WS Policy WG
31 Jan 2007

roll

<PaulC> Good morning Chris.

Review and approval of f2f minutes

agenda item 2: f2f minutes

today's agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0210.html

Chris: attendance tracker was updated

F2F minutes adopted unanimously

<cferris> RESOLUTION: minutes from F2F adopted unanimously

Future WG meetings

Paul: proposed agenda for future meetings
... cancel July 4 meeting and week after F2F meetings

<fsasaki> ACTION: Felix to update the meeting schedule at the admin HP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-210 - Update the meeting schedule at the admin HP [on Felix Sasaki - due 2007-02-07].

Felix: has info from Nortel for F2F

Paul: William should provide information for F2F earlier than usual

Editorial team report

agenda item 4: editorial team report

Asir is reporting

Asir: delivered CR draft Jan 21

didn't delivered primer and guidelines

Paul: CR decision next week

Umit: please add me to roll

<toufic> chris, me too please when you get a chance

<fsasaki> published at http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl11elementidentifiers/

Paul: Felix had action to publish WSDL 1.1 element id doc

<toufic> thanks!

Felix: document is on TR page

<asir> For the minutes, Candidate CR Drafts are at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0209.html

Paul: issues that were worked on are linked from page
... asks Felix to send note to WSDL WG that WSDL element id doc was published, Chris will do that

Paul: no other items

Umit: Re minutes approval: F2F minutes have small glitch
... one resolution pointed to wrong message

Paul: Umit to send email with correction

review action items

<scribe> ACTION: 183 to moved to next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]

action 189 moved to end of Feb

action 190 done

Maryann: on action 192 will send proposal today
... working on proposal for action 193

<Ashok> On action 193 -- Monica, Fabian and Maryann and I are still discussing

<Ashok> Will try for next week

Paul: ask Maryann to update action 193 with issue number

<monica> It may be Issue 4236.

Asir: have related editorial action for 194

<FrederickH> Action 196 - See proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0215.html

Umit: Addressed the issue in guidelines in current editor's draft

<monica> It is so: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4236

Frederick: sent proposal for action 196 yesterday

Asir: 4195 fulfills action 196

Paul: action 197 done
... action 199 done during F2F
... 201 duplicate of 200

Sergey: Proposal for 201 pending
... deliver next week

Chris: action 202 pending

Felix: action 203 until Feb 7

Chris: action 204 Feb 7

Paul: don't know context on action 205, will leave it today

Asir: action 205 is done, issue 4270

Frederick: do action 206 until Feb 7

Asir: you did it
... 4263

Paul: action 207 done by Felix

<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4263

Paul: action 208 done
... action 209 pending

liaison items

Paul: SAWSDL confirmed OK with our resolution

<sanka> pong

CR interop

Paul: Asir provided scenarios

Maryann: revised interop scenarios for next call

Paul: will ping glen for date on action 209

<cferris> prasad clarifies that he had volunteered to do the first 2 uddi test cases, not the whole shebang

<scribe> ACTION: Prasad to create test cases for features 37 and 38 on UDDI [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-211 - Do features 37 and 38 on UDDI [on Prasad Yendluri - due 2007-02-07].

<toufic> mark can be added later, no?

<scribe> ACTION: Prasad and Mark to determine the UDDI scenarios they can cover [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-212 - And Mark to determine the UDDI scenarios they can cover [on Prasad Yendluri - due 2007-02-07].

Prasad: is this about providing the entire test data also?

Paul: put your questions on the list
... who volunteers to suggest negative test cases
... no volunteers, pending

<asir> or break existing policy expressions in the scenarios archive

Paul: remaining significant pieces of work - features 22 and 23 for WSDL 2.0 with external attachments. Any volunteers?

<scribe> ACTION: Chris to find an owner for feature 22 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-213 - Find an owner for feature 22 [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-02-07].

<scribe> ACTION: PCotton2 to ask Ashok if he takes on feature 23 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-214 - Ask Ashok if he takes on feature 23 [on Paul Cotton - due 2007-02-07].

<sanka> pong

wsdl 1.1 element identifiers

Paul: neither Ashok nor DavidO are present

<Ashok> I'm on another call ...

Chris: important to have dave and Ashok

Paul: Is IBM ready to process this item?

Maryann: no opinion how to resolve 4251

<scribe> ACTION: Maryann to find out how is answering 4251 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action10]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-215 - Find out who is answering 4251 [on Maryann Hondo - due 2007-02-07].

primer issues

Paul: action 183 is pending
... next issue 4263

<FrederickH> proposal is ""Domain specific processing should be made aware of whether assertions it is

<FrederickH> processing were marked as ignorable since that may impact domain specific

<FrederickH> processing"

Asir: current thread in WG under message id 216

<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0216.html

<PaulC> Issue 4263: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4263

Frederick: proposed revised text
... why would one not want to know in domain-specific processing why ignorable processing is not necessary?

