W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > August 2006

Minutes, meeting of 2006-07-31

From: Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:52:56 -0400
To: "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-id: <7D5D3FDA429F4D469ADF210408D6245A06672B@jeeves.freunds.com>

WS Addressing Working Group

31 Jul 2006

See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/31-ws-addr-irc> 



Arun Gupta (Sun Microsystems, Inc.) 

David Illsley (IBM Corporation) 

Anish Karmarkar (Oracle Corporation) 

Paul Knight (Nortel Networks) 

Amelia Lewis (TIBCO Software, Inc.) 

Mark Little (JBoss Inc.) 

Gilbert Pilz (BEA Systems, Inc.) 

Tony Rogers (Computer Associates) 

Katy Warr (IBM Corporation) 

Pete Wenzel (Sun Microsystems, Inc.) 

Prasad Yendluri (webMethods, Inc.) 


Abbie Barbir (Nortel Networks) 

Andreas Bjarlestam (ERICSSON) 

Dave Chappell (Sonic Software) 

Francisco Curbera (IBM Corporation) 

Glen Daniels (Sonic Software) 

Vikas Deolaliker (Sonoa Systems, Inc.) 

Paul Downey (BT) 

Jacques Durand (Fujitsu Limited) 

Marc Goodner (Microsoft Corporation) 

Hugo Haas (W3C) 

Marc Hadley (Sun Microsystems, Inc.) 

David Hull (TIBCO Software, Inc.) 

Yin-Leng Husband (HP) 

Philippe Le Hegaret (W3C) 

Bozhong Lin (IONA Technologies, Inc.) 

Jeganathan Markandu (Nortel Networks) 

Jonathan Marsh (Microsoft Corporation) 

Jeff Mischkinsky (Oracle Corporation) 

Nilo Mitra (ERICSSON) 

Eisaku Nishiyama (Hitachi, Ltd.) 

David Orchard (BEA Systems, Inc.) 

Alain Regnier (Ricoh Company Ltd.) 

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu Limited) 

Davanum Srinivas (WSO2) 


Bob Freund 


Amelia Lewis 


*	Topics
*	Summary of Action Items




<scribe> Scribe: alewis

<scribe> agenda: meeting minutes for 5 June 2006. minutes accepted
without objection.

open action items include call for additional participants in testing

call for additional participants; no response.

primary purpose of meeting: discuss WSDL tests so far, work done by Arun
and David.

Arun: review of WSDL test work so far.

<agupta> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuitewsdl/report/

URL posted just above summarizes and describes work to date, including
the test design, tests themselves, and results so far, including the
face to face

<agupta> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuitewsdl/testcases/

Arun: expected to have fifteen to twenty test cases, but in fact have
more. IBM and Sun have implementations of all test cases.
... each test case has a number, which includes target WSDL version,
target SOAP version, and a sequence number. tests try to cover a variety
of cases; there are short descriptions of each.
... each test should be associated with an assertion; each test is
either required or optional (right now, only one is optional).
... report page includes a todo list at the top.
... describes format of table in list, results for IBM-IBM, IBM-SUN,
... discussion of action-based dispatch, tests related to that,
questions arising around it.
... trouble correlating messages in some cases.
... where four white boxes appear, there are questions about the spec.
... testing raises some questions about the interactions of various
properties; the behavior of the processor is not always well-defined for
all cases of all combinations of properties.

David: concurs with summary.

Bob: call for questions on summary.
... issue from testing. related to SOAP Action.
... issue raised on mailing list, Jonathan may have raised about a week
... issue #26: unclear soap action.

<anish> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/Overview.html#cr26

Arun: concurs, this summarizes issue very well.

David: have some other stuff that need to discuss; this is not what
David has had problems with.

Arun: David's issue with action-related dispatch and [scribe lost
... proposed resolution of unspecified soap action header, something on
empty string.

Anish: soap action "" actually is specified. wsa:action is required to
be an absolute URI; soap action is not.
... consequently, at least in the case when soap:action is specified as
"", it can't be used for wsa:action.
... Arun's suggestion would solve both problems.

Arun: if wsa:action is specified, use that. If soap:action is present
and is not an empty string, use that. if that doesn't exist, construct
the default.

