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 http://www.w3.org/2007/02/26-ws-addr-irc
- 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]
- +Gilbert_Pilz
- 21:02:53 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 21:03:30 [Zakim]
- +Dave_Hull
- 21:03:44 [Zakim]
- +Anish_Karmarkar
- 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]
- -Dave_Hull
- 21:05:09 [Katy]
- Katy has joined #ws-addr
- 21:05:11 [Zakim]
- +??P12
- 21:05:13 [Zakim]
- +Dave_Hull
- 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]
- 2337
- 21:06:18 [Zakim]
- -Tom_Rutt
- 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]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Feb/0009.html
- 21:07:37 [Zakim]
- +Tom_Rutt
- 21:07:41 [Zakim]
- +Paul_Knight
- 21:07:49 [Zakim]
- +Chris_Ferris
- 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]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Feb/att-0001/29-ws-addressing-minutes.html
- 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]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Feb/0006.html
- 21:11:41 [MrGoodner]
- Comments from Paco: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Feb/0013.html
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- -Mark_Little
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- s/scferis/cferris
- 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]
- q?
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- s/cferrus/cferis
- 21:41:14 [MrGoodner]
- s/cferrus/cferris
- 21:41:30 [bob]
- q?
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- -Tom_Rutt
- 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]
- q+
- 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]
- +Tom_Rutt
- 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]
- q+
- 21:57:14 [MrGoodner]
- bob: see note on possible get together for testing
- 21:57:16 [MrGoodner]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Feb/0004.html
- 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]
- none
- 21:59:24 [Zakim]
- -Gilbert_Pilz
- 21:59:26 [Zakim]
- -TonyR
- 21:59:28 [Zakim]
- -Anish_Karmarkar
- 21:59:29 [Zakim]
- -Chris_Ferris
- 21:59:29 [Zakim]
- -Tom_Rutt
- 21:59:30 [MrGoodner]
- call adjourned at 1:59 PST
- 21:59:30 [Zakim]
- -Paul_Knight
- 21:59:30 [Zakim]
- -Bob_Freund
- 21:59:33 [Zakim]
- -??P5
- 21:59:35 [Zakim]
- -katy
- 21:59:53 [Zakim]
- -Dave_Hull
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2007/02/26-ws-addr-minutes.html bob
- 22:25:35 [Zakim]
- -yinleng
- 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