See also: IRC log
RESOLUTION: minutes approved
paulc: decided to meet this week, will send out an updated schedule
maryann: editors worked on duplicate text for a section, toufic worked on that
... proposals are reflected
in latest WD
paulc: guidelines reflect the changes, how do I see them?
asir: see sec. 5.3.2
asir: look for "Policy framework provides two modes of .."
toufic: correct
paulc: is it just that paragraph?
asir: all the way down to the end of the section
paulc: editors asks WG to review this, if this resolves AI 342
maryann: Felix provided pointers on how other groups handle errate, Frederick sent a mail (is on agenda)
<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0014.html
paulc: did not see any responses to that mail
... there was a question about staging errata
... I
thought editors do the same thing as with WDs
... editors have a draft in CVS
... after WG approval, we put that into the right place
asir: we need to have some mechanic to push that to the offical errata page
felix: propose to have two files in CVS, the draft errata page, and the official errata page. Just update the later after WG approval
chrisf: will maintainance WG get access to CVS?
paulc: they will get responsibility for these pages
... maryann will ping the upcoming chair of that WG
maryann: third item: editors developed a plan for delivering the document.
paulc: you are fine with the current work flow?
maryann: right
ACTION-333 - still pending, Philippe sent a note
ACTION-342 - done
ACTION-344 - open
ACTION-349 - done
ACTION-350
<scribe> done
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0021.html
none currently
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0020.html
paulc: maryann wrote a mail about 5038 and 5039
maryann introduces the mail
paulc: questions, comments?
asir: looks good
<asir> Section 5.3.3 in the Guidelines doc, second para
monica: work has been going on related to additional UDDI sections
... that is s.t. we could use
maryann: have not crafted a strawman for text related to UDDI yet
... so we don't have anything to point
to
<prasad> I think we should directly address this aspect, with a "No"? > "it seems to now include all description that is not specifically covered by WSDL syntax."
monica: we could tell Ken that we are working on this
maryann: agree
paulc: if everybody agrees, can you send this to Ken?
maryann: ok
paulc: we have consensus with the additional reference of the section
... response to 1a) looks ok
<toufic> sorry dropped off and then back on
maryann introducing 1b)
<whenry> +1
paulc: support?
maryann introducing 2)
paulc: support for 2, now 3
maryann introducing 3)
<whenry> +1
<monica> +1
<monica> +1
paulc: support for 3, now 4
maryann introducing 4)
asir: looks good
<whenry> q
whenry: this is client-side, right?
maryann: yes
<whenry> +1
whenry: ok, I agree with the answer
monica: should we make that explicit in the response?
asir: is explicit already
monica: ok
paulc: consensus on 4, now 5
maryann introducing 5)
paulc: is this marked as v.next already?
<asir> there is an issue - http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3616
monica: there is a v.next issue
<toufic> thanks monica
paulc: maryann should point to that
maryann: o.k.
whenry: b) sounds like implementation detail again
monica: right
... a client-side implementation detail
<asir> agree b) is client side implementation detail
<monica> c/monica/maryann
<monica> c/maryann/maryann
whenry: "how to remember a negotation result" is an implementation detail
<toufic> +1
paulc: item b) might be an implementation detail, add that to the response?
... under 5
maryann: ok
paulc: two additions here: point to 3616, and add text about implementation detail
now 6)
maryann introduces 6)
<whenry> msg fsasaki oh, got it. thnx
paulc: fine with proposal
monica: suggest: say "here is our response, is there anything you want us to do?"
maryann: ok
paulc: agreement on 6), now 7)
maryann introduces 7)
<whenry> +1 perhaps make it clearer
maryann: relates to definitions on RM
monica: does have RM something to point to?
... looking for that
whenry: we just need to clarify what visible behavior is to us
maryann: we point him to the specific definitions for us
paulc: agree
<asir> +1
<monica> soa-rm: http://docs.oasis-open.org/soa-rm/v1.0/soa-rm.pdf
paulc: whenry points out that the WG does not want to extend the current definition
... we should push back
that the definitions are very clear, and the WG wants to keep them
now on "2) we mark the larger questions about extensions and more complex scenarios for discovery [ in bug 5038, 5039] as v-next issues " in maryann's mail
(agreement on 7)
asir: same as response to 6)?
<dmoberg> +1 for vnext on complex bus. policy
maryann: yes, some overlap
paulc: two items here:
sorry , scribe missed the items
paulc: will this be acceptable to ken, what do you think, maryann?
... no changes to primer and guidelines,
but only an explanation to Ken
cferris: Ken made clear he did not want to stop us
... he just wanted more clarity, covering the business
aspect on what kind of assertions you have
... I think he will be satisfied with the response
<asir> Maryann, thank you for carefully reviewing Ken's e-mail and drafting a proposal to move forward
paulc: any objection to the proposal?
<dmoberg> +1 to Maryann response
paulc: monica might send a follow-up note privately to Ken about UDDI
RESOLUTION: WG agrees with maryann's proposal for 5038 and 5039 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0020.html mail, with changes made during this call
<scribe> ACTION: Maryann to go back to Ken with our resolution for 5038 and 5039 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/19-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-351 - Go back to Ken with our resolution for 5038 and 5039 [on Maryann Hondo - due 2007-09-26].
<PaulC> This resolves issue 5038 and 5039 with no changes to the Primer and Guidelines.
