See also: IRC log
<fsasaki> scribe: Ashok
<scribe> Ashok
PC: We will wait for Chris's proposal on negation
Haven't yet done Agenda items 17 and 18
<scribe> scribe: Ashok
Starting with Primer. No comments.
PC: Need to decide whether to publish primer
Issue 4559 is open on primer
Also reference to metadata
Proposal from Monica on 5/15. No responses
PC: Are ready to adopt?
<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0171.html
PC: Any objection to resolving with Monica's proposal
No objection
Chris will update Bugzilla
<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 4559 resolved with proposal from Monica et al http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0171.html
Shall we apply the above change and publish? Any other outstanding items?
Prasad: 4376 is outstanding
PC: For 4376 we update the Primer to latest Addressing NS and leave issue open
<fsasaki> http://www.w3.org/2007/05/addressing/metadata
<cferris> RESOLUTION: update the primer documnt with the LC WS-A Metadata namespace/reference but leave 4376 open for now until the ws-a spec goes beyond CR
With these two changes if WG ok to publish?
DaveO: I'll make changes today
Decision to publish next week, possibly
WS-Addressing request to review latest Metadata document
PC: We need to get back to them this week
Msg 240 from Asir
Asir suggests we have no comments
Monica has some editorial issues. She will send directly to Addressing
Resolved Policy WG will tell addressing we have no new comments
<cferris> RESOLUTION: Chris to reply to ws-a that we have no comments on the 2nd last call draft of ws-a metadata
<cferris> ACTION: Chris to reply to ws-a that we have no comments on the 2nd last call draft of ws-a metadata [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/24-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-302 - Reply to ws-a that we have no comments on the 2nd last call draft of ws-a metadata [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-05-31].
PC: Let's fix WS-A Metadata NS and leave issues open
<Fabian> noch ein Bier
<Fabian> bitte!
<cferris> RESOLUTION: issues 4374 and 4375 proactively addressed by updating the ws-a metadata namespace and references in guidelines and attachments but leave issues open until ws-a metadata goes beyond CR
<charlton> bitte? no, gin and tonic, please
How is Metadata interop going? Someone shd chk
<cferris> with regards to dale's http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0075.html has been subsumed by the changes we discussed yesterday
PC: Issues 4074 and 4573
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0020.html
Maryann provided a proposal for 4074 in Msg 20 from April
<prasad> The section numbers identified in Bug 4074 needed to be bumped up by '1' to match the current guidelines document
Agreement to resolve 4074 with changes that are in bugzilla
<PaulC> Adopted changes for 1-4 as in the bug.
<PaulC> Item 5 was done by bug 3953.
<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 4074 resolved with proposed changes 1-4... item 5 was handled in issue resolution to 3953
PC: Takes us to 4573
Prasad recommends use the word "guidelines" consistently
DaveO asks why switch from Best Practices?
Agreement: do not change name of document but change all items to say "best practices".
<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4573 to change all items to say "best practices" but leave the title of the document as is
Prasad will step the WG thru the document
BREAK
RESUMING AFTER BREAK
<PaulC> Guidelines changes. see:
<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0249.html
Note 249 in May from Prasad summarizes changes
PC: There are 3 issues that we kept open till we saw this version of the document
<fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
best practice 1 should be to change it to narrative text with 4 sub bullets as hyperlinks to the 4 BPs
Felix: should BP 2 be constrained to ws policy attachment spec mechanisms?
WGs says no
WG agrees with current state of BP 2
WG agrees with current state of BP 3
<PaulC> FTR, we are reviewing the following document:
<Ashok> No change to Best Practice 3
<Ashok> Sure
<scribe> scribe: Ashok
PC: Inconsistent "An assertion author" or "Assertion Authors"
Prasad: Suggests we changes globally to Assertion Authors
AGREED
No other changes to Best Practice 4
PC: This says "should" later we use "must".
Suggest we use should. Must is too strong for guidelines
No change to Best Practice 5
PC: This uses must
... Seems ok here
DaveO: Recommends should
PC: Takes straw poll. People agree to change must to shd.
No change other than the above to Best Practice 6
PC: Reorder the Best Practices to move 7 to
where XML Outline first used
... Text implies XML Outline is human readable and we shd have example. We
also need a ptr to the XML Schema
<PaulC> And we should note that the XML Schema is machine readable.
<PaulC> "ptr to the XML Schema" -> example of XML Schema for an example assertion e.g. RM
No other changes to Best Practice 7
<scribe> ACTION: Maryann will propose alternate bumper sticker and text for Best Practice * (Not Neccesary...) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/24-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-303 - Will propose alternate bumper sticker and text for Best Practice 8 (Not Neccesary...) [on Maryann Hondo - due 2007-05-31].
