W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > January 2010

Agenda, WS-RA 2010-01-12

From: Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:53:02 -0500
Message-Id: <5CB8D7C0-A3A5-4EC4-9049-F9592EA97B2B@hitachisoftware.com>
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
distributed meeting:

Dial-in and IRC according to usual practice[5]

Topic: Opening
Roll
Assignment of scribe[1]
Approval of this Agenda
Approval of minutes 2009-12-15[2] 
Approval of minutes 2010-01-05[6] 

Topic: Action Items[4]

N.B. Key:
a number preceding the issue indicates a suggested order of discussion
Items marked "X" in the chair's opinion need seasoning or at least a proposal
A and B are secret code markings LOL
E seem to the chair to be editorial
L in the opinion of the chair might be left for last call

Topic: New Issue Moratorium
The working group decided on 2009-11-05 to impose a new issue moratorium effective end of business on 2009-11-13

Topic: Issues with proposals

MEX:
4-Issue-6463 MEX-Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6463 -Warr
5-Issue-7728 MEX: Attaching Policy to Indicate MEX/MEX Features Supported http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7728 -Malhotra
X-Issue-8031 WS-Mex: Distinguishing the 'main' metadata http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8031-Warr (7986)
6BX-Issue-8205 MEX: can mex appear more than once in an EPR http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8205 -Davis
X-Issue-8289 MEX: misuse of RFC2119 terms http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8289 -Pilz
L-Issue-8290 MEX: "Requirements" section confusing and unnecessary http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8290 -Pilz
*E-Issue-8292 MEX: redundant discussions of WS-T/GetMetadata duality http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8292 -Pilz
1AL-Issue-8293 MEX: fuzzy definition of a "metadata resource" http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8293 -Pilz
-Issue-8294 MEX: editorial: description of @Identifier too verbose http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8294 -Pilz
2A-Issue-8295 MEX: Dialect IRI's versus "selector IRI's http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8295 -Pilz
3A-Issue-8296 MEX: services can't know what metadata a consumer might need http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8296 -Pilz

Transfer:

Eventing:
X-Issue-6435 Eventing needs state table to fully describe protocol http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6435 -Pilz (LC)
X-Issue-7986 Eventing: supported notification policy http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7986 -Davis (8031)
X-Issue-8068 Eventing: Create ED Doc http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8068 -Davis
7A-Issue-8164 Eventing: delivery of SubscriptionEnd to non-addressable endpoint http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8164 -Davis
8A-Issue-8176 Eventing: MAY vs MUST on UnkownSubscription fault http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8176 -Davis
-Issue-8180 Transfer: can a resource represenation be empty? http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8180 -Davis
X-Issue-8198 Eventing:  A mechanism to relate the portType(s) of an event source Web Service to the abstract description of theeventsitcanproducehttp://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8198-Nixon
-Issue-8271 Eventing: misuse of RFC2119 terms http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8271 -Pilz
9A-Issue-8275 Eventing: editorial: description of wse:Filter/@Dialect verbose and unclear http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8275 -Pilz
10A-Issue-8281 Eventing: RetryAfter extension semantics http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8281 -Pilz
XB-Issue-8283 Eventing: fault descriptions/semantics are inconsistent http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8283 -Pilz
-Issue-8286 Eventing: description of Subscription End ambiguous http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8286 -Pilz
-Issue-8288 Eventing: requirements on Notification Bindings for EventDescriptions too lax http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8288 -Pilz
-Issue-8298 Transfer: misuse of RFC2119 terms http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8298 -Pilz
X-Issue-8299 Transfer: possible ambiguity of extensions in PutResponse and CreateResponse http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8299 -Pilz
11AE-Issue-8300 Transfer: unnecessary descriptions of extension elements http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8300 -Pilz
X-Issue-8301 Transfer: generating the PutDenied fault http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8301 -Pilz
E-Issue-8302 Transfer: descriptions of PutResponse and CreateResponse contain unclear sections http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8302 -Pilz
AL-Issue-8303 Transfer: extensibility of wst:Create and wst:CreateResponse http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8303 -Pilz

Common