See also: IRC log
<scribe> Agenda:
1) AI and 2) Some new isssues 3) Status of Director call
dhull: Wants to add editorial comments as agenda item
<pauld> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Mar/0070.html
bob: Objections to the minutes of the
March 2nd F2F?
.. .No objections minutes of March 2nd F2F are accepted
... Objections to the minutes of the March 3rd F2F?
... No objections, minutes of March 3rd are accepted
... Objections to the March 13th minutes?
... No objections raised; minutes are accepted and will be posted
to the website
... LC for WSDL is end of month; Not seeing many comments; but
if we can stay real-time in our response it woudl be
great
... Jonathan mentioned that there are comments coming and is urged to get comments out to the list
Jonathan: Work in progress
bob: Hugo's AI on Infoset Reference update to 2nd edition was completed
marc: AI on LC116 resolution text: complete and checked in
bob: LC112 (mapping of UsingAddressing to component model) Owner: Hugo, AI remains pending
hugo:Will be complete before the next meeting
bob: My AI to respond to originator of lc117 was completed
marc:Responded to submitter and incorporated comments; complete and checked in
RESOLUTION: lc118 accepted as submitted
dhull: Describes the bullets in the issues (link posted above)
bob: Any objections to bullet one?
... Hearing none, bullet one is accepted as submitted
RESOLUTION: lc119 bullet one accepted as submitted
<bob> Bullet 2:
<bob> Section 3.2.1 defines the {anonymous required} WSDL property that
<bob> reflects the value of the wsaw:Anonymous element. This may have
<bob> one of the three values "optional", "required" or "prohibited".
<bob> The name {anonymous required} (unlike wsaw:Anonymous) strongly
<bob> suggests a boolean, and having "prohibited" as a value for
<bob> {anonymous required} seems confusing. Either calling it
<bob> {anonymous} in line with wsa:Anonymous or something like
bob: Could we come up with something specific instead of (a) or (b) Choices
<bob> {anonymous EPR constraint} might be less potentially confusing.
<Jonathan> {anonymous addresses}?
bob: Why not use {anonymous addresses} in response to bullet 2
... Hearing no objections {anonymous addresses} will be the response to bullet 2
RESOLUTION: lc119 bullet two: {anonymous addresses} will be used as the response
Bullet 3:
The first paragraph of section 4.2.1 refers to the [action]
property of messages and says that if no value is given it reverts
to the SOAPAction if any. This isn't referring to the actual
[action] property of the message in question -- putting something
in a WSDL doesn't automatically cause messages to contain that
property. Instead it's talking about what the endpoint is saying
it will accept and produce for the [action] property.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure how the wording can be improved (but I
would take an action to come up with a better wording if need be)
RESOLUTION: lc119 Bullet 3: Close with no action
Bullet 4:
RESOLUTION: lc119 bullet 4 is withdrawn by submitter
Bullet 5:
Nit: In section 5, we talk about properties being "mandatory" or
"optional". "Required" might be better than "mandatory", since
things like RFC 2119 use "required"/"optional" and not
"mandatory"/"optional". On the other hand, WSN ended up changing
a few instances of "optional" in the case of "optional elements"
because we didn't think it really matched the RFC 2119 sense. I
believe we settled on "can be omitted". The main issue is whether
we specifically want use RFC 2119 terms here, specifically don't
want to use them, or don't care.
RESOLUTION: lc119 bullet 5: Strike the words "or optional" where it appears in Section 5
When: May 3-4
<anish> do we need 2 hr weekly calls?
Wrapping up...
ACTION: Editors to do RFC 2119 scan of the wsdl document by next meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/20-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
End of Meeting Adjourned at 4:40