07:59:41 RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra 07:59:41 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/10/02-ws-ra-irc 07:59:43 RRSAgent, make logs public 07:59:43 Zakim has joined #ws-ra 07:59:45 Zakim, this will be WSRA 07:59:45 ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA(F2F)3:30AM scheduled to start 29 minutes ago 07:59:46 Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference 07:59:46 Date: 02 October 2009 08:00:01 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Oct/0008.html 08:00:41 WS_WSRA(F2F)3:30AM has now started 08:00:49 + +91.98.49.99.aaaa 08:01:01 yves - I'm blocked again - could you look at the logs? 08:01:47 + +0196281aabb 08:02:04 Bob has joined #ws-ra 08:02:20 + +39.331.574.aacc 08:02:35 Vikas has joined #ws-ra 08:03:36 + +1.646.361.aadd 08:04:08 - +91.98.49.99.aaaa 08:04:47 + +1.919.849.aaee 08:13:56 scribe: Ram Jeyaraman 08:13:59 dug, I only have access to the black lists 08:14:15 and the ip you gave was not in it 08:14:37 DaveS has joined #ws-ra 08:15:03 195.212.29.67 08:15:03 +Yves 08:15:07 try that one 08:15:54 Sreed has joined #ws-ra 08:15:55 Wu has joined #ws-ra 08:16:41 jeffm has joined #ws-ra 08:16:54 yves, is 195.212.29.67 in the blacklist 08:17:03 Katy has joined #ws-ra 08:17:11 yep, clearing it 08:17:46 gpilz has joined #ws-ra 08:17:50 Ram has joined #ws-ra 08:17:53 done 08:17:56 fixed! thanks 08:18:00 scribe ram 08:18:04 scribenick: Ram 08:18:30 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Oct/0008.html 08:20:40 topic: 7088 implementation 08:21:05 proposed xsd/wsdl at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Oct/0010.html 08:23:02 MartinC has joined #ws-ra 08:28:30 XSD/WSDL from Doug looks good. No objections to publishing WS-Fragment as a FPWD. 08:29:30 asir has joined #ws-ra 08:29:52 s/XSD/RESOLUTION: XSD 08:30:54 Topic: 6721 08:30:57 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6721 08:31:11 proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Oct/att-0011/wst-implicit.doc 08:31:50 asir has joined #ws-ra 08:31:51 paul has joined #ws-ra 08:31:58 Doug: The text in 7.2 is the old text; says you can advertise the policy. 08:32:12 Doug: In the new text, I changed policy to metadata. 08:32:58 Doug: This is an initial pass at what we discussed day before. 08:33:49 + +1.646.290.aaff 08:33:49 Asir: Two comments. 08:35:03 q+ 08:35:18 Asir: These two paragraphs there are a continuation of the para under 7.2. When a dialect URI is defined we need to provide an identifier. Not defining is fine but we need to call it out. 08:35:54 Doug: There were some reading flow issues; so i did it this way. 08:37:38 Doug: I am fine with rearranging it if it improves the flow. 08:38:07 Asir: There is one semantic change relating to the identifier; identifier is not defined. 08:39:01 No objections so far on the suggested change. 08:39:30 ack jeff 08:39:45 Jeff: why does this proposal still talk about XML SOAP URI? 08:40:27 Doug: We don't have a standard version for it. 08:40:41 q+ 08:41:21 Bob: The WSDL dialect is defined in the MEX specification. 08:42:00 Jeff: Should the dialect URI use a WS-RA namespace? 08:42:08 Bob: You should consider filing an issue. 08:42:54 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=761 08:46:03 Jeff: When are the operations exposed. 08:46:26 Asir: When the applications want to expose them. 08:47:28 - +39.331.574.aacc 08:48:57 from comment #2 of Issue-6694 (directional decision during the August F2F) 08:49:01 RESOLUTION: (directional) everything is implicitly defined with WS-Policy 08:49:03 assertions, optionality of operations to be indicated by assertions or some 08:49:04 other appropriate WS-Policy mechanism. In addition the wsdl will be in the 08:49:06 specs 08:53:39 q? 08:54:08 Katy:If a decision had been previously made not to put explicitly in the WSDL, the quoted resolution does not contradict it. 08:54:44 Wu: My understanding is that by using the policy assertion the endpoint is declaring implicit support for all the operations. 