No change to Best Practice 9
No change to Best Practice 10
There is action 286 to review text for Best Practice 11
<PaulC> BP 12: If there is a nested policy expression, an assertion description should declare it and enumerate the nested policy assertions that are allowed.
Prasad: Review text for all Best Practices so text is written as prescriptive
<PaulC> BP 12: If there is a nested policy expression, then an Assertion Author should enumerate the nested policy assertions that are allowed.
<TRutt__> +1 to PaulC
<PaulC> Editors to check BPs to ensure as many as possible are targeted to Assertion Authors.
ACCEPTED revised text for Best Practice 12
<monica> An assertion description should use the WS-Policy intersection as much as possible.
<monica> or An assertion description should specify use the WS-Policy intersection as much as possible.
<PaulC> Assertion authors should define assertion descriptions that use the WS-Policy intersection as much as possible
<PaulC> Assertion authors should define assertion descriptions that depend only on WS-Policy intersection.
scribe: and avoid domain-specific processing
<PaulC> BP13: Discourage Domain Specification Intersection
<PaulC> Assertion authors should define assertion descriptions that depend only on WS-Policy intersection
AGREED to make above change to Best Practice 13
Prasad: We do not have a best practice around ignorable
<scribe> ACTION: cferris to look at sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 and suggest additional text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/24-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-304 - Look at sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 and suggest additional text [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-05-31].
<PaulC> Good practice 14: Assertions Document Ignorable Behavior
<PaulC> Good practice 15: Ignorable Attribute in XML
<PaulC> The above are the two BPs to be checked by ACTION-304.
Maryann: Shd BP 16 be generalized to apply to optional and ignorable
<PaulC> Good practice 16: Assertion XML should allow use of wsp:Optional attribute
<scribe> ACTION: Maryann to generalize Best Practice 16 (Assertion XML should allow ...) to cover both ignorable and optional [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/24-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-305 - Generalize Best Practice 16 (Assertion XML should allow ...) to cover both ignorable and optional [on Maryann Hondo - due 2007-05-31].
Fabian, we shd be breaking for lunch soon
Chris disagrees with text for BP 17
Chris action on 13 and 14 cascades onto 16 and 17
Resuming after lunch
Best Practice 18
Does not mention wsp:Optional
<monica> ping
<monica> nick /scribe
ferris is concerned about optionality in section 5.6.2.
<PaulC> Expand Created ACTION-304 - Look at sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 and suggest additional text [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-05-31]. to include all of Section 5.6.2
Section 5.7
BP 21
PaulC: Someone else attaches this to the
WSDL.
... Is assertion author appropriate here?
MaryAnn: Authors define constraints, instructions, descriptions of policy assertions. When policies are defined, they should adhere to these items .
Asir: Gives examples.
Prasad: Is this always true?
PaulC: Do the words say that?
Ferris: Identify relevant attachment points and their policy subjects. Example is endpoint - port or binding.
Asir: Another best practice exists to this point.
PaulC: This text is not clear.
<PaulC> Org text: Assertion authors should associate assertions with the appropriate policy subject
<cferris> Assertion authors should specify the set of relevant policy subjects to which the assertion may be attached
<PaulC> New text: Assertion authors should indicate which assertions should be used with which policy subjects.
Asir: Why should we not just say the original text.
c/./?
Ferris: This doesn't account for the fact that an assertion could be attached to multiple policy subjects.
<PaulC> BP 21: Assertions Descriptions should specify relevant policy subjects
<PaulC> BP 21: Assertions Descriptions should specify relevant policy subjects
<PaulC> Assertion authors should specify the set of relevant policy subjects with which the assertion may be associated
Team negotiates the text.
BP 21 Revised is accepted.
<trackbot> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/
ping
<trackbot> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/
BP 22
Ashok: Title indicates granuar; text indicates most granular
c/granular/granular.
PaulC: Is granular the lowest in the nesting?
<trackbot> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/
Team reviews section text.
<PaulC> Old text: Good practice 22: Choose a Granular Policy Subject
<PaulC> New text: Good practice 22: Choose the most Granular Policy Subject
Revise title from Granular to Most Granular
<PaulC> s/that the behavior represented by a policy assertion applies to/to which the behavior represented by a policy assertion applies/
Assertion authors should choose the most granular policy subject to which the behavior represented by a policy assertion applies.
BP 22 Revised accepted.
BP 23
Ferris: This is complicated way to say that a policy assertion means what it means regardless of where it is attached?
Asir: Burden is on the assertion author.
