See also: IRC log
<cferris> draft minutes from yesterday: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/13-ws-policy-minutes.html
<cferris> scribe: Monica
<cferris> http://www.soaphub.org/interop/status/WSPolicyInteropStatus
jonathan: No interop issues found.
Config / setup work done
<cferris> scribeNick: scribe
wsoa having issues with some tests.
<cferris> http://www.soaphub.org/interop/status/WSPolicyInteropStatus4
web services issues not policy
Paul: 6 companies participating in Round 3 with successful results.
Prasad: Discuss results with HP, Layer 7 and webMethods
UDDI tests
Only one client however.
Paul: Attempt more tests today.
Layer 7 to HP yesterday.
Discuss strategy for today for testing.
<cferris> need to have results that can reflect "not tested'
Paul: Some vendors have conducted self-tests Round 1 and 2.
Fabian: Issues found are not policy related.
Paul: Interop FAQ on reporting responsibilities.
Jonathan: CVS checkin of interop results 3/13/2007
Asir: Need to change company names and make aliases.
Paul: Who wants their results aliased?
Ashok: Will check and advise.
Paul: Facility is available if desired and work with Felix.
Doug: You could exclude alias company results.
Paul: Solicit GSOAP to participate. Also BEA
pending.
... Reconvene interop in Ottawa in May.
Some public endpoints will be up until May.
Chris: we added negative testing.
Paul: Lacking external attachments testing
too.
... Separate room for 10 people in Ottawa.
Asir: Is there a need for UDDI endpoints to be up?
Paul: webMethods will be up for UDDI.
Asir: UDDI retest for CR?
Paul: Yes.
Asir: Media type testing in Round 4 - can we
start?
... Still have self-tests Round 1, 2 and 4, for example. Need a work plan.
Paul: Get raw data results and then determine
how to proceed.
... No one that won't do Round 1 and 2 - HP only.
Jonathan: Public endpoints available on dashboard and get published on public page is important.
c/Jonathan/Jonathan and Paul
Paul: WSDL v2 issues resolved. Changes are implemented.
<cferris> ACTION: Chris to convey the disposition of WSDL WG comments to the WSDL WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-253 - Convey the disposition of WSDL WG comments to the WSDL WG [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-03-21].
<cferris> 4301, 4304, 4389
Paul: Need to clean up Bugzilla issues: 4301 4304 and 4389
<cferris> ACTION: Chris to research resolutions to these issues and update bugzilla accordingly: 4301, 4304, 4389 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-254 - Research resolutions to these issues and update bugzilla accordingly: 4301, 4304, 4389 [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-03-21].
Paul: New CR attachment issue 4391 needs to be
added to the Agenda. Conduct first.
... Issue 4212 needs to also be added.
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4391
MaryAnn: Used text to Issue 4212 when I proposed 4213 mistakenly. This could be used.
Paul: Need to revisit 4212 and 4213.
<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0085.html
Paul: Need to revise reference for UDDI v3.
... Need to resolve actual link used.
<prasad> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0089.html
Paul: Usual reference is to a specific version.
<prasad> http://uddi.org/pubs/uddi-v3.0.2-20041019.htm
Prasad: There is v3.0.1 and v3.0.2.
Paul: Why is this a Committee Draft?
Tom: May be non-standard time of spec.
Monica: Should use OASIS version.
<paulc> OASIS standards page URL:
<paulc> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/spec/v3/uddi-v3.0.2-20041019.htm
Monica: Amendment to use OASIS version as a standard.
Prasad: Change normative reference in WS-PolicyAttachment.
RESOLUTION: Issue 4391 - Accept OASIS reference as update to normative reference in WS-Policy Attachment.
Use http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/spec/v3/uddi-v3.0.2-20041019.htm
RESOLUTION: Issue 4391 - Include new references in CR for WS-PolicyAttachment.
<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0098.html
<charltonb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0098.html
Charlton: Have Ignorable policy. Policy may be consumed using lax mode. Consumer would apply by default strict mode. Failure occurs.
Difficult to discern why.
Cases exist in business process area.
Have tool to assist report such cases.
Frederick: Why use Ignorable and strict mode?
Confused.
Charlton: You are confused.
Ashok: Client and server intersection - one strict and one lax.
<fhirsch3> Response to my question is provider wants client to use lax mode with regards to ignorable assertions
Would they fail or get different policies resulting from intersection.
Charlton: The provider doesn't want the policy applied.
MaryAnn: Policies would intersect rather than
fail. Would end up with no alternatives.
... Not limited to only mode - more generic issue.
<asir> this is a repeat of 4130
Chris: To recap - Ignorable with strict mode - if you want to enforce strict mode, then don't use Ignorable. Need to allow consumer to make a decision.