08:56:18 s/indicate that a certain security algorithm is needed to use the WS-Transfer operations./indicate that a specific security mechanism is used to protect the WS-Transfer operations for this endpoint./ 08:56:27 q+ 08:57:05 q+ 08:57:49 Asir: Two a concrete change. Change 'while' to a 'when'; 08:58:54 Gil: Should there be a statement that operations cannot explicitly appear when the policy assertion is used? 08:59:11 Asir: This is in the first paragraph of section 7. 08:59:32 ack wu 08:59:39 ack gpi 08:59:57 Wu: I want to see a clear declartion that I support WS-Transfer operations. 09:00:14 Bob agrees with Asir's comment. 09:00:55 Wu does not agree with Gil's point. 09:01:42 Bob: We have already agreed that if the policy assertion is present, then all operations are implicitly supported. 09:02:03 Wu: The policy assertion section covers many things beyond just the implicit behavior. 09:02:04 implicit declaration doesn't forbid explicit and more tuned declaration 09:02:38 Doug agrees. 09:02:44 implicit means "it's not defined, resort to using this" 09:03:26 ack katy 09:03:34 - +1.646.290.aaff 09:04:54 Katy: The text already covers all the possible options. Transfer is implicitly defined, explicitly supported, not suported. 09:05:14 Katy: Not supported implies Not a Transfer resource. 09:05:30 q+ 09:05:59 Katy: It strikes me that there has been a clear decision about not openly supporting explict option. 09:06:31 Bob: The specification does not require use of policy or WSDL. 09:07:16 Bob: Although we have said that policy is not the exclusive way, but if policy is used, that implicitly defines the operations. 09:07:22 Bob: True or not? 09:08:09 Martin: It is ambiguous whether it is implicit or explicit. 09:08:26 - +1.919.849.aaee 09:09:51 Bob: The meaning of the existence of the policy indicates Transfer is supported. Implicitly or explicitly supported is undefined. 09:09:56 There should be a specific policy assertion to indicate that the operations are implicitly supported. 09:09:58 + +1.919.849.aagg 09:10:21 Bob: Do we agree that when the policy assertion is present, the operations are implicitly defined? 09:11:11 Doug: Whether policy is used or not has no bearing on whether it is implicit or explicit. 09:11:42 Bob: If the policy assertion exist, what does it mean? 09:12:06 Doug: All it means is, service is advertising support for transfer. Meaning, transfer operations are supported. 09:12:13 + +1.646.290.aahh 09:12:23 q+ 09:13:14 q+ 09:13:27 ack asir 09:13:41 q+ 09:14:11 Asir: The policy assertion indicates you are supporting the required operations and with the policy params it supports the optional operations. 09:15:37 Asir: When an endpoint supports policy, and Transfer, and uses policy assertion, it is indicative of the operations being supported implicitly. 09:19:33 q? 09:20:35 ack gp 09:21:23 Bob: We don't want to revisit earlier agreements. The resolution to 6694 indicates that when policy assertion is engaged implicit support of operations is expressed. 09:24:44 Gil is describing an use case. 09:27:32 Gil is defining an application WSDL that contains the Transfer operations. The policy appears in the WSDL as well. 09:27:43 Asir: It is redundant. 09:27:50 Gil: Is it illegal? 09:29:41 Doug: The policy assertion is indepent of implicitly. 09:29:58 Q+ 09:30:42 Bob: We discussed that we had previously discussed that what is infrastructure for one person is infrastructure for another person. 09:31:35 q+ 09:32:32 Bob: The resolution text for 6694 stands. 09:34:19 Katy: This was a mechanism for operations that do not explicitly appear in the WSDL. 09:35:02 q? 09:35:42 Dave: The red text in the proposal is capturing the cases that are not covered by the resolution to 6694. 