See also: IRC log
<monica> good morning
<Fabian> whoever it is, s/he is muted :-)
<scribe> scribe: Prasad
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-policy/2007Aug/0010.html
<FrederickHirsch> yes
Scribe for Aug 22nd is Frederick
Scribe for next meeting on Sept 12 is Maryann
Minutes Approved
Chris: The next WG meeting is on Aug 22 and then on Sept 12th
Asir: Opened issue on updating references
... regarding 8c? One of the items fell off - editors to figures it and get
back
s/et.c/ and get back/
<asir> Missing - Guidelines Section 5.6.1
<asir> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy-eds/2007Aug/0015.html
<cferris> ACTION: Editors to report back on what happened with resolution to G/L issue relating to 5.6.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/15-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-342 - Report back on what happened with resolution to G/L issue relating to 5.6.1 [on Editors - due 2007-08-22].
ACTION 331 - Open
<cferris> asir claims that a "release-4" tag is not reflected on the homepage
ACTION-332 - Done (issue # 4945)
ACTION-333 - Pending
ACTION-338 - Done
<monica> Update on 8d: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Aug/0004.html
Issue 4943
ACTION-339 - Pending
ACTION-340 - Pending
ACTION-341 - Done
Issue 4945 Update References - Framework and Attachment
Asir: I found that we use incorrect dates of
the references and some are out of date
... some cases they areinconsistent
... I sent a proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Aug/0006.html
)
Framework [3]
a) RFC 2119 - uses incorrect date
b) C14 1.0 WG Note - uses an old version of the WG Note
c) SOAP 1.2 Part 1 - uses the first edition
d) UDDI V3 - uses version 3.0.1 instead of 3.0.2
e) WS-Addressing Metadata - uses the Last Call draft instead of the Proposed Recommendation
f) WSDL 20 - uses the Candidate Recommendation URI for the hyperlink
Attachment [4]
g) BP 1.1 - uses incorrect URI and date
h) RFC 2119 - uses incorrect date
i) RFC 3023 - uses incorrect date
j) WSDL 20 - uses the Candidate Recommendation URI for the hyperlink
k) WS-Addressing Metadata - uses the Last Call draft instead of the Proposed Recommendation
l) WS-RM Policy - uses the April 2006 version instead of the OASIS Standard version dated June 14th 2007. This means, the examples 2-1, 3-1 and 4-1 and the WS-RM Policy assertion namespace name in the XML Namespaces table are out of date
m) XPointer Framework - uses incorrect date.
<cferris> RESOLUTION: Issue 4945 closed with proposal in issue
<abbie> +abbie
Issue 4951 - Need example of assertion showing ordering between assert.. Ashok
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Aug/0005.html
Paul: This is not a PR issue. It is on gudelines. I changed the issue toreflect it
<cferris> email from janet
Chris: Please remind your AC reps
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-policy/2007Aug/0007.html
Chris: If you plan to give testimonials get them to Janet by 31st
Issue 4943 - Compatibility Matching at Nested Level, Monica
<monica> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4943
<monica> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Aug/0003.html
Monica: We had questions at the f2f reg.
compatibility matching. I was asked to provide a better description that I
did
... from msg 3 you can see how the example looks like
<cferris> think that the actual proposal is in this email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Aug/0004.html
Asir: Can we update the proposal to use concrete assertions rather than hypothetical
Monica / Maryann: People might cut and paste so, I did not want to create a bad example and use hypothetical
scribe: should we use a bad example that is real (like what not do to)
Asir: yes
Asior: last paragraph, it does not answer the question of not compatible with what?
S/Asior/Asir/
Asir: last editorial regarding extra text in paren being added
Monica seems ok with the change after discussion
Monica: Plans to send an updated proposal
<monica> 1. Delete the Example references in first two paragraphs.
<monica> 2. Update final paragraph to explain what assertions are incompatible.
<monica> 3. Use a concrete example with a health warning in the text and the example itself.
Chris: 8.c is done and in editor's hands
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Aug/0005.html
<cferris> issue 4951
Issue 4951 - Need example of assertion showing ordering between assert.. Ashok
Ashok: When you have RM and header encryption
policy, you need do one 1st and then the other
... there is an order between them
... we said, one can write specail assertions to indicate the order but we
did not provide any details
... we have to think about it and provide some wording
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Aug/0009.html
Maryann: One way to address this is to document what sec-policy has done
Ashok: Sec policy is a closed domain
Asir: Easy way is if Ashok could make a concrete proposal
Ashok: difficulties like prioratizing things from client & server side - Editors ought to take it
discussion on if sec policy provided description and examples or enough or not
Maryann & Ashok agree to collaborate on a proposal to resolve this
<monica> be happy to help
Paul: leave the issue open and get the discussion going on the email list
<maryann> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ws-policy-guidelines-20070810/#interrelated-domains
Asir: thinks having an action is better
<paulc> ACTION: Ashok (and Maryann) to develop a Guidelines proposal for Issue 4951. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/15-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-343 - (and Maryann) to develop a Guidelines proposal for Issue 4951. [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2007-08-22].
