W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Rough Minutes, 2007-06-18 WS-Addressing Teleconference are attached

From: Rama Pulavarthi <Rama.Pulavarthi@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:37:25 -0700
To: Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com>
Cc: "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-id: <46819525.40106@sun.com>

Hi Bob,
I am stuck on task of collating the interop results. I don't have enough 
information on the scope of the work and the process involved.
I don't have information on accessing the cvs repository for our module.
It would be of great help, if some one familiar with the process can 
pitch in and help in that.

thanks,
Rama Pulavarthi



Bob Freund wrote:
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> W3C <http://www.w3.org/>
>
>
>   - DRAFT -
>
>
>   WS-Addressing WG Teleconference
>
>
>     18 Jun 2007
>
> Agenda 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Jun/0012.html>
>
> See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2007/06/18-ws-addr-irc>
>
>
>     Attendees
>
> Present
>     +329233aaaa, bob, David_Illsley, monica, Plh, David_Hull,
>     Tom_Rutt, Mark_Little, ram, TonyR, rama, jeffm, katy,
>     Anish_Karmarkar, Paul_Knight
> Regrets
> Chair
>     Bob Freund
> Scribe
>     Tom Rutt
>
>
>     Contents
>
>     * Topics <#agenda>
>          1. review of agenda <#item01>
>          2. 4 June minutes approval <#item02>
>          3. Monica New issue <#item03>
>          4. Cindy Mcnally new issue <#item04>
>          5. Monical New issue <#item05>
>          6. Test plans for 2.1 <#item06>
>     * Summary of Action Items <#ActionSummary>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <plh> Agenda: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Jun/0012.html
>
> <bob> scribe: Tom Rutt
>
> <bob> scribenick: Trutt__
>
> <bob> zakim: IPcaller is katy
>
>
>       review of agenda
>
> Bob issued refised agenda. No objections
>
>
>       4 June minutes approval
>
> Agreed to move Cindy McMally discussion earlier
>
> No objection to accept June 4 minutes
>
> Resolution: June 4 minutes accepted.
>
> <monica> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2007Jun/0002.html
>
>
>       Monica New issue
>
> <monica> change from: In order to indicate that the subject supports 
> WS-Addressing but does not require its use, an additional policy 
> alternative should be provided which does not contain this assertion. 
> This may be done in WS-Policy compact form by adding the attribute 
> |wsp:Optional="true"| to the |wsam:Addressing| assertion.
>
> <monica> change to: The optional assertion mechanism wsp:Optional, the 
> compact authoring style defined by WS-Policy Framework, is used to 
> specify that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require 
> its use for the |wsam:Addressing| assertion (See WS-Policy Framework 
> v1.5 [link]).
>
> Philipe: the existing text is preferable.
>
> Dave I: can we keep the first sentence, then add the ref to optional 
> in second sentence
>
> Monica: I think that is good suggestion
>
> Tom: I agree with Dave I, we need a sentence that states that an 
> alternative without can be provided, and that optional is one way to 
> do this.
>
> Agreed to table final resolution
>
>
>       Cindy Mcnally new issue
>
> Cindy McNally (cr41, lc141) 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/Overview.html#lc141
>
> <bob> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2007Jun/0006.html
>
> <plh> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/Overview.html#cr41
>
> <plh> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/Overview.html#lc141
>
> <plh> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2007Jun/att-0006/response.html
>
> Bob F: if we do not give acceptable disposition, this will turn up as 
> a new formal objection
>
> DAvid I: we have no tests for that
>
> Anish: If we make changes aloing lines of her suggestion do we have to 
> go back to last call? what are delays?
>
> Philipe: I do not think the namespace will change. We are touching 
> mapping behaviour. If we agree to make change, we should ask WSDL WG 
> would be happy with change. If cindy is happy we can suggest progression.
>
> Tony R: I do not think this is a major change
>
> Anish: If we would have recieved this earlier, we might have accepted it.
>
> Philipe: the original request was in December.
>
> Anish: the rationale and suggested resolution look good, and this is 
> only for wsdl 2.0. Impact will be quite low.
> ... If no delay we should accept
>
> Bob F: no negative, unless it impacts schedule.
>
> Philipe: I do not expect problems from wsdl working group.
>
> Bob F: I propose we tell her we accept her resolution, subject to wsdl 
> working group.
>
> Ram: this does not affect wsdl 1.1/
>
> Bob F: it only affects fault of wsdl 2
>
> <plh> 4.4.4 Default Action Pattern for WSDL 1.1
>
> <plh> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ws-addr-metadata-20070202/#defactionwsdl11
>
> Dave I: section 4.4 has a bug. in Wsdl 1.1 example
>
> <anish> CR with no formal objection would be a "Good Thing"
>
> Bob F: can we accept Cindy resolution and also inform wsdl 2.0 group 
> so it will not affect our timeline
>
> No objection to proposal
>
> <David_Illsley> [operation name] is the name of the operation 
> (/definition/portType/operation@name).
>
> RESOLUTION LC141 resolved by proposal from Cindy
>
> Philipe: Dave I proposal does not change pattern but it affects 
> description
>
> LC144 editorial comment to 4.4
>
> Resolution: Proposal from Dave I to resolve LC144
>
> Philipe 4.4.2 should be similar to 4.4.4
>
> <monica> In order to indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing 
> but does not require its use, the compact authoring style for an 
> optional policy assertion provided by WS-Policy v1.5 [link], is used. 