09:36:07 ack martin 09:36:09 ack wu 09:36:36 q+ 09:36:41 Martin: If you have a policy and dialect explicitly defined, there is no clarity. 09:36:44 q- 09:36:51 Bob: That is a separate discussion. 09:37:06 q- 09:37:08 q+ 09:37:12 q+ 09:37:14 q- 09:37:34 ack asir 09:37:40 Bob: Does the proposed modification sufficiently addressed 6721? 09:37:40 Vikas has joined #ws-ra 09:37:49 I took myself off the queue. I personally don't agree that WSTransfer is purely 100% infrastructure, but that is a side issue 09:40:10 Asir: Let us remove the phrase "While the WS-Transfer operations are not exposed in an endpoint's WSDL" from the red text in the proposal. 09:40:36 q? 09:41:24 Paul - I don't agree that Transfer is just infrastructure. Bob said it well ... one man's infrastructureis another man's app 09:41:51 i thought we resolved this on wednesday? 09:42:35 q+ 09:42:59 q+ 09:43:02 q+ 09:43:53 Doug: Use a MUST: "While the WS-Transfer operations MUST not exposed in an endpoint's WSDL" 09:44:04 Dave: This is not core to 6721. 09:44:09 q+ 09:44:51 ack dave 09:45:27 q+ 09:45:54 Dave: I am fine with the text as it is. I suggest using a separate issue to revisit or make adjustments to previous resolutions. 09:46:40 Dave: I am not too particularly attached to one particular manifestation. 09:46:51 q+ 09:47:15 Martin: I don't like the word 'version'. 09:47:29 q- 09:47:30 Delete "Own verion of the" phrase. 09:47:38 ack MartinC 09:47:40 ack martin 09:47:45 q+ 09:47:46 ack wu 09:47:49 q+ 09:48:10 ack dug 09:48:13 No objections to Martin's change. 09:48:41 Doug: I don't agree that changing the first paragraph should be handled via a separate issue. 09:48:58 Doug: I think it is in the spirit of the earlier resolutions. 09:49:49 Bob: We agreed to the resolution to 6694 irrespective of the various (mis)interpretations. 09:50:29 Bob: If people have an issue with the agreed to text for 6694 let us reopen that issue. 09:51:01 Bob: I suggest that we do NOT elaborate on teh 6694 any further since it is not central to issue 6721. 09:51:37 q+ 09:52:01 ack asir 09:52:30 q+ 09:52:31 Asir: The second paragraph in section 7 is not central to 6721. 09:54:18 - +1.646.290.aahh 09:57:03 Bob: Is there any objection to agreeing to just the part below. 09:57:18 Proposed text/extract: "an endpoint MAY choose to expose its own version of the WS-Transfer WSDL by using the following WS-MetadataExchange Dialect URI:" 09:57:44 - +1.919.849.aagg 09:57:50 "http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-tra/TransferWSDL" 09:57:58 "This version of the WS-Transfer WSDL can be annotated to indicate any endpoint specific metadata that might be needed by clients interacting with this service. For example, the WSDL MAY have policy assertions to indicate that a certain security algorithm is needed to use the WS-Transfer operations." 09:58:14 Dave: There is need to clarify about dialects. 09:58:55 Doug: One or more WSDL need to be considered. 09:59:51 Bob: Does the above text work for every one? 10:00:12 q? 10:00:27 annotating... meaning SAWSDL? 10:00:42 s/indicate that a certain security algorithm is needed to use the WS-Transfer operations./indicate that a particular security mechanism is used to protect the WS-Transfer operations for this endpoint./ 10:01:20 s/\/:/ 10:02:40 No objections to the amendment from Gil noted above. 10:06:02 Doug to post a new doc with some revisions: 10:06:06 how about s/is used to protect /for/ the WS-Transfer ... 10:06:22 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=767 10:07:46 Hi Yves, please could you unblock 195.212.29.75? 10:08:59 done 10:09:19 thanks 10:09:33 but ask your system people to fix this ;) 10:10:15 I will try, something has certainly changed in the last few months 10:13:09 The proposed resolution will appy to all specifications except MEX. Specifically, resolution applies only to Transfer, Enumeration, Eventing specs. 