Ferris: Don't think it matters.
PaulC: You are questioning underlying premise.
<scribe> ACTION: Chris to review BP 23 and associated text, Section 5.7. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/24-ws-policy-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-306 - Review BP 23 and associated text, Section 5.7. [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-05-31].
BP 24
<PaulC> s/If an assertion can be attached at multiple points within a policy subject/If an assertion can be attached at multiple attachment points within a policy subject
Monica: What about preference?
MaryAnn: This is a constraint.
BP 24 Revised accepted: s/If an assertion can be attached at multiple points within a policy subject/If an assertion can be attached at multiple attachment points within a policy subject
BP 25
Prasad: using SecurityPolicy in this example
<PaulC> s/A policy alternative can contain multiple instances of the same policy assertion./A policy alternative can contain multiple instances of the same policy assertion type/
<PaulC> Change "kind" to "type" in the title.
Based on Monica's comments.
Dale: Unless a domain author says otherwise,
multiple occurrences of the same assertion type.
... Simple assertions - having more than one is equivalent to one.
PaulC: The Framework doesn't say that.
Dale: Want to restrict to QNames.
... Repetition doesn't mean something.
Ferris: This relates back to Hull's questions 23 May 2007.
Section 4.5: See Section 3.2 Policy Alternative for mechanisms for determining the aggregate behavior indicated by multiple assertions of the same policy assertion type.
Section 3.2: A policy alternative MAY contain multiple assertions of the same type. Mechanisms for determining the aggregate behavior indicated by the assertions (and their Post-Schema-Validation Infoset (PSVI) (See XML Schema Part 1 [XML Schema Structures]) content, if any) are specific to the assertion type and are outside the scope of this document.
PaulC: Need to raise an issue against Framework Sections 3.2 and 4.5.
BP 25 accepted.
BP 26
Section 5.8
Asir: Suggest we have an example.
Ferris: Need an action item.
BP 26 accepted. Editors will create an example.
Section 6
BP 27
Section 6.2
<PaulC> New text: An assertion author should use different assertions for modeling different versions of a behavior
BP 27 Revised accepted. New text: An assertion author should use different assertions for modeling different versions of a behavior
BP 28
Ferris: Asks about the intent of this.
PaulC: Should add supported policy subjects.
Ferris: Add policy subject to a set or find that policy subject was inappropriate?
DaveO: Addition or restriction
... Description should change. Use same assertion to designate additional
policy subjects. This BP doesn't say anything about your scenario. Backward
compatibility.
... If subjects change, update assertion description. Assess then whether or
not the change is backwardly compatible.
PaulC: Any changes?
DaveO: Hit scenario where change is compatible, don't need namespace change.,
c/.,/.
BP 28 accepted
Team to review 3989, 4566, 3978, 3988.
<PaulC> Do as many Guidelines BP action items as possible.
<PaulC> Review Guidelines Editor's Draft for additional problems.
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0283.html
see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0283.html
DaveO: You have the assertion and behavior problem again.
PaulC: This point wasn't raised yesterday.
DaveO: The text approved yesterday conflicts this issue again.
PaulC: Your proposal doesn't make this distinction.
Chris, Dave and Paul discuss the text.
<fsasaki> monica: is your concern that it does not say "don't apply the assertion", but "don't apply the behavior"?
Monica: Are you concerned that we are mapping behavior back to assertion type?
DaveO: My question was a policy profile that uses RM and SP; another can you do RM and then another assertion RSP. If you don't say RM can you do it in RSP?
PaulC: Doesn't SHOULD NOT allow this case?
DaveO: If assertion type, does behavior doesn't occur for any assertions in the intersection result?
c/If assertion type, does behavior doesn't occur for any assertions in the intersection result?/If assertion type is not included, does this imply behavior doesn't occur for any assertions in the intersection result?
Team disagrees.
Ashok: Friendly amendment - c/says nothing/is silent
<PaulC> Issue 4544: policy vocabulary, will not be applied, oh my!
<PaulC> Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/att-0283/Web_Services_Policy_1_5_-_Framework.pdf
<PaulC> Amendment is to change "says nothing" to "is silent"
<PaulC> Any objection?
RESOLUTION: Issue 4544 approved with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/att-0283/Web_Services_Policy_1_5_-_Framework.pdf under email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0283.html with amendment Amendment is to change "says nothing" to "is silent".
c/amendment/amendment.