<danroth> If you want to force requesters to ignore an assertion then don't publish the assertion
Privacy policy is a case.
There is no use case where you would want to force someone to use Ignorable.
Charlton: If there are no resulting alternatives given the Ignorable, you want to report.
MaryAnn: Could process both ways.
<GlenD> +1 scribe
Paul: This is v.next.
<GlenD> Selecting strict or lax processing is PURELY up to the consumer.
<GlenD> Always.
<prasad> Agree
<GlenD> Marking something as ignorable is up to the provider.
Monica: Perhaps this is additional text for the Primer now.
<cferris> +1
Paul: Check for lax or strict in Ignorable case.
<GlenD> The whole point is to allow different kinds of clients (banks with serious ridiculo-strict policies and web hackers who don't care about retention stuff) to use the same policies successfully to their needs.
<abbie> i hope u do not publisize our attention to hackers
Asir: In previous discussion, we said we just allow consumer to choose.
Monica: There is 4.3.1 or Lax and Strict
MaryAnn: Two aspects apply - negotiation/selection is v.next. Second, we could document in Primer some manual guidance (poor man's selection).
<prasad> The spec (FWK) says: There are two modes for intersection: strict and lax. How the mode is selected or indicated for the policy intersection is outside the scope of this specification
<asir> here is what i found from the Sonic F2F discussion ...
<asir> Requestors have the option to chose one or more modes for policy intersection (strict | lax | strict, delegate-to-user | lax, delegate-to-user | strict, lax, delegate-to-user | ...). A provider may provide requestors with out-of-band information to influence the choice of mode for policy intersection.
RESOLUTION: Issue 4292 Resolve as
v.next.
... Issue 4292 Open new primer issue to address poor man's selection.
<cferris> ACTION: Charlton to open new primer issue to relate to the discussion of 4292 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-255 - Open new primer issue to relate to the discussion of 4292 [on Charlton Barreto - due 2007-03-21].
<prasad> If a requester wishes to ignore ignorable assertions in a provider's policy, then the requester should use the lax intersection mode.
<GlenD> prasad: +1, I would think that was sort of self-evident from the spec
<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0095.html
Prasad: Talk about this aspect with a new Section 2.8 after 2.7.
Place in Primer instead of Guidelines.
You can mark an assertion with both.
Say two alternatives are possible.
Separate question about Section 3.4.1 to talk about mode, intersection and understandability.
Reference back to Section 2.8.
Monica: Separate issue will be opened.
<cferris> ACTION: Monica to create new primer issue related to 4262 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-256 - Create new primer issue related to 4262 [on Monica Martin - due 2007-03-21].
Ashok: Sergey has recommended we not allow them to be used together.
Asir: What is the justification?
<GlenD> -1 to disallow this
<GlenD> it may not be common, but it certainly makes sense in the model, and does not confuse processing
Paul: This is a confusing message, per
Sergey.
... Don't you have Ignorable regardless if Optional is absent, per Sergey.
<paulc> The WG looked at:
<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0101.html
Tom: This is converse to my understanding. We don't handle Ignorable as a special case attribute.
<cferris> 06q+ to ask editors if the media type test case has been incorporated into the test scenarios01
Asir: In previous discussions we answered multiple questions to Sergey.
This reopens these questions.
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0095.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0101.html
<cferris> q later
<paulc> Proposed amendment:
<fsasaki> replies from Asir to Sergeys earlier questions at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Nov/0100.html
MaryAnn: Amendment: Add 'in normal form' to text about two alternatives
<asir> Felix, thank you for the pointer
<paulc> a) change "is equivalent to two alternative" to "is equivalent to two alternatives in normal form"
Monica: We didn't disallow because we lack the mechanics currently do so in the Framework.
RESOLUTION: Issue 4292 Accept proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0095.html and amended as follows change "is equivalent to two alternative" to "is equivalent to two alternatives in normal form".
<GlenD> I would actually propose the tiniest of friendly amendments to that last... put parentheses around (with @wsp:ignorable="true) in the last sentence
<GlenD> but I can email that
Paul: Publish as a Working Draft.
glen, hold please.
Paul: End up as a Technical Note.
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0060.html
RESOLUTION: Assign to the Editors to publish WSDL v1.1 Element Identifiers as revised Working Draft with other publications by end of March 2007.
<prasad> Glen, I think we can handle that at the Editors level
Paul: Will work on Status section update.
<cferris> ACTION: Felix to publish revised WSDL1.1 Identifiers document as WD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-ws-policy-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-257 - Publish revised WSDL1.1 Identifiers document as WD [on Felix Sasaki - due 2007-03-21].
<cferris> ACTION: Editors to double check that the republished Attachments document reflects the latest WSDL1.1 Identifiers draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-258 - Double check that the republished Attachments document reflects the latest WSDL1.1 Identifiers draft [on Editors - due 2007-03-21].
