00:01:16 checking my nick 00:04:53 -[Microsoft] 00:20:39 gpilz has left #ws-ra 00:29:17 -??P1 00:29:19 WS_WSRA()11:00AM has ended 00:29:20 Attendees were [Microsoft], Ashok_Malhotra 01:23:21 Zakim has left #ws-ra 17:12:42 RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra 17:12:42 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-ws-ra-irc 17:12:49 I'm on the phone 17:12:55 muted 17:13:39 sciprname: Dug 17:13:43 scribename: Dug 17:13:59 scribenick: Dug 17:14:25 Topic: f2f schedule revisited 17:14:42 Oracle confirmed for hosting Jun f2f 17:14:59 Sept - Katy/IBM - requested that we adjust the date 17:15:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-ws-ra-minutes.html Yves 17:15:45 Suggests week of Sept 14th 17:16:03 hosted by IBM 17:16:07 in UK/Hursely 17:17:10 No objection - Sept F2F moved to week of Sept 14th in UK/Hursley hosted by IBM 17:18:59 lunch will be at 12:45-2pm pacific 17:19:05 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=WS-Resource%20Access 17:21:07 prasad2 has joined #ws-ra 17:24:16 Topic: Issues 17:24:40 gpilz has joined #ws-ra 17:26:52 it seems to me that individual implementations could build against such a permissive schema 17:27:07 without us necessarily having to specify that schema in the standard 17:29:03 issue 6391 - accepted 17:30:05 assigned to Dug 17:33:46 issue 6392 - accepted - assigned to Dug 17:37:55 issues 6393-6395 - dup of 6392 - same issue, different operation 17:41:31 issue 6396 - accepted - assigned to Dug 17:45:49 issue 6397 - accepted - assigned to Gil 17:46:04 are there multiple bugzilla instances in the W3C? 17:46:09 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=WS-Resource%20Access 17:47:48 issue 6398 - accepted - assigned to Dug 17:48:56 issue 6399 - accepted - assigned to Dug 17:54:14 issue 6400 - accepted - assigned to Dug 17:55:33 issue 6401 - accepted - assigned to Dug 17:57:33 issue 6402 - accepted - assigned to Dug 17:59:32 issue 6403 - accepted - assigned to Dug 18:02:48 issue 6404 - accepted - assigned to Dug 18:05:43 issue 6405 - accepted - assigned to Dug 18:07:09 issue 6406 - accepted - assigned to Dug 18:08:00 issue 6407 - accepted - assigned to Dug 18:08:49 issue 6408 - accepted - assigned to Dug 18:10:21 issue 6409 - accepted - assigned to Dug 18:11:48 issue 6410 - accepted - assigned to Dug 18:15:08 issue 6411 - accepted - assigned to Dug 18:16:41 issue 6412 - accepted - assigned to Dug 18:18:35 issue 6413 - accepted - assigned to Dug 18:20:02 issue 6414 - accepted - assigned to Dug 18:21:16 issues 6415 - accepted - assigned to Dug 18:22:57 s/issues/issue/ 18:23:24 issue 6416 - accepted - assigned to Dug 18:24:30 issue 6418 - accepted - assigned to Geoff 18:25:59 issue 6419 - dup of 6405 18:26:51 issue 6420 - dup of 6404 18:28:30 issue 6421 - accepted - assigned to Geoff 18:29:36 issue 6422 - accepted - assigned to Geoff 18:30:13 break until 10:45 pacific 18:40:36 w 18:40:43 s/w// 18:41:50 prasad-2 has joined #ws-ra 18:48:29 issue 6424 - accepted - assign to Li 18:50:01 asir has joined #ws-ra 18:52:59 issue 6425 - accepted - assigned to Li 18:54:45 +q 18:57:19 issue 6426 - accepted - assigned to Li 18:58:33 ack gp 18:58:56 issue 6427 - accepted - assigned to Li 18:59:31 jeffm has joined #ws-ra 19:00:17 issue 6428 - accepted - assign to Li 19:02:58 issue 6429 - accepted - assigned to Li 19:05:39 issue 6430 - accepted - assigned to Li 19:08:09 issue 6431 - accepted - assigned to Li 19:21:20

Li has joined #ws-ra 19:24:25

how can i see the ongoing presentation? 19:24:57 we are noodling with Bugzilla, so no presentation now 19:25:15