> The wsp:Optional attribute, as a syntactic shortcut, can be used with 
> the |wsam:Addressing| assertion. This indicates two policy 
> alternatives – one that contains the policy assertion and another 
> which does not.
>
>
>       Monical New issue
>
> Tom: I would prefer that we keep the first sentence. then add Monica text
> ... Keep the first sentence in the existing text, and change "is" to 
> "may be" in monica first sentence
>
> <monica> In order to indicate that the subject supports WS-Addressing 
> but does not require its use, an additiona policy alternative should 
> be provided which does not contain this policy assertion. To indicate 
> that the subject supports WS-Addressing but does not require its use, 
> the compact authoring style for an optional policy assertion provided 
> by WS-Policy v1.5 [link], may be used. The wsp:Optional attribute, as 
> a syntactic short, can be used with the |wsam:Addres
>
> <monica> c/additiona/additional
>
> +1 to Monical proposal
>
> <David_Illsley> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuitewsdl/testcases/
>
> No objection to accept Monica proposal to resolve LC143
>
> RESOLTION: LC143 resolved by Monica proposal above
>
> Bob F: 2.1 and 2.2 are marked at risc. We have test plan for 2..1 but 
> none for 2.2,
>
> Anish: we do not have to decide now about 2.2.
>
> Bob F: we know of no plans for 2.2, so it looks clear that 2.2 will 
> not make it.
>
>
>       Test plans for 2.1
>
> Dave I: 2.1 does not reqire explicit semantic processing, so all we 
> can test was proff that the processor can accept eprs with this xml.
>
> Dave I: extacting info form EPR is mandatory test, actual processing 
> to understand can be additional test.
>
> Bob F: what is state of implemetation of 2.1 processors
>
> Dave I: we can have 2 interop implementations in proper time.
>
> Bob F: how to present aggregate results of test plans etc.
>
> Dave I: I do not have tome to do this now
>
> Bob: can someone consolidate the earlier test results with the newer 
> results, archiving all tests for test suite for wsmd doc, as done for 
> core and binding specs.
>
> Rama: I can help to do this.
>
> Bob F: we need this before next call,
>
> Rama: not likely
>
> Dave I: we have time after next monday for completion od 2.1 testing, 
> so next week is not acceptable.
>
> Bob F: two weeks from today is more appropriate.
>
> Bob F: July 2 is the target.
>
> Bob F: is June 29 acceptable.
>
> Rama: yes
>
> <David_Illsley> Rama: I'm happy to consult on what was done 
> previously, I just don't have the time to do the collation at the moment
>
> Tom: can be not have a meeting next week.
>
> <Rama> that would be helpful
>
> Bob F: asuming no new news on 2.2, we will not have a meeting next 
> week. Only if we have something by thurs of this week, will we 
> schedule meeting for next week.
>
> Philipe: we can incorporate new text from Cindy directly into a PR>
>
> Bob F: Do we agree that July 2 is deadline for removal of at risk text?
>
> Jeff M: we should evaluate when time comes.
>
> Bob F: June 29 is the deadline for the implementaton to keep at risk 
> feature.
>
> Philipe: I see a reason for an additional step as new CR.
>
> Tony: where is monica proposal
>
> Tony R: I now see where it goes.
>
> Phillipe: how soon can we have new changes
>
> Tony: today
>
> Philipe: is everone acceptable to make that a new CR text?
>
> <bob> Are there any objectiond to plh's proposal?
>
> PHilipe: we could send new CR request to director with the new text. 
> The CR would still end on 29th. On July 2 we decide whether to move to PR.
>
> <bob> that is the proprosal
>
> Philipe: the draft for PR would be available on July 15.
>
> <bob> code is not valid
>
> <plh> Bob, try * 0 ?
>
> <bob> i am and am holding.
>
> <bob> I will try the ud number
>
> Ram: Why do we have to go thru extra CR step?
>
> Bob F: if we do not go thru CR, and folks to not agree to drop 2.2, we 
> would have less than two implementations.
>
> Ram: we can still have CR results on July 2?
>
> Bob F: yes we could still ask for PR on July 2.
>
> Agreed to produce CR by 21st.
>
> Next Call July 2.
>
> Meeting adjourned
>
> <bob> tom, thanks for scribing
>
>
>     Summary of Action Items
>
> [End of minutes]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl 
> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> 
> version 1.128 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
> $Date: 2007/06/18 21:08:55 $
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>     Scribe.perl diagnostic output
>
> [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
> This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128  of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13  
> Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/>
>
> Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
>
> Succeeded: s/simial/similar/
> Succeeded: s/133/143/
> Found Scribe: Tom Rutt
> Found ScribeNick: Trutt__
> Default Present: +329233aaaa, bob, David_Illsley, monica, Plh, David_Hull, Tom_Rutt, Mark_Little, ram, TonyR, rama, jeffm, katy, Anish_Karmarkar, Paul_Knight
> Present: +329233aaaa bob David_Illsley monica Plh David_Hull Tom_Rutt Mark_Little ram TonyR rama jeffm katy Anish_Karmarkar Paul_Knight
> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Jun/0012.html
> Got date from IRC log name: 18 Jun 2007
> Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/06/18-ws-addr-minutes.html
> People with action items: 
>
> WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
> You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
>
>
>   
> [End of scribe.perl 
> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> 
> diagnostic output]
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 22:38:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:19 GMT