Asir: ignorable is captured in data model, anything that is in assertion is visible to domain processor, not clear what additional information should be made available

Frederick: Asir says that information would be available to domain processor
... Does that mean my text is correct?

Asir: don't understand what it is trying to say

<FrederickH> revised proposal - "Domain specific processing is aware of ignorable properties.

Glen: not sure we have a need for this

Paul: reminds Glen he has an action item for mime type processing

Umit: not about ignorable but data model and all attributes and components available to domain processing
... useful addition to spec

<FrederickH> +1 to umit, all aspects of model available to domain specific processing

Glen: agree with Umit
... obvious that data model available to any kind of processing in policy world
... don't want to imply particular implementation model
... text needs careful crafting

Paul: you don't agree with proposal?

Glen: Yes, I don't agree.
... suggest "domain-specific processing is free to use any information from policy data model"

Paul: Asks location in primer

Frederick: originally had target location in intersection, but might not be correct now

Asir: section 3.4

Paul: spelling mistake, "tje" in primer
... should we take this to email?
... domain-specific processing *could* take advantage of the information that the assertion is marked ignorable

Frederick: will revise proposal

next: primer versioning issue 4270

Paul: DavidO lying on the beach for several weeks

<PaulC> Issue 4270: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4270

<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0204.html

Paul: Contoso used in proposal

Asir: one reply to thread

<fsasaki> reply from Asir at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0220.html

Asir: at F2F talked about concerns, David addressed technical issue, missed other

Paul: are we OK with proposal 4270 and amendments in message 220

Chris: put hypothetical for all occurrences of EOL assertion

Paul: no additional comments

resolution: 4270 with message 220 and similar changes to rest of document adopted

next issue 4255

mistake, issue 4212/4213

Umit: Was request that security folks review
... was about utilization of empty

<PaulC> Issue 4212: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4212

Paul: Tony should look at 4212

<PaulC> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4142

<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4142

Paul: related issue 4142

Umit: 4142 issue was about matching in intersection, removed confusing sentence

<Nadalin> will do

Umit: Action would be to provide explanation in primer or guide

Asir: agree with Umit

<asir> related old thread is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0105.html

<scribe> ACTION: Umit to propose text for primer or guideline for issue 4212 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action11]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-216 - Propose text for primer or guideline for issue 4212 [on Umit Yalcinalp - due 2007-02-07].

next issue 4255

Asir: see action 201

Paul: action is pending

<Nadalin> 4122 does not include "null" policies

<PaulC> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4195

<scribe> new item on the agenda, issue 4195

<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0215.html

Paul: Tony is too late, moving on with agenda
... action 196 done by Frederick

<Nadalin> Figures

<Nadalin> yes 4212

Frederick: additional text on intersection with lax and strict, whether or not requester can require what is considered
... concrete proposal for primer, should go over it on next call

<umit> +1 to decide on it at the next call

Paul: putting on next week's agenda

<monica> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4288

<monica> Issue 4288

Paul: new item issue 4288

<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0214.html

Monica: section 2.10 in primer, inlining of WSDL, comment on absence of assertions, applies to other than WSDL, move further up in primer document
... we suggest to move into section 2.6, may fit in other places

<monica> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3602

Monica: original issue was 3602

<monica> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3602#c3

Monica: suggest to move to 2.6 and minor change in 2.10

Asir: talking about absence of policy assertions, moving also part about absence of policy expressions
... do you want to move both?
... make distinction clear in primer of absence of assertions vs absence of policy expressions

Maryann: restrictions once you have assertions in vocabulary, do we need to make a comment as well?

Monica: we can consider that

Maryann: offers to help

Monica: I take the offer

<scribe> ACTION: Maryann and Monica to amend issue 4288 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action12]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-217 - And Monica to amend issue 4288 [on Maryann Hondo - due 2007-02-07].

<monica> thanks asir and maryann

guidelines issues

Paul: issue 3953

<FrederickH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Dec/0090.html

Paul: revised proposal in message 90 of Dec

Frederick: rephrase text how to consider interrelationship between domains
... and rearrange section a little bit

<PaulC> Asir response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0217.html

resolution: resolve 3953 with amendment of Jan 17

<cferris> RESOLUTION: resolve 3953 with amendment proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Dec/0090.html

next issue 3987

<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Nov/0111.html

Asir: versioning covered in primer, overlap with guidelines
... no text on attachment extensibility
... rephrase title with "versioning policy assertions" and drop other text

Umit: document has changed since then
... don't see section in chapter 5 that overlaps anymore

Asir: 5.9 was moved to 5

Umit: all policy language extensibility awareness raised and refers to primer

Asir: change title and still see attachment extensibility

Umit: if assertion changes over time, if additional subject needs to be introduced, wouldn't that be relevant to assertion author?