<PaulC> Issue 4579: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4579
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0274.html
<fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
paulc: "parent policy" - a new term?
monica: wanted to understand the specific behavior of nested policies
paulc: highlighting means "new"?
monica: yes
... added a sentence about the relationship of parent assertion and domains:
"A parent policy assertion of one domain may also serve as a container for
the nested policy expression from another domain."
paulc: new text in the intersection rules?
monica: no, just indenting
paulc: that are all changes?
monica: yes, 3.1 has the main changes about parent policy assertion
paulc: will you use "parent policy assertion" in the guidelines?
monica: yes
... this is an editorial change
RESOLUTION: closing 4579 with message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0274.html and the amendment below
<cferris> editorial tweak to resolution to 4579 s/regardless if/regardless of whether/
PaulC: Asked Editors when the could deliver
4544. Early next week is projected.
... Editors to determine if they could do 4579.
... Publish again?
... Publish with action or publish automatically.
Asir: Most had proposals that have been agreed.
Ferris: What is best timing?
PaulC: Sanity check for 48 hours suggested and then prep to publish the week after next?
RESOLUTION: Publish Framework, Attachments and Primer. Projected publish date is 5 June 2007.
<cferris> RESOLUTION: publish primer, framework and attachments after 3 day review period by WG... editors to strive to produce by wednesday 5/30
PaulC: Five meetings before Dublin F2F.
... Out of CR projected around 30 June.
... Issues, evidence and other materials required.
... Still pending dashboard update to Round 3 WSDL v2.0.
... External WSDL v2.0 is one result. WS02 is TBD.
... For round 4.
... Need another media type for Round 4.
... Update that we have enough for media type Round 4.
... Round 4 Negative Tests look good; add more optional.
... We have a choice to wait to get another implementation for Round 4 WSDL
v2.0 external.
... Other actions imply delay.
Ferris: See if he can get more information from WS02.
PaulC: Hard to explain to director the issues and underlying cause.
Ashok: Get issues fixed and WSDL WS02 testing done - finished?
<charltonb> indeed, you don't want to explain anything to the director
PaulC: Documents should be to WG as close as practical to PR Candidate on 20 June to review for 27 June 2007.
update to paul's question on interop: ritzmann is investigating bugs and found them now. Should report Round 2 success today. Oracle - Sun fails in round 3 (2 out of 5 scenarios). Can't do anything as long as Oracle does not test with us.
PaulC: Should be in PR during Dublin; finish
Guidelines there.
... v.next for new charter for new version will be assessed.
... Tech Plenary is November 2007 in Boston.
http://www.w3.org/Member/Eventscal.html#Nov07
http://www.w3.org/2007/11/TPAC/overview.html
PaulC: First combined AC/Tech Plenary/WG
event.
... WG slots are M-T or pm Thur/Friday/am Sat.
... Do we want to meet then and do we do at this event?
... F2F in September is top priority; have tentative schedule.
... Take off August if we go to Pr.
c/Pr/PR
Ferris: No time to get work done to have F2F in September.
PaulC: Can say no to November and decide in July F2F.
Monica: What are the implications if we commit and then back out?
PaulC: Have to register however before 14
June.
... Recommend to accept November invitation: Thurs afternoon/Friday all day
preference.
<charltonb> +1 accept invite
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Agenda 17c/topic: 17c/ Succeeded: s/Agenda 18/topic: agenda 18/ Succeeded: s/framework/guidelines/ Succeeded: s/ioterop/interop/ Succeeded: s/attachment/attachment spec/ Succeeded: s/*/8/ Succeeded: s/test/text/ Succeeded: s/optaional/optional/ Succeeded: s/attached/associated/ Succeeded: s/to which/with which/ FAILED: s/that the behavior represented by a policy assertion applies to/to which the behavior represented by a policy assertion applies/ FAILED: s/If an assertion can be attached at multiple points within a policy subject/If an assertion can be attached at multiple attachment points within a policy subject/ FAILED: s/A policy alternative can contain multiple instances of the same policy assertion./A policy alternative can contain multiple instances of the same policy assertion type/ Succeeded: s/0274.html/0274.html and the amendment below/ Found Scribe: Ashok Inferring ScribeNick: Ashok Found Scribe: Ashok Inferring ScribeNick: Ashok Found Scribe: fsasaki Inferring ScribeNick: fsasaki Found Scribe: Ashok Inferring ScribeNick: Ashok Found Scribe: fsasaki Inferring ScribeNick: fsasaki Scribes: Ashok, fsasaki ScribeNicks: Ashok, fsasaki Present: charltonb Ashok fsasaki TRutt Fabian dorchard abbie monica maryann asir whenry prasad PaulC Zakim RRSAgent cferris Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0255.html Got date from IRC log name: 24 May 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/05/24-ws-policy-minutes.html People with action items: cferris chris maryann WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]