thanks 19:27:36 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=WS-Resource%20Access 19:30:03 here is the uri if anyone needs it - mailto:public-ws-resource-access-notifications-request@w3.org?subject=subscribe 19:30:35 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access-notifications/ 19:31:38 issue 6432 - accepted - assigned to Gil 19:36:36 Dug: http://www.w3.org/2003/Editors/ 19:37:12 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access-editors/ 19:37:46 AI: Bob to provide info to editors on format of specs and on how to covert the docs. 19:40:31 q+ 19:40:45 q+ 19:41:07 Topic: issue 6391 19:41:08 http://www.w3.org/2003/Editors/#grammars (for the xmlspec format) 19:41:13 q+ 19:41:21 you can;t hear me 19:41:25 But I can hear you 19:41:51 can you hear me now? 19:41:55 zakim, unmute all 19:41:55 sorry, Ashok_Malhotra, I do not know which phone connection belongs to all 19:42:00 Let me dial back in 19:42:12 talk amongst yourselves :-) 19:42:15 lol 19:42:16 -[Microsoft] 19:42:22 ack gp 19:44:10 +[Microsoft] 19:44:36 ack greg 19:45:03 +q 19:45:09 q+ 19:45:44 gregc: should we allow impls to support both versions of WSA 19:45:47 ? 19:45:53 ack gp 19:46:38 gil: impls can do more than what's in the spec 19:46:44 ... but we don't need to say that in the spec 19:47:00 ... our schema should not be loosely typed 19:47:24 ack dug 19:47:34 q? 19:49:02 dug: make it a new issue. 19:49:11 ... where do we stop? should we talk about WSA headers? 19:50:02 Wu: can a w3c spec refer to a non-standardized spec? 19:50:19 q+ 19:50:33 q+ 19:51:21 bob: it has happened - soap11 is the prim example 19:51:23 - +1.908.696.aaee 19:52:01 s/prim/prime/ 19:52:29 ... ISO however doesn't like it 19:52:37 q- 19:53:09 ... personally, I would resist it 19:53:26 q? 19:53:45 Wu: we should require normative reference - otherwise it could cause confusion 19:56:02 gregc: don't want a ref to old WSA - just wanted to know if we should allow the content model to be more open 19:56:42 ... ok with this as long as I can open a new issue later to extend the model 19:56:48 ... if I want 19:57:25 q? 19:57:31 ack greg 19:58:26 +q 19:58:38 asir: some specs allow for both - we need a proposal to know how those will be dealt with 19:58:40 +q 19:58:59 ack gpi 19:59:09 gil: our xsd/specs should not allow both 20:00:26 q? 20:00:34 ... replace xs:any with an EPR in those spots 20:00:52 ack dug 20:01:15 That's what I don't believe tehe current proposal endorses 20:01:28 And I don' think I'm ready to agree to that 20:02:05 jdurand has joined #ws-ra 20:02:37 dug: we should replace xs:any with 2005 EPRs 20:04:05 I am unwilling to make that call at this point 20:05:19 I am not proposing a reference to the member submission 20:06:06 bob: 3 choices: 1) ref both, 2) xs:any->REC EPR, 3) REC EPR + extensibility 20:06:33 actually xs:any should be xs:any or any EPR reference 20:06:45 in option #2 20:07:35 I agree with what Bob just said 20:08:04 bob: no one disagrees that REC must be 'in' 20:08:14 +q 20:08:35 ... extensibility points - how (and if) should they be worked into the spec? 20:09:14 Wu: extensibility points are optional 20:09:45 Gil: this is about schema design. Supporting both causes the use of an xs:any - its not just adding a ... after the REC EPR 20:10:13 bob: everyone agrees with that implication 20:10:38 gil: if this were just adding a ... but that's not what we're talking about - we're talking about having weakly typed EPRs - ie. xs:any's 20:10:55 ... its harmful - we shouldn't do it. 20:11:02 q+ to make a general observation 20:11:12 +q 20:11:52 jeff: should we stay silent on "other stuff"? 