10:13:38 - +1.646.361.aadd 10:14:38 This also applies to MEX. 10:17:58 proposal is (i.e. retrievable by using a WS-MetadataExchange GetMetadata with a Dialect URI of http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/). An endpoint MAY choose to expose the WS-Transfer WSDL by using the following WS-MetadataExchange Dialect: 10:18:00 Dialect URI @Identifier value 10:18:01 http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-tra/TransferWSDL Not defined 10:18:03 The WS-Transfer WSDL can be annotated to indicate any endpoint specific metadata that might be needed by clients interacting with this service. For example, the WSDL MAY have policy assertions that indicate a particular security mechanism used to protect the WS-Transfer operations supported by this endpoint. 10:18:12 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=768 10:18:27 The latest modified version of the proposal in above. 10:18:42 No objections to the above proposed resolution. 10:18:52 Issue 6721 is resolved. 10:19:28 RESOLUTION 6721 is represented by comment #6 in bugzilla. 10:33:52 topic: 7013 10:34:29 proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Oct/0012.html 10:36:24 q+ 10:37:15 q- 10:37:29 q- 10:37:37 q- 10:37:38 q- 10:37:39 ack dug 10:39:34 No objections to closing 7013 with no action. 10:40:02 Resolution 7013 closed with no action. 10:40:20 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=762 10:40:30 topic: 7207 10:40:44 Concrete proposal is at http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=762 10:41:23 s/concrete proposal/concrete manifestion of proposal/ 10:41:31 + +39.331.574.aaii 10:41:50 q+ 10:42:01 s/concrete manifestation of proposal/concrete manifestation of resolution/ 10:42:04 optional but mandatory features looks weird 10:45:13 ack gpi 10:47:09 paul has joined #ws-ra 10:48:07 Bob: Any objections to the concrete manifestation of the resolution? 10:48:17 We will revisit this after lunch. 10:49:30 - +39.331.574.aaii 10:51:24 eventing: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=765 10:52:28 We are continuing to look for changes made by the editor relating to correctly describing optional elements/features. 10:57:50 q? 10:58:03 -Yves 10:58:29 Wu has a question about making fault reason as optional. 11:01:10 Wu is satisfied with the explanation. 11:01:25 lunch break will re-start at 1:00 11:21:13 - +0196281aabb 11:21:15 WS_WSRA(F2F)3:30AM has ended 11:21:16 Attendees were +91.98.49.99.aaaa, +0196281aabb, +39.331.574.aacc, +1.646.361.aadd, +1.919.849.aaee, Yves, +1.646.290.aaff, +1.919.849.aagg, +1.646.290.aahh, +39.331.574.aaii 11:56:34 Message for those dialing in: The folk here have gone on a quick tour of Hursley site so we will commence a little after 1pm 11:57:10 I guess it'll be about 1.20 before we restart 11:57:35 (i.e. 23 mins from now in duration time) 11:58:13 ok, thanks Katy 12:04:05 Ashok has joined #ws-ra 12:12:58 WS_WSRA(F2F)3:30AM has now started 12:13:05 + +0196281aaaa 12:13:14 we aew slowly gathering... 12:18:52 scribe: Gilbert Pilz 12:19:12 scribenick: gpilz 12:19:42 TOPIC: 7207 12:19:51 Bob: has everyone considered the latest text? 12:20:03 ... does anyone need more time? 12:20:04 Wu has joined #ws-ra 12:20:13 Asir: it's not very clear what is optional and what is not 12:20:31 ... maybe we need to do a little homework before accepting such a global statement 12:20:40 Kary: concern is with optional operations 12:21:12 asir has joined #ws-ra 12:21:48 Asir: suggest we do more homework and be ready to discuss next meeting 12:22:21 + +39.331.574.aabb 12:22:54 ACTION: Ram and Katy review latest text for 7207 and determine whether there is any ambiguity 12:22:54 Created ACTION-117 - And Katy review latest text for 7207 and determine whether there is any ambiguity [on Ram Jeyaraman - due 2009-10-09]. 