48:22 <bob> s/ca /can 
21:48:25 <bob> q?
21:48:59 <David_Illsley> q+
21:49:04 <anish> q-
21:49:11 <bob> ack david
21:49:22 <bob> brb
21:50:22 <bob> back
21:50:48 <gpilz> q+
21:51:08 <anish> q+
21:51:36 <bob> ack gp
21:52:34 <bob> Gil: thinks it is more confusing to have the same QName and optionality when policy is contained in wsdal file
21:52:57 <bob> ... it is less confising to have different names
21:53:25 <bob> Paco: meaning is exactly the same, but contained in a different context
21:53:59 <bob> q?
21:54:09 <bob> ack anish
21:54:22 <Paul_Knight> Paul_Knight has joined #ws-addr
21:55:20 <bob> Anish: I see Gil's point that a naive user looking at a wsdl document might be confusees, but the important point is that the framework within it operates is ket
21:55:55 <bob> ... If it is viewed at the infoset level, then there is no confusion
21:56:49 <anish> bob: can we get down some hard text?
21:57:00 <MrGoodner> q+
21:57:06 <bob> bob has joined #ws-addr
21:57:32 <bob> q?
21:57:35 <anish> marcG: r we now not going to pursue mapping this to wsdl markers?
21:57:36 <bob> ack mrg
21:57:40 <bob> I am back
21:58:18 <pauld> pauld has joined #ws-addr
22:01:10 <bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Nov/0026.html
22:01:23 <bob> (i) <wsaw:AddressingRequired/> - the endpoint requires WS-Addressing,   
22:01:23 <bob> optionality can be conveyed using WS-Policy constructs.
22:01:38 <bob> current text in proposal 7 above
22:01:51 <anish> I would rather say: wsaw:UsingAddressing, that can be used to indicate that an endpoint conforms to the WS-Addressing specification.
22:02:05 <anish> s/wsaw:UsingAddressing//
22:02:10 <Paco> (i) <wsaw:AddressingRequired/> - the endpoint supports WS-Addressing, no constraint is placed on the replies the end point can send. 
22:03:57 <dorchard> dorchard has joined #ws-addr
22:04:07 <Paco> (i) <wsaw:UsingAddressing/> - the endpoint supports WS-Addressing, no constraint is placed on the replies the end point can send. 
22:06:16 <bob> q?
22:07:17 <bob> Paco: one of the three would be used, no need for more
22:08:13 <marc> seems like UsingAddressing should just say that addressing is supported but not say anything about the addresses that are supported
22:11:21 <bob> (i) <wsaw:UsingAddressing/> - the endpoint supports WS-Addressing,   
22:11:21 <bob> no constraints are placed on the replies the endpoint can send 
22:11:21 <bob>  
22:11:21 <bob> (ii) <wsaw:AnonymousReplies/> - the endpoint can send replies using   
22:11:21 <bob> WS-A anonymous. 
22:11:22 <bob>  
22:11:24 <bob> (iii) <wsaw:NonAnonymousReplies/> - the endpoint can send replies   
22:11:26 <bob> using other addresses. 
22:11:28 <bob>  
22:11:30 <bob> Assertion (iii) is deliberately vague, its presence means that a non-  
22:11:32 <bob> anon address might work but doesn't constrain what such an address   
22:11:34 <bob> might look like - a receiver can still reject an address that it   
22:11:36 <bob> doesn't grok or that requires a binding it doesn't support. The WG   
22:11:38 <bob> decided against specifying things like available response bindings so   
22:11:40 <bob> I think this is in line with that decision.
22:13:18 <bob> proposal final text subject to editorial revisions
22:13:22 <bob> (i) <wsaw:UsingAddressing/> - the endpoint supports WS-Addressing,   
22:13:23 <bob> no constraints are placed on the replies the endpoint can send 
22:13:23 <bob>  
22:13:23 <bob> (ii) <wsaw:AnonymousReplies/> - the endpoint can send replies using   
22:13:23 <bob> WS-A anonymous. 