Asir: last time we discussed adding new subject to attachment mechanisms

Umit: Subject attachment extensibility text missing?

Asir: yes, and last time we talked this was about a different topic

Umit: or extend that particular section

Paul: Umit has no problem with changing title

Umit: guidelines, section 5, three bullets about lifecycle concerns
... Had no time to expand on third bullet, content why it is important is missing

Maryann: would help to craft meaningful text

Umit: can we propose text to illustrate why third point is important?

<PaulC> about" Subject attachment Extensibility"

<maryann> +1 to Umit

<scribe> ACTION: Umit and Maryann to provide text for subject attachment Extensibility in guidelines [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action13]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-218 - And Maryann to provide text for subject attachment Extensibility in guidelines [on Umit Yalcinalp - due 2007-02-07].

<maryann> also I am ok with the title name change

Paul: back up to previous item
... Asir proposing to get rid of extensibility point

Asir: comment was on old version, no need anymore

Partial resolution for 3987:

Paul: issue 3987, change title, no changes to policy language extensibility, and AI for attachment subject extensibility
... leaving issue open based on AI

<PaulC> We are taking action on the following change:

<PaulC> s/Lifecycle of Assertions/Versioning Policy Assertions/g

<PaulC> Asir withdraws his request to delete bullet two "Policy Language Extensibility"

<PaulC> Asir withdraws his request to delete bullet two "Policy Language Extensibility"

<PaulC> And we have an action to deal with the third item.

next issue 4035

<PaulC> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4035

<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Dec/0007.html

<PaulC> Postponed to next week (Umit and Asir request)

next issue 4072

<PaulC> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4072

<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Dec/0063.html

Dan: summarizing issue 4072

Paul: Fabian's email supports issue and makes additional proposal

Fabian: my proposal was raised as issue 4072
... nonsense, my proposal was raised as separate issue

Maryann: agree language may not be precise,
... suggesting amendment "make sure that semantic assertion is correct for policy scope they are identifying"

Dan: Agree that authors need to decide applicable subjects, that principle is covered elsewhere

Maryann: maybe is covered somewhere else, could we refer to that place?

Dan: statement in section 2

Asir: and 4.7

<cferris> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.html#levels-of-abstraction

Maryann: section 4.7 only applies to WSDL

Asir: correct

Paul: Asir says text in 4.7 is more generic, does not only apply to WSDL

Dan: other statement in 4.6
... and best practice in 4.6

Maryann: helps in having a pointer, would we need a more general statement not specific to WSDL?
... Statement in 4.6 lead-in to 4.7

Umit: original proposal was on section that explains aspects of policy assertion, tries to list all relevant points there
... suggest if Dan has problem with prior sentence, can give pointers to 4.6 and 4.7 otherwise

Dan: previous statement can stay

<PaulC> Counter proposal 1:

<PaulC> Counter proposal 1:

<PaulC> Leave the following text:

<PaulC> The number of different subjects to which an assertion can be attached is also a factor when defining an assertion.

<PaulC> And follow it with a pointer to subsequent material.

<cferris> in section 4.7

<PaulC> And remove the next sentence: "Determining the appropriate policy subjects ... dynamically".

<danroth> looks good to me

Umit: OK with cp1

Maryann: ok with cp1

Paul: finds text for other part of proposal

Maryann: don't understand why that part is offensive

Dan: assertion author would not utilize that mechanism

Asir: sounds like a role for application, not assertion author

Paul: reads 5th paragraph
... don't need to say this to authors

Dan: would be primer material

Asir: primer has section

Umit: that paragraph, is anything technically or morally wrong?
... document also targets providers of policy expressions, section provides that link
... referring to material in section 1

Paul: studying section 1 and his clock
... not obvious how that target audience will find this material

Chris: Author of complex assertion might want to mint different flavors

Paul: let's continue discussion in email
... next week deadline for comments on candidate CR draft
... conf in 3rd week of Feb with chair

<PaulC> Partial resolution of 4072:

<cferris> 10[13:47] PaulC: 01Leave the following text:

<cferris> 10[13:47] PaulC: 01The number of different subjects to which an assertion can be attached is also a factor when defining an assertion.

<cferris> 10[13:47] PaulC: 01And follow it with a pointer to subsequent material.

<cferris> 04[13:48] cferris: 01in section 4.7

<cferris> 10[13:48] PaulC: 01And remove the next sentence: "Determining the appropriate policy subjects ... dynamically".

<cferris> RESOLUTION: while this doesn't close 4072, it does represent consensus of the group