20:12:06 ack asir 20:12:06 asir, you wanted to make a general observation 20:12:34 asir: schemas are generally weaker than the normative text 20:12:39 q+ 20:13:37 +1 20:13:50 +1 20:13:53 separate the issues 20:13:56 Dug: let's keep it simple for now - keep this issue about REC EPRs 20:15:10 bob: contentious point is about extensibility - having a hard time understanding how an xs:any can be used in a conformance clause 20:15:44 simple to me means remove textual references to the submission version of addressing from the spec 20:16:12 but this issue is more than find and replace 20:16:30 q? 20:16:38 its remove the option of other EPRs too 20:16:40 ack geo 20:16:46 yes more than simple changes 20:18:23 zakim, [Microsoft] is gregcarp 20:18:23 +gregcarp; got it 20:18:56 bob: we all agree to support REC WSA - we need to discuss extensibility and form it takes 20:19:05 ... some specs already have this and some do not 20:19:27 ... for consistency they should all be the same 20:19:40 ... can someone open an issue to discuss this issue 20:21:03 asir: this is more than just s/2004/2005/g 20:22:27 bob: suggests that since we're inconsistent across the specs - we need to either put them in everywhere or take then all out - but do that in a different issue 20:22:40 ... for now suggest we leave any extensibility point there for now 20:25:36 q? 20:26:09 asir: I want to see a concrete proposal 20:26:25 bob: I want to get thru more than one issue per day 20:26:39 asir: I see patterns 20:28:19 bob: make the directional decision but a red-lined version will be produced 20:30:51 ... I'd like to get some kind of resolution 20:31:47 bob: any objection to this proposal? 20:32:14 ... or to giving the editors editorial license "do the obvious" 20:32:27 s/license/license to/ 20:32:35 but leave xs:any->EPR issue out of it for now 20:33:45 resolution: as proposed w/o 20:34:55 RRSAgent, where am I? 20:34:55 See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-ws-ra-irc#T20-34-55 20:35:36 RT is included in the list of specs - group agrees 20:40:32 -Ashok_Malhotra 20:44:39 wuchou has joined #ws-ra 20:45:44 issue states: new, assigned, resolved, incorporated, closed 20:46:54 break for lunch - until 2pm pacific 20:47:14 -??P19 20:47:25 -gregcarp 20:47:26 WS_WSRA()11:00AM has ended 20:47:27 Attendees were +1.571.262.aaaa, +1.571.262.aabb, +91.40.66.29.aacc, Ashok_Malhotra, J.Mischkinsky, +91.40.66.29.aadd, +1.908.696.aaee, gregcarp 20:57:51 jdurand has joined #ws-ra 21:03:57 jacques has joined #ws-ra 22:06:48 WS_WSRA()11:00AM has now started 22:06:55 +??P11 22:08:22 +Ashok_Malhotra 22:09:41 +[Microsoft] 22:09:44 -[Microsoft] 22:10:07 +[Microsoft] 22:12:37 Zakim [Microsoft] is gregcarp 22:15:42 topic: issue 6392 22:15:51 q+ 22:15:54 Dug: let's just match the text with the schema ;-) 22:16:38 ... wsman profiles out multiple children too 22:16:49 q+ 22:17:02 Will this work? ==> The presence of subsequent "embedded" child elements is service-specific and MAY be controlled by the presence or extension-specific SOAP headers in the original request 22:17:08 ack ashok 22:18:37 asir has joined #ws-ra 22:18:51 Ashok: spec is a subset of BP 22:19:23 q? 22:19:32 dug: xsd and spec are inconsistent anyway 22:20:46 ashok: why not fix the schema? 