IRC log of ws-addr on 2007-02-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:59:40 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-addr
20:59:40 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:59:57 [bob]
zakim, this will be ws_addrwg
20:59:57 [Zakim]
ok, bob, I see WS_AddrWG()4:00PM already started
21:00:08 [bob]
zakim, who is here?
21:00:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Tom_Rutt, Bob_Freund, Mark_Little, ??P5
21:00:08 [MrGoodner]
MrGoodner has joined #ws-addr
21:00:09 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, bob, yinleng, gpilz
21:00:33 [bob]
meeting: WS-Addressing WG Teleconference
21:00:41 [bob]
Chair: Bob Freund
21:02:16 [Zakim]
21:02:53 [Zakim]
21:03:30 [Zakim]
21:03:44 [Zakim]
21:04:02 [dhull]
dhull has joined #ws-addr
21:04:14 [cferris]
cferris has joined #ws-addr
21:04:20 [bob]
zakim, [IPcaller] is katy
21:04:20 [Zakim]
+katy; got it
21:04:31 [PaulKnight]
PaulKnight has joined #ws-addr
21:04:56 [Zakim]
21:05:09 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-addr
21:05:11 [Zakim]
21:05:13 [Zakim]
21:05:20 [yinleng]
zakim, ??P12 is me
21:05:20 [Zakim]
+yinleng; got it
21:05:24 [bob]
scribe: MrGoodner
21:05:58 [anish]
anish has joined #ws-addr
21:06:09 [MrGoodner]
21:06:18 [Zakim]
21:06:50 [bob]
zakim, who is here?
21:06:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Bob_Freund, Mark_Little, ??P5, Gilbert_Pilz, katy, Anish_Karmarkar, yinleng, Dave_Hull
21:06:52 [Zakim]
On IRC I see anish, Katy, PaulKnight, cferris, dhull, MrGoodner, RRSAgent, Zakim, bob, yinleng, gpilz
21:07:13 [MrGoodner]
21:07:37 [Zakim]
21:07:41 [Zakim]
21:07:49 [Zakim]
21:09:46 [MrGoodner]
Topic: Agenda Review
21:10:14 [MrGoodner]
agenda approved
21:10:27 [MrGoodner]
Topic: Approval of minutes 2007-01-29
21:10:35 [MrGoodner]
21:10:41 [MrGoodner]
Minutes approved
21:11:01 [MrGoodner]
Topic: Does WS-Addressing agree that the means described in the WS-Policy WG feedback is adequate to express our resolution to CR33?
21:11:08 [MrGoodner]
21:11:41 [MrGoodner]
Comments from Paco:
21:11:54 [MrGoodner]
Paco sent regrets for today's cal
21:12:48 [MrGoodner]
cferris: WS-Policy WG not saying WSA WG got it wrong, is expressing some concerns
21:13:13 [MrGoodner]
cferris: Nested expressions not stating requirements, capabilities
21:13:23 [bob]
regrets+ David Illsley, Paul Downey
21:13:27 [MrGoodner]
... absence not saying anything about capabilities
21:14:13 [MrGoodner]
... when neither presence or absence of expressions expresses requirement not clear what intersection means
21:14:48 [MrGoodner]
... example (from mail) descibed
21:16:49 [anish]
21:17:46 [MrGoodner]
... adovcating use of wsp:Optional in 3.1.6 allows broader intersection even when policies may not compatible
21:18:06 [MrGoodner]
... WS-Policy WG proposed two alternateives
21:19:32 [MrGoodner]
... 1 Use policy expressions, but make firmer requirements
21:19:57 [MrGoodner]
... (descibes option from message)
21:20:15 [MrGoodner]
... should still compose with MC, wouldn't need to do CR33 all over again
21:20:44 [MrGoodner]
... 2 If these are informational use parameters
21:20:54 [MrGoodner]
... wouldn't participate in intersection
21:21:06 [Zakim]
21:21:16 [MrGoodner]
... (on to other points)
21:21:28 [MrGoodner]
... Use of wsp:Ignorable is not appropriate
21:22:02 [bob]
ack anish
21:22:12 [MrGoodner]
... (describes points D and E from message)
21:22:35 [MrGoodner]
anish: Tried to make our assertions positive, doesn't say anything about what is or isn't supported
21:22:48 [MrGoodner]
... we want to advertise a capability, not a requirement
21:23:01 [MrGoodner]
... is #2 the right way to do that?