12:23:04 DaveS has joined #ws-ra 12:23:48 TOPIC: 7586 12:24:01 Bob: there is a proposed resolution 12:24:13 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7586 12:26:21 DaveS: describes proposal 12:26:34 q+ 12:26:38 +Yves 12:26:39 q+ 12:26:55 q+ 12:27:49 ack martin 12:27:56 pong test 12:28:13 my pong broke ages ago :-) 12:28:31 Martin: seems bloated - having to have 3 time values to specify an expiration 12:28:47 DaveS: "exact" seems to be a minority case 12:29:06 yes 12:29:08 Martin: most programming uses exact times - hints etc. are the exception 12:31:45 q+ 12:32:17 - +39.331.574.aabb 12:32:27 ack gpi 12:34:08 q+ 12:34:12 +1 to differentiate hints and non-hints 12:34:21 Gil: would like to flip hint and non-hint syntax 12:35:09 Daves: taking away default values makes the whole thing more complicated 12:35:38 ... right now, with a default min=0 and a default max=infinity, things always make sense 12:35:52 Doug: it depends upon your point of view 12:36:24 ... for example, what happens if I include a min attribute, but no max attribute 12:36:29 ack dug 12:39:19 q+ 12:40:11 q+ 12:41:14 ack wu 12:42:18 Wu: like this proposal 12:42:20 Dave's proposal, using attribute to give multiple non-hints and value for the hint (one target) seems optimal 12:42:39 ack ram 12:42:57 ... if it's difficult to support "any" because of schema, don't do it (no one seemed to care about any) 12:43:03 Ram: I like the proposal 12:43:25 Chair notes that a +1 would suffice 12:44:36 q+ 12:44:37 q+ 12:46:17 q+ 12:46:35 gil, the client might always trash or not process things that are not getting back within the wanted range 12:46:48 (if @min and @max are not supported) 12:46:56 Gil: need faults etc. to handle "wrong" cases 12:47:43 yves: that's just how we got here in the first place . . . we wanted something better than Subscribe, check SubscribeResponse, Unsubscribe 12:47:54 ack gp 12:48:02 ack asir 12:48:13 Asir: some question whether empty tag can be specified for "any" case 12:48:20 q+ 12:48:25 ... all we have to say is 'nillable="true"' 12:48:50 (some discussion about how nillable works, difference between empty tag and xsi:Null 12:50:16 nillable optional elements... oh joy :) 12:50:25 ack martin 12:50:30 Sreed has joined #ws-ra 12:50:30 Martin: there's a big deal being made about replicating current behavior 12:50:45 ... is there agreement about what the current behavior actually is? 12:51:07 ack dug 12:51:26 Doug: what is the fault for when the three values are hosed? 12:51:32 (all) some sender fault 12:51:41 Doug: we need an exact fault 12:52:16 For folks who would like to understand how to use nillable and xsi:nil, please see IBM/David Fallside's excellent documentation, http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#Nils 12:52:56 Doug: why nillable is not appropriate 12:53:41 q+ 12:56:12 Bob: is anybody speaking against this general approach? 12:56:16 (all): no 12:56:21 ack katy 12:57:04 Katy: the problem is not with the number of characters, it's the processing involved with comparing three values 12:57:23 1h ? 12:57:24 ... we need a shorthand that means "exact" 12:57:31 q? 12:58:24 Yves: it's not checking the number of characters, it's comparing three values 12:58:35 think about 3 xs:dateTimes each with different timezones 12:58:39 Yves, Touche 12:58:46 compare all three and figure out if they are the same 12:58:50 still shorter than a 1 gig xml file 12:59:00 gil, see proposal above ot have an @exact as a shorthand for @min @max 12:59:03 Yep .. XML Schema says that you normalize dateTime and then compare 12:59:15 ordering is defined in XML Schema 12:59:15 Bob: can we agree to provide a shorthand for exact? 12:59:17 How about 1h ? 12:59:20 Wu: seems to make sense 12:59:26 if you are using a schema library, you don't have to do anything 12:59:33 +katy 12:59:40 +1 to katy 13:00:05 Daves: don't think a shorthand is necessary 13:00:23 q+ 13:00:55 q- 13:01:04 Bob: (repeating) can we agree to provide a shorthand for exact? 