22:20:53 ack geoff 22:20:56 dug: two ways to do it - change text or change xsd 22:21:16 q+ 22:21:24 geoff: don't want to remove a feature 22:21:29 +q 22:21:33 ack gpil 22:21:40 gil: true but extensibility comes at a price 22:22:09 ... interop trumps extensibility IMO 22:22:25 in this case at least 22:22:28 q+ 22:22:43 wuchou has joined #ws-ra 22:23:02 it would be a different matter if there were some clear and compelling use cases for extending the response 22:23:24 dug: perhaps we should have done the wrapper first 22:23:30 ack greg 22:24:18 gregc: soap12 clearly allows multiple children in the body 22:24:48 asir has joined #ws-ra 22:24:59 ... we don't view BP2.0 as a replacement for soap1.2 22:25:05 c 22:25:10 s/c// 22:25:35 topic: issue 6397 22:26:11 20 minutes cap 22:26:14 gil: remove the SubscriptionMgr EPR from the SubscriptionEnd message 22:26:38 ... add text that talks about how you can use ref-params 22:27:27 Geoff: generally fine 22:27:59 Dug: as an editor - keep the stuff about ref-params? 22:28:15 Note, Subscribers wishing to correlate SubscriptionEnd messages with subscriptions may wish to add ReferenceParameters to the EndTo EPR. 22:28:58 (insert in description of EndTo EPR in section on Subscribe) 22:32:01 action: Gil to write up a more detailed proposal 22:32:18 s/proposal/proposal for 6397/ 22:33:21 topic: issue 6398 22:33:56 some one fax me a beer please ... 22:34:57 q+ 22:35:06 Dug: goes over the issue 22:36:08 Geoff: what about createResponse? 22:36:13 Dug: an oversight - that would be included 22:36:46 Geoff: unclear what impact this will have 22:36:50 +q 22:37:02 Geoff: would like to see the impact on referenced specs 22:37:06 q+ 22:37:35 pretty clear we can't close anything without more detail 22:37:56 let's just recess for the rest of the afternoon so we can work on more detailed proposals 22:39:07 q? 22:39:29 ack asir 22:41:46 q? 22:46:30 q+ 22:46:49 ack gpil 22:49:33 ? 22:51:07 Dug has joined #ws-ra 22:51:12 action: Dug to amplify proposal for 6398 correcting oversite of CreateResponse and to examine efect of RT, or other specs in-charter that reference Transfer as required. 22:51:41 s/of RT/on RT 22:54:28 asir has joined #ws-ra 22:54:44 q? 22:55:31 q+ 22:55:43 ack ashok 22:57:36 Dug: we should have policy to describe all of the various options in the specs 22:57:53 Yves: what about the client sending in what it can support and the server choosing the best match? 22:58:32 dug_ has joined #ws-ra 22:58:44 q+ 22:58:51 Dug: define policy for each optional feature of the specs 22:59:17 Yves: why not let the client send in what it supports and let the server pick the best from that list? 22:59:54 Geoff: proposal says to define policy expressions - but it doesn't say 'how' to use them. 23:00:09 ... wording around them about how to use them successfully. 23:00:58 Dug: examples? sure we can add those as needed. 23:01:05 q+ 23:01:17 q+ 23:01:31 q+ 23:02:36 gil: client sending in what it can support might not work - might not be scalable. 23:03:19 ... examples: negotiation of policy is probably better left for a primer 23:03:27 sending _everything_ supported by the client definitely won't fly, sending a shortlist of _preferred_ options (and let the server decide if it doesn;t match is much more practical 23:04:52 prasad: flat list of assertions or nested? 23:05:01 q+ 23:05:06 Dug: could be a combination - will probably depend on the specific feature 23:05:18 Bob has joined #ws-ra 23:05:28 q? 23:05:38 Asir: policy group wrote a best practices around this 23:05:47 ack gpil 23:05:58 ack pras 23:06:11 33 point check list at http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-ws-policy-guidelines-20071112/ 23:06:19 ack asir 23:06:32 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-ws-policy-guidelines-20071112/#best-practices-list 23:06:50 ck wu 23:06:56 ack wu 23:07:30 wu: would like to understand the impact - would like a light-weight solution 23:07:37 q+ 23:08:12 ... is policy optional? 