21:23:10 [MrGoodner]
cferris: that's one way to do it
21:23:16 [Zakim]
+ +61.3.841.6.aaaa
21:23:42 [MrGoodner]
... if you don't want it to participate in intersection
21:23:57 [Katy]
21:24:27 [bob]
q+ tomr
21:24:32 [MrGoodner]
... it is not clear that is an acceptable use of wsp:Ignorable with nested expression
21:25:10 [bob]
ack tomr
21:25:32 [MrGoodner]
tomr: if you have a policy expression with policy alternatives that gives us what we needed
21:25:55 [MrGoodner]
... use anonymous, notanonymous, or MC with WSA
21:26:18 [MrGoodner]
... need to know at time of decorating WSDL, but this doesn't seem to be a problem
21:27:19 [MrGoodner]
anish: allowing service to be created deployed without rm
21:27:36 [MrGoodner]
... later letting someone make service reliable without changing wsdl
21:28:19 [MrGoodner]
cferis: saying policy doesn't change either?
21:29:04 [MrGoodner]
anish: wsdl says addressing required and anon, as policy in the wsdl
21:29:12 [bob]
21:29:44 [MrGoodner]
cferris: if you change the qos, you have a new policy
21:30:04 [MrGoodner]
anish: you can get policy through other mechanisms, wsdl just one
21:31:00 [MrGoodner]
... adding rm at a later stage, provide that information to endpoints later, but nested policy in WSDL conflicts
21:31:08 [MrGoodner]
cferris: not sure I agree with that
21:33:20 [MrGoodner]
tomr: agree we talked about this, not sure it is important any more
21:33:56 [bob]
ack katy
21:33:57 [MrGoodner]
anish: sounds like the policy in the wsdl would need to change
21:34:09 [anish]
21:34:29 [cferris]
I recall discussions where we wanted to enable RM without having to REDESIGN the WSDL MEPs... I don't recall a discusion about not changing the metadata (WSDL/Policy)
21:34:49 [MrGoodner]
katy: parameters were discussed before
21:35:24 [cferris]
it depends on what you define as the policy's scope
21:35:36 [MrGoodner]
... 1st option was discussed before, thought we couldn't compose with MC anonymous
21:36:11 [MrGoodner]
cferris: see note where we point out the scope of the assertion
21:36:32 [anish]
21:36:43 [MrGoodner]
... it does seem possible to have two policy alternatives scoped to a single message exchange
21:37:29 [MrGoodner]
... possible to say you require use of SSLor message level as seperate alternative, pick one
21:37:52 [bob]
q+ tomr
21:38:41 [MrGoodner]
... Policy WG would agree that you can have different alternatives that even say conflicting things so long as proper scoping is used
21:39:07 [MrGoodner]
katy: will look through minutes to see how we got to our conclusion on this
21:39:37 [bob]
zakim, who is here?
21:39:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Bob_Freund, ??P5, Gilbert_Pilz, katy, Anish_Karmarkar, yinleng, Dave_Hull, Tom_Rutt, Paul_Knight, Chris_Ferris, +61.3.841.6.aaaa
21:39:39 [Zakim]
On IRC I see anish, Katy, PaulKnight, cferris, dhull, MrGoodner, RRSAgent, Zakim, bob, yinleng, gpilz
21:39:58 [bob]
zakim, aaaa is TonyR
21:39:58 [Zakim]
+TonyR; got it
21:40:41 [MrGoodner]
cferrus: so long as message matches one of the alternatives provided you are good to go
21:40:53 [MrGoodner]
21:41:14 [MrGoodner]
21:41:30 [bob]
21:43:15 [MrGoodner]
katy: so how can the sitution with expressing use of wsa:anon and accept message using mc anon be handled?