Monica: When we discussed compatibility matching we discussed if ordering was important. I would also be happy to help
Chris: we had been asking for volunteers
... none so far
... we can continue to solict volunteers or drop
if people are not coming fwd may be not that important
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jul/0042.html
Monica: give another week?
Paul: supports
Chris: will leave on the agenda
Asir: If we don't answer these q?s 5.7.1 would be incomplete
Paul: We will have to take another pass
ACTION-339 Maryann to coordinate drafting new materials on Guidelines for Assertion Authors re UDDI
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Aug/0001.html
Ashok: Small paper that speaks to how we attach
policy to endpoints / EPRs
... Philippe asked that we bring this to the attention of thios WG and if
this group should publish
... I think this groupo should publish it
Asir: It is already published
Asok: No publish under the umbrella of a WG a la WS-Policy
<asir> team comment
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2007/03/Comment
Asir: this does not talk about publishing
Ashok: this is based on private conversation
Asir: We had this as an issue 3620 (?) and maked it for future consideration
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3620
Ashok: Futere means who knows when?
Asir: Issue resolution marked it for v.next
Ashok: so, we should not publish it as one day (may be) we will address it
<monica> there is a queue please
Asir: Aniticipate it wil be there but don't know when
Monica: Provide link to the doc on the public web site an option?
that is not making an decision or judgement o the doc
Tom: Fujitsu wants a standard way to do this
Ashok: We have three other members co-authored this
Frederick: <missed the question>
Chris: If we take on additional work it will be
a re-charter of the WG
... we can speak with Felix
<FrederickHirsch> Noted that agree with Tom regarding benefit of open std, asked about how to progress, and status of related work.
Ashok: I think that would be useful. V.next is 2 years from now may be
<FrederickHirsch> Agree with Chris that we should link to the submission from the WS-Policy public page, as an easy first step.
Paul: We had been living with SOAP 1.2 for a while. Why do you really need the endorsement of the WG
Ashok: Don't want to leave this significant mechanism in limbo
Paul: We need a consensus to do that. Current
consensus is V.next per the issue
... as Chris F said, this not in scope and if we need to do more work we need
a new charter and get consenus on the charter
Ashok: This is relevant to our work. Why is this out of scope?
Monica: We can link from specs that adopt WS-Policy
Chris: by closing the issue as v.next we effectively agreed it was out of scope
<TomRutt> Fujitsu wants a standard solution to the epr holding policy
Frederick: Something is v.next does not mean it is necessarily out of scope
Chris: It is a mttare of how you understand
v.next. That was the previous consensus
... we took a straw poll and recorded as out of scope
<asir> Policy Exchange
<asir> An important feature of communicating in a distributed environment is the ability to exchange information that describes how the interaction between a Web service requestor and a Web Service provider can occur. The Web Services Policy Working Group will not define any mechanisms for policy exchange.
Asir: We all agreed on the chater when we joined the group
<asir> http://www.w3.org/2006/04/ws-policy-charter.html#scope
Asir: Chater identifies the attachment mechanisms in scope for the WG and others are out of scope
WSDL 1.1, WSDL 2.0, UDDI and external are the only ones in scope
Ashok: I spoke to several people and they had not really thougt about it when they voted
Chris: We do not have a consensus
Monica: I made proposal to add refs in couple of places
Frederick: I support the proposal from Monica
<TomRutt> This submission will also be considered by the addressing wg
Paul: We should point the history of the issue 3620 to Philippe
<cferris> ACTION: Paul and Chris to respond to PLH noting the relationship of ws-paepr to issue 3620 closed as v.next and noting that discussion continues in wg [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/15-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Paul
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. pknight, pcotton2)
<cferris> 04 01ACTION: Paul Cotton and Chris to respond to PLH noting the relationship of ws-paepr to issue 3620 closed as v.next and noting that discussion continues in wg
Paul: Philippe wanted this to be sent to WS-Policy, WS-Addr and WS-Coordination
<cferris> ACTION: PaulC and Chris to respond to PLH noting the relationship of ws-paepr to issue 3620 closed as v.next and noting that discussion continues in wg [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/15-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - PaulC
<asir> ACTION: pcotton2 and Chris to respond to PLH noting the relationship of ws-paepr to issue 3620 closed as v.next and noting that discussion continues in wg [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/15-ws-policy-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-344 - And Chris to respond to PLH noting the relationship of ws-paepr to issue 3620 closed as v.next and noting that discussion continues in wg [on Paul Cotton - due 2007-08-22].
Paul: we need to supply the complete background to Philippe
<cferris> ACTION: PaulC and Chris to ask Felix to update homepage with link to member submission and other related links [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/15-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - PaulC
<asir> ACTION: pcotton2 and Chris to ask Felix to update homepage with link to member submission and other related links [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/15-ws-policy-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-345 - And Chris to ask Felix to update homepage with link to member submission and other related links [on Paul Cotton - due 2007-08-22].
Ashok: Wil the reply to Philippe be public?
Paul/Chris: CG list is member only
Ashok: Would like to see it public
Chris: No consensus. We wil respond to the CG
and will continue the discussion
... reminder to volunteer for section 5.7.1 or have a proposal
Paul: PR Review ends next week and expect some
last minute issues. Be prepared to discuss
... next week meeting is contingency
Meeting adjourbed