23:08:17 Dug: yes - optional 23:08:24 ack greg 23:08:50 gregc: security should be done by security policy 23:09:10 asir: while metadata is optional , if everyone uses it then its not so optional 23:09:29 Ashok_Malhotra has joined #ws-ra 23:09:30 ... lean expressions is the key 23:11:24 Wu: would like to see some concrete examples 23:12:29 action: issue 6402 - Dug to write up a detailed proposal 23:12:53 Ashok_Malhotra has joined #ws-ra 23:13:00 Ashok_Malhotra has joined #ws-ra 23:15:21 topic: issue 6404 23:19:51 Dug: proposal mex = everything you can and default == 'mex' 23:20:29 Asir: goes over the proposal from the workshop 23:20:37 ... no dialect == up to provider 23:20:50 ... mex dialect == all known dialects 23:20:52 +q 23:21:33 jeffm has joined #ws-ra 23:23:23 ack asir 23:23:26 ack dug 23:23:59 Do you want to remove the 'whatever' option? 23:24:11 q+ 23:24:26 ack greg 23:25:21 q+ 23:25:54 gregc: what if I'm a metadata browser 23:25:56 ? 23:26:25 ack prasad 23:27:05 prasad: what does 'all metadata' mean? 23:27:21 dug: gimme everything I'm allowed to see 23:28:10 ... I'd like to understand this 'whatever' option better 23:28:54 asir: not sure where the ambiguity is 23:29:03 q+ 23:29:41 ashok: dug is asking: what's it purpose? what does it do? 23:29:51 ack ashok 23:29:57 ... tell us more about it? how? for what purpose? 23:32:44 What metadata is visible to a client is subject to visibility constraints associated with the identity of the client and policy associated with the provider. We need to qualify *all* metadata (MEX) option needs to clarify that. That is the client may not be entitled to see all metadata even if the client asks for it. 23:33:27 Gil: can't think of an example of why someone would do this 23:34:32 Just replace both "everything" and "whatever" with: "allyoucan" 23:36:09 s/needs to/ to/ 23:39:30 Is the 'r' silent in that "whatever", or not? :-) 23:39:53 whatevva! 23:50:36 q+ 23:51:10 q- 23:52:13 action: issue 6404 - Geoff to write up why we need "whatever"? what's it purpose - and a new proposal 23:56:26 topic: 6397 23:56:34 Gil - talks about his concrete proposal 23:57:02 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jan/0038.html 00:03:36 resolved: new proposal accepted w/o 00:03:39 and they all rejoiced 00:04:53 rrsagent, where am i? 00:04:53 See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-ws-ra-irc#T00-04-53 00:05:20 Thanks Gil! 00:07:08 -Ashok_Malhotra 00:13:10 -[Microsoft] 00:18:56 topic: issue 6405 00:22:50 q+ 00:23:07 +[Microsoft] 00:24:57 Dug: explained proposal 00:25:15 Jeff: need to define the skip 00:25:24 ack prasad 00:25:33 +Ashok_Malhotra 00:26:05 q+ 00:27:40 ack asir 00:29:48 asir: 'format' might not be the best word for it 00:32:28 default == any, define an "all" dialect 00:36:55 (dialect (identifier)?)? (format)* 00:38:42 define a 'any' dialect 00:38:52 per jeff's comment, clarify that what 'skip' means - meaning no metadata section for that dialect/format 00:39:12 q+ 00:39:31 ack greg 00:41:39 suggest synonyms for "format"; embodiment, incarnation 00:41:54 gregc: would policy help here? 00:42:18 dug: for advertising which are available,yes, but not for providing a hint 00:46:17 shape? 00:46:22 ai: issue 6405 - Doug to write up the above mods in a note/proposal 00:46:29 form? 00:48:48 q+ 00:48:57 regarding the optimization 00:49:27 topic: issue 6409 00:49:44 q- 00:51:27 defer - people need to talk to devs 00:51:54 -Ashok_Malhotra 00:55:35 q+ I need a clarification 00:55:46 q+ 00:57:07 ack greg 01:01:50 topic: issue 6412 01:02:36 dug - describes the proposal 01:06:06