21:43:25 [bob]
ack tomr
21:43:50 [MrGoodner]
tomr: we were looking at option, providing the MC assertion as an alternative is the way to do this
21:44:12 [bob]
ack anish
21:44:48 [gpilz]
21:45:13 [MrGoodner]
anish: if you want addr with anon or MC, provide alternatives for WSA+wsa:anon and WSA+MC assertion
21:45:59 [MrGoodner]
tomr: sent example that shows that
21:46:02 [bob]
ack gpil
21:46:20 [MrGoodner]
gpilz: we're trying to do to much to cover other peoples cases
21:47:10 [MrGoodner]
... we can adopt chris' proposal for 1, we should state our requirement for wsa:anonymous and requirement for anything else
21:47:35 [cferris]
+1 to Gil
21:47:44 [MrGoodner]
... not our job to worry about how to say something like MC uri only
21:47:58 [Zakim]
21:48:05 [MrGoodner]
bob: so long as what we do doesn't put road blocks in front of other specs
21:48:44 [cferris]
21:48:52 [MrGoodner]
gpilz: composition with other requirements not something we need to specify in our spec
21:49:06 [bob]
ack cfer
21:50:18 [MrGoodner]
cferris: agree with Gil, MC could be sibbling of wsa assertion or nested in the wsa assertion
21:50:19 [Zakim]
21:50:26 [MrGoodner]
... former seems to make more sense
21:50:35 [MrGoodner]
... agree that isn't this groups problem
21:51:19 [MrGoodner]
katy: need to look into this more, looking at Tom's example can see how this would work
21:51:40 [MrGoodner]
bob: thinks people have good understandig of chris' comments
21:51:58 [MrGoodner]
... do we have a way forward?
21:53:02 [MrGoodner]
bob: Tom, can you help Tony with text for this?
21:53:35 [MrGoodner]
tomr: yes
21:53:52 [MrGoodner]
... just for normative text, exapmles will be later
21:54:51 [MrGoodner]
bob: review text from Tom for next weeks call, discuss with Paco then
21:55:26 [MrGoodner]
... trying to get text on the call would not be helpful
21:56:00 [MrGoodner]
Topic: Next meeting schedule, face to face possibility?
21:56:18 [cferris]
21:57:14 [MrGoodner]
bob: see note on possible get together for testing
21:57:16 [MrGoodner]
21:57:35 [MrGoodner]
... Katy confirmed, anyone else?
21:58:04 [MrGoodner]
anish: Maybe, need to confirm
21:59:00 [MrGoodner]
MrGoodner: don't think we will be able to, will inform if situation changes
21:59:10 [MrGoodner]
bob: we need two for CR criteria
21:59:16 [MrGoodner]
Topic: AOB
21:59:18 [MrGoodner]
21:59:24 [Zakim]
21:59:26 [Zakim]
21:59:28 [Zakim]
21:59:29 [Zakim]
21:59:29 [Zakim]
21:59:30 [MrGoodner]
call adjourned at 1:59 PST
21:59:30 [Zakim]
21:59:30 [Zakim]
21:59:33 [Zakim]
21:59:35 [Zakim]
21:59:53 [Zakim]
22:01:21 [bob]
rrsagent, make logs public
22:02:03 [bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:02:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate bob
22:25:35 [Zakim]
22:25:36 [Zakim]
WS_AddrWG()4:00PM has ended
22:25:38 [Zakim]
Attendees were Tom_Rutt, Bob_Freund, Mark_Little, Gilbert_Pilz, Dave_Hull, Anish_Karmarkar, katy, yinleng, Paul_Knight, Chris_Ferris, +61.3.841.6.aaaa, TonyR
22:26:00 [yinleng]
yinleng has left #ws-addr
23:03:12 [bob]
bob has left #ws-addr
23:56:27 [cferris]
cferris has left #ws-addr