IRC log of ws-addr on 2006-11-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:50:03 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
20:50:03 [RRSAgent]
logging to
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
21:14:35 [bob]
... there is a lot of duplication
21:14:39 [bob]
ack gp
21:15:17 [anish]
21:15:21 [MrGoodner]
21:16:14 [bob]
Gil: there is a difference in meaning between missing wsdl markers and missing policy asssertions
21:17:07 [anish]
21:17:08 [anish]
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]
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]
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]
21:24:00 [Dug]
do we have a URL?
21:24:46 [bob]
21:25:05 [marc]
marc has joined #ws-addr
21:25:23 [gpilz]
21:26:29 [bob]
topic: cr33 proposal 7
21:26:55 [bob]
gil: UsingAddressing is equivalent to addressing required
21:27:06 [TomRutt]
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]
21:29:44 [bob]
Marc: UsingAddressing says nothing about the forms of addresses required
21:30:27 [anish]
21:30:50 [anish]
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]
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]
21:39:27 [anish]
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]
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]
21:44:33 [gpilz]
21:44:40 [bob]
ack anish
21:45:01 [bob]
ack gil
21:45:09 [bob]
ack gp
21:45:43 [anish]
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]
21:48:59 [David_Illsley]
21:49:04 [anish]
21:49:11 [bob]
ack david
21:49:22 [bob]
21:50:22 [bob]
21:50:48 [gpilz]
21:51:08 [anish]
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]
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]
21:57:06 [bob]
bob has joined #ws-addr
21:57:32 [bob]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
22:25:44 [gpilz]
22:25:59 [bob]
ack tom
22:26:21 [anish]
yes, 2 & 3 subsume 1
22:26:42 [TomRutt]
22:28:19 [bob]
ack gp
22:32:06 [anish]
22:32:15 [bob]
ack anish
22:33:37 [TomRutt]
22:34:19 [bob]
ack tom
22:35:11 [gpilz]
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]
22:38:24 [TomRutt]
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]
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]
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 bob
22:50:09 [TonyR]
TonyR has left #ws-addr