13:01:25 Ram: Katy, I think your concern is all the extra processing of comparing three values 13:01:33 Katy: it's not a make or break thing 13:01:41 Bob: is it acceptable to leave it as it is 13:02:04 Katy: if no one else cares, I'm willing to bend 13:02:10 Bob: anyone else care? 13:02:27 Doug: I do, I'd like to make the obvious case as easy as possible 13:03:33 revesre it to 1hr 13:04:10 so by default you expect that all clocks are synchronized perfectly? 13:04:21 Bob: add the @exact attribute to the proposal - "@exact is shorthand for min, max, and value all being equal" 13:04:34 Yves: no 13:05:08 @exact="xsi:boolean" 13:06:42 Default ? 13:07:22 q 13:07:25 q? 13:11:57 suggest wse:InvalidExpirationTime 13:12:05 it already exits in the spec 13:13:10 ack martin 13:13:43 q? 13:13:48 q+ 13:13:56 ack ram 13:14:03 ack gp 13:22:15 q+ 13:23:26 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7586#c3 13:24:32 INF is defined in XML Schema 13:24:46 Yep 13:26:45 If this attribute value is "true" the @min and @max attributes MUST be ignored and the wse:Expires element evaluated as if @min, @max, and the value of wse:Expires had identical values. 13:27:09 sounds good 13:27:28 +1 13:28:11 The default value is "false" in which case this attribute has no effect. If this attribute value is "true" both @min and @max attributes MUST be ignored and are assumed to have the same value as the wse:Expires element. 13:28:32

li has joined #ws-ra 13:28:38 If the wse:Expires element in not present and the event source is not able to grant an indefinite subscription, it MUST generate a wse:ExpirationTimeExceeded fault. 13:29:09 +li 13:33:06 +q 13:34:20 q+ 13:34:32 ack ram 13:34:37 q- 13:34:38 ack dug 13:34:43 this has to go away : If the wse:Expires element in not present and the event source is not able to grant an indefinite subscription, it MUST generate a wse:ExpirationTimeExceeded fault. 13:37:14 ack gp 13:41:28 can use the same 'Expires' tag by disallowing min, max and exact attributes in a *Response 13:41:48 well why would those occur in a response? 13:41:57

q+ 13:52:53 ack li 13:54:15 Li: would like Event Source to provide policy for min and max supported expiration times 13:54:41 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7586#c4 13:54:53 q+ 13:55:43 Ram: what about Renew operation? 13:55:53 ... exact same semantics? 13:56:54 (all): must be identical 13:58:28

q+ 13:58:50 ack ram 14:02:54 ack li 14:05:13 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7586#c5 14:06:30 RESOLUTION: comment #5 resolves 7586 - also applies to Renew 14:07:06 RESOLUTION: apply the same resolution to Enumeration 14:08:23 Note: above issue is 7587 14:08:53

q+ 14:09:22 Complete notes: 7586 and 7588 were addressed yesterday (action to develop proposal that includes the use of both dateTime and duration) 14:09:33 acl li 14:09:43 ack li 14:09:55 the above two issues are, in fact, 7478 and 7587 14:12:43 q+ 14:14:35 Doug: discusses mixing data types of @min, @max and Expires 14:20:51 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6407 14:21:00 Katy has joined #ws-ra 14:21:02 TOPIC: issue 6407 14:21:13 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6407 14:22:53 ack dug 14:24:57

q+ 14:33:41

yes, soap 1.1 fault => soap 1.1 Server fault 14:34:14

soap 1.1 Server == soap 1.2 Receiver 14:34:38

q- 14:35:11 The following element MAY be used to convey additional information in the the detail element of a SOAP 1.1 fault or a SOAP 1.2 receiver fault. 14:38:25 Doug: The following element MAY be used to convey additional information in the detail element of a fault. 14:43:09 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=770 14:46:07 Bob: Any objections to resolving 7553, 7554 with above 14:46:14 Wu: Would like more time 14:46:42 Bob: Meeting of 10/06 is cancelled 14:46:52 ... Next concall will be 10/13/2009 14:49:27 gpilz has left #ws-ra 14:49:40 - +0196281aaaa 14:49:42 rrsagent, generate minutes 14:49:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/10/02-ws-ra-minutes.html Bob 14:49:43