Paul: Update WS-PolicyAttachment to show the newest WD for WSDL v1.1 Element Identifires.
c/Identifires/Identifiers
Break and reconvene at 10:50 a.m. PT
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/254
Chris: Issues 4301 and 4304 were against test cases and closed.
Involved xml:id, media type. Minutes are non-specific.
Frederick: There was one gap for the document content returned.
Can consider the issue as resolved.
Asir: Add that any policy document can be used.
Chris: Issue 4389 was UDDI tModel that was accepted. Need to mark as fixed.
<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0096.html
Asir: Lifecycle of assertions - three topics.
Policy language, subject attachment and assertion extensibility
Involves policy assertions and adding new subjects. Replaced new title.
A policy assertion may need to add policy subjects.
Semantics should not change.
Associate another policy subject.
Show a best practice.
Paul: Update to have link with Issue 3989.
Monica: Avoid any implicit confusion by using verb other than 'should'.
Paul: Should not place this constraint of words
used when we don't reference RFC 2119.
... Link to Issue 3989.
RESOLUTION: Issue 3987 as proposed and add Best Practice.
<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 3987 resolved with maryann's proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0096.html and add the best practice suggest in the email
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0103.html
<cferris> relates to http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4072
Daniel: This proposal address the remainder of the existing Issue.
General text on policy references weren't relevant to assertion design. Recognized however, best practice exists for attachments. Semantics don't have dependency on attachment mechanism used.
Rewrote Section 4.1 and added Best Practice.
RESOLUTION: Issue 4072 as revised proposal.
Paul: Action for MaryAnn to provide a revised proposal for Issue 3978.
<scribe> ACTION: MaryAnn to provide a revised proposal for Issue 3978. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-ws-policy-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-259 - Provide a revised proposal for Issue 3978. [on Maryann Hondo - due 2007-03-21].
Paul: Issue 3989 is in the do later category.
Close as many issues as possible and the apply restructuring later.
<paulc> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3988
Asir: Section 7 describes a transport security binding scenario. Explains how to name, etc.
Link to Issue 3989 when we have best practices outlined.
Do Issue 3989 first and then Issue 3988 could be a pointer to the best practices. Don't duplicate work.
Paul: Update bug as we speak.
<paulc> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4074
MaryAnn: Need to have a formal revised proposal for Issue 4074.
<cferris> ACTION: Maryann to provide revised proposal for 4074 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-ws-policy-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-260 - Provide revised proposal for 4074 [on Maryann Hondo - due 2007-03-21].
Paul: What category does this belong in?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Feb/0000.html
scribe test
Asir: Section 4 Guidelines about authoring styles - compact/normal form.
Irrelevant to policy assertion design.
Already covered in Primer.
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Feb/0000.html
Yalcinalp - Assertions semantics are independent of the form used by assertion authors.
<maryann> +1 to accepting the proposal
<cferris> +1
RESOLUTION: Issue 3981 as proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Feb/0000.html
<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Nov/0114.html
Paul: Remove Section 5.7.
Daniel: Address in different way in Issue 3989.
<scribe> New section is 4.6 not 5.7.
Paul: If delete Section 4.6, ensure that Issue 3989 includes this.
Chris: Cut and paste in Issue 3989.
RESOLUTION: Issue 3981 as proposed and update Issue 3989 to ensure that text in Section 4.6 is considered.
Asir: Isn't this closed.
<paulc> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4319
<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 4319 editorial
<fsasaki> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/13-ws-policy-minutes
Chris: Issue 4213 was closed with actual resolution to Issue 4212.
Paul: These were companion issues. Issue 4213 was closed with resolution to place the changes in the Primer.
Asir: Some text still needs to be placed in Guidelines.
<asir> Umit's proposal for 4212 is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Feb/0094.html
<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4212 closed with proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Feb/0094.html
RESOLUTION: Issue 4212 Resolved to place Guidelines text as proposed by http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Feb/0094.html
Paul: Remaining open issues: 3978 3989 3988
add 4074 4142
Try to resolve actions and move issues forward if possible
Asir: History
Last Call issue - text for Framework
Information needed for Primer and Guidelines.
4212 and 4213 were opened in the interim and are now closed.
Action overcome by events.
RESOLUTION: Issue 4142 close with no change as already resolved.
Plan of attack:
Adjourn at noon 14 March 2007.
Editors will meet this afternoon.
Confirm number and have 7 p.m. dinner at Tumeric
Team members work on open issues and actions for proposals.
Some folks will attend Thursday (breakfast and lunch provided).
Thank you with claps to the host webMethods.
Thanks for leaving early.
Adjourned at 12:23 p.m. PT