Bob: is this a new issue?

Anish: specification doesn't handle the case in which a soap:action is
specified, but is not a URI.
... spec says that wsa:action and soap:action must match, but also say
that wsa:action must be an absolute URI (which is not required for
soap:action, even excluding the empty string case).


Arun: three issues: existing cr26, the case Anish seems to be raising,
and [??]
... what is meant by specified soap:action? empty string could be
considered to be "specified", but should not be included.

David: if soap:action is empty string, then use the default pattern.
need to clarify text to match this expectation.

Bob: opening new issue, cr28, to deal with Arun's issue and the proposed
resolution from the email referenced above.

Paul: support resolution.

Bob: call for specific text. Arun: will post. Bob: fine, let's get exact
proposed replacement text.

<agupta> From section: 

Arun: will post existing text and proposed revised text.

<agupta> Current text: In the absence of a wsaw:Action attribute on a
WSDL input element where a SOAPAction value is specified,

<agupta> Proposed text: In the absence of a wsaw:Action attribute on a
WSDL input element where a *non empty* SOAPAction value is specified,

Bob: call for objections to accepting the proposal as resolution of

RESOLUTION: text proposed by Arun closes CR28.

addition of "non-empty" before "SOAPAction value" in 4.4.1.

Bob: David's issue. Arun: need to open Anish's issue. Bob: Anish said he
will raise that issue. back to David.


David: this is clarification of the general understanding.
... there are tests which expect that if a WSDL does not describe a
wsaw:action, then an ActionNotSupportedFault is returned.
... however, the specification does not support ActionNotSupportedFault
as a requirement, in David's reading.
... Arun read this differently, that the fault is required.
... spec language is pretty clear in SOAP binding; action not supported
is optional. therefore it seems that it should be optional in the tests
as well; Arun felt that it ought to be required.

Bob: call for objections to making tests optional. none heard.

RESOLUTION: tests in which ActionNotSupportedFault is returned are to be
made optional, per David's recommendation.

<bob> Section 4.4.1 defines a mechanism to explicitly set the action

<bob> (wsaw:Action). It says "In the absence of a wsaw:Action attribute"

<bob> the specified SOAP action.

<bob> Section 4.4.2 defines a defaulting mechanism. It says "In the

<bob> of a wsaw:Action attribute" calculate the action using the

<bob> which follows.

<bob> The use of the same text ("In the absence...") for each of these

<bob> mechanisms renders it unclear whether the default action pattern
or the

<bob> specified SOAP action is to take precedence. I think the intention

<bob> clear - use wsaw:Action if present, else use specified SOAP action

<bob> present, otherwise use the default pattern.

<bob> There appear to be a number of straightforward editorial remedies.

Bob: paste from Jonathan's email.
... call for agreement to proposal.

Tony: agreed.

Bob: mark as editorial?

paul knight: non-empty is covered?

Tony: covered in closure of earlier cr.

Bob: call for objections.

RESOLUTION: close cr26, adopting the proposal of Jonathan Marsh as
offered, subject to editorial interpretation and inclusion of

Arun: need to deal with question of action-based dispatch, as raised by

Bob: if hasn't been raised in email, then hasn't got visibility.

Arun: okay, will raise the issue.

question asked: is the problem with addressing or with the WS-I BP?

Arun: yes, this is a potential interaction between WS Addressing and
WS-I; wants to get a sense of how to resolve.
... but the critical part of the question is: for this test case, what
is the requirement/assertion that is being tested, using action-based

Bob: interpreted this as an understanding that there are some otherwise
valid WSDL that are not accepted by the WS-I BP.

Arun: will raise to list and record as issue.

Bob: propose next meeting in two weeks.

14 August. Arun, however, proposes earlier meeting. Bob: if raised to
list, will be in one week, 7 August. call for objections.

Next meeting: 7 August 2006, same bat time, same bat channel.

meeting adjourned.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]


Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm>  version
1.127 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/> )
$Date: 2006/08/03 19:51:39 $ 


(image/gif attachment: image001.gif)

Received on Thursday, 3 August 2006 19:53:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:14 UTC