22:13:24 <bob>  
22:13:26 <bob> (iii) <wsaw:NonAnonymousReplies/> - the endpoint can send replies   
22:13:28 <bob> using other addresses.
22:14:17 <gpilz> (i) + (ii) = (ii)
22:14:27 <gpilz> (i) + (iii) = (iii)
22:14:29 <MrGoodner> q+
22:14:40 <Dug> i+ii=i  i+iii=i
22:14:50 <bob> ack mrg
22:15:17 <gpilz> I don't agree Doug
22:15:27 <marc> i'm confused, i thought (i) = (ii) + (iii) ?
22:15:43 <gpilz> (i) leaves open the possibility for anon responses
22:15:57 <gpilz> (iii) does not
22:16:13 <Dug> I'm ok with either but I think the spec needs to be clear what i+ii means
22:16:46 <gpilz> q+
22:17:20 <bob> Editors to add text that indicates that one assertion is required.  Also add some info relating to the intent and the relationship of one to another
22:18:14 <anish> q+
22:18:33 <bob> ack gp
22:18:38 <bob> ack ani
22:18:53 <Dug> ii+iii=i   i+ii=i   i+iii=i
22:19:49 <David_Illsley> imo i+ii=i
22:22:28 <gpilz> I think the important thing is that all assertions are additive
22:23:02 <gpilz> so (i) means addressing is supported but you take you chances w/regards to using anon or non-anon etc.
22:23:10 <TomRutt> 1 says addressing is supporte, maybe anon maybe non anon  2 says anon is supported, 3 says non anon is supported
22:23:15 <gpilz> (ii) is positively affirming that anon is supoorted
22:23:50 <gpilz> so (i) && (ii) means that anon is definitely supported and non-anon may be supported
22:24:00 <TomRutt> 1+2 = 2 ,  1+3 = 2
22:24:01 <gpilz> similarly for (i) && (iii)
22:25:24 <TomRutt> q+
22:25:44 <gpilz> q+
22:25:59 <bob> ack tom
22:26:21 <anish> yes, 2 & 3 subsume 1
22:26:42 <TomRutt> s/1+3=2/1+3=3/
22:28:19 <bob> ack gp
22:32:06 <anish> q+
22:32:15 <bob> ack anish
22:33:37 <TomRutt> q+
22:34:19 <bob> ack tom
22:35:11 <gpilz> q+
22:35:42 <anish> i'm wondering if we should have some wordings for (iii) that say something like "... typically non-anon addresses are used to specify response addresses that go to a different place from where the request came in ..."
22:35:50 <bob> ack gp
22:36:22 <anish> that would be non-normative, of course
22:37:27 <David_Illsley> anish, I'm not sure I agree with the statement... my gues is that the common case is async-callback invocation
22:37:53 <anish> david, isn't that a different place from the back channel?
22:38:03 <anish> perhaps the words need tweeking
22:38:10 <David_Illsley> so the back channel is a place now? :-)
22:38:20 <anish> lol
22:38:24 <TomRutt> q+
22:39:00 <David_Illsley> anish, I think we head back towards new connection which we might slip through in non-normative text
22:39:10 <anish> all i'm trying to say is that, we should include how typically this is used (i.e. the async scenarios) where the replyTO address is a dereferenceable URL
22:39:24 <anish> ah, sure, that would work, David
22:43:39 <TomRutt> yes
22:43:59 <bob> ack tom
22:44:52 <bob> ai: gil to produce stab at final text before wednesdy next week
22:48:16 <bob> s/next/this
22:49:30 <Zakim> WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
22:49:31 <Zakim> Attendees were 
22:49:42 <bob> rrsagent, make logs public
22:49:50 <bob> rrsagent, generate minutes
22:49:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/11/27-ws-addr-minutes.html bob
22:50:09 <TonyR> TonyR has left #ws-addr