<dmoberg> sorry, need to demultiplex!
paulc: so we have no outstanding issues on the primer?
asir: no, only an outstanding editorial note
<asir> here is the ed note - http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-primer.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#versioning-policy-language
<PaulC> Editorial note
<PaulC> The WG is contemplating moving some or all of this material into a non-normative appendix of the framework or attachment document. User feedback is solicited
<prasad> +1 to removing
asir: Dave said it is OK to remove the note
<cferris> +1
paulc: agreement with removing this note from the primer
<cferris> RESOLUTION: remove ed note in primer section 4
<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0021.html
asir describes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0021.html (about issue 4951)
paulc: first part of asirs response describes relation between RM and security?
asir: yes
paulc: second part responds to questions arising after last weeks meeting?
asir: yes
fabian: assume a security policy which requires encryption of all headers
... would that not matter if I add
the RM header before or after encryption?
<AshokMalhotra> I need a couple of days to respond to Asir's note
<AshokMalhotra> I am not satisfied with his response
fabian: you have a security that says "encrypt all headers"
... if you add the RM header after the
encryption, you have one header element that was not encrypted
... so the message would be inconsistent
... in that case it would matter
that the RM policy is applied before the security policy
... but in your mail you said, that the order does not matter
<AshokMalhotra> Thanks, Fabian, that's the important point
maryann: security policy says: they have to be the first one in processing on the way in , and the last one on the way out
<AshokMalhotra> Maryann, where does it say that?
maryann: ordering for security has a specific implications
<monica> for monica: See Section 6.3, WS-Security Policy.
monica: we need to make clear if we talk about processing or the order of the policy
... that is: the
assertions in the policy expressions expressions. Can AshokMalhotra make that clear, what he is aiming at?
<AshokMalhotra> The issue is about the order of processing
<cferris> the order of processing is not dependent on the order of assertions
paulc: cferris made that point last week
<PaulC> Ashok: can you please join the meeting.
<AshokMalhotra> That's the problem :-)
<AshokMalhotra> Sorry, Paul ... I cannot ... can we postpone to next week?
cferris: this aspect does not belong into policy
<PaulC> We want stated last week that we wanted to close all issue this week and this is the last week.
dave: issue of order of SOAP processing has been known forever
... we know similar problem in XML, we have
XProc to say s.t. about that
<TomR> The order of processing of ws-* mechanisms after the message is received does not belong in policy, in my opinion. Think of how a new "all in order" operator would impact the intersection algorighm. WS policy is not an association negotiation mechanism (see OSI Application context control for what we might translate to a WS-association spec - but we do not have it now)
dave: I first thought we need a generalized solution
... I see in XML: it works without making that
explicit. E.g., XML Schema knows it comes first, XSLT after
... in Web Services, we know security is the last thing on outbound side, and first
thing in inbound side
... same position of security with web arch
... in security, this works very well, I don't think the RM order issue
is a smallish problem where we need a solution in policy
<SergeyB> SergeyB: I see no ambiguity in Asir's response
paulc: do you support asirs response to ashok?
dave: need to look at it
asir: my last paragraph says what you just said, dave
cferris: +1 with dave
... we had a W3C workshop on XML order of processing
... in XML Protocol, we
struggled with same issue
<monica> monica suggested a descriptive point in the primer and/or guidelines
cferris: that spec said: order of processing does not depend on how the headers are ordered
... you could
have a spec that says "this order is important"
<TomR> while ordering of soap header processing might be a problem in some cases, ws-policy is not the way to solve this problem. Association Negotiation Service could be defined in the future if more of these problems of cross ws-* ordering are raised
cferris: you could do the same in policy, i.e. design an assertion which takes ordering into account, but that is not part of the framework
dave: assume variation "RM applied after / before security"
... you get into weird circular problems
paulc: if you add RM after security, you need to do security again
... working on ws security, we made sure
that security does not add un-security to web services
... so far we have not seen problems here
... many people on the call give support
on asirs response to ashok, but ashok is not here
... my proposal:
... editors produce revised document for next call, so that we can make
a decision to go to LC
... we need to revise this item, with ashok on the call next week
... we need to have discussion via mail
<TomR> With regard to dave's point, you cannot have ordering information in the message itself, that ordering information wojuld have to be passed between endpoints in some sort of "association context" negotiation exchange, before the actual messages are sent with those ordering constraints
paulc: cferris and dave should response to ashoks messagea
<scribe> ACTION: David to respond to asirs note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/19-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-352 - Respond to asirs note [on David Orchard - due 2007-09-26].
<scribe> ACTION: Christopher to respond to asirs note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/19-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-353 - Respond to asirs note [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-09-26].
<scribe> ACTION: Ashok to reply to mails from chrisf and daveo, to be send as a response to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0021.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/19-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-354 - Reply to mails from chrisf and daveo, to be send as a response to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0021.html [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2007-09-26].
paulc: when will editors provide documents?
maryann: I think monday
<scribe> ACTION: editors to produce candidate LC drafts, based on decisions made so far, leaving 4159 open for now [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/19-ws-policy-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-355 - Produce candidate LC drafts, based on decisions made so far, leaving 4159 open for now [on Editors - due 2007-09-26].
paulc: I will send an explanation to ashok what these actions mean
(right after the call)
paulc: fine to leave this item for now?
... outstanding issues for guidelines?
asir: ednote
<PaulC> Nothing at the present.
asir will provide ednote link later or via mail
paul and chris will follow up
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5045
paulc and cferris propose to wait until next week, with Ashok on the call
<asir> The ed note is here - http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ws-policy-guidelines-20070810/#d3e891
asir: note already disappeared in the current editor's draft
paulc: link of ednote provided by asir is correct to go away, action 342 made it gone already
... summary
again: will try to approve LC draft next week, editor's will provide drafts until Monday
... we will try close out 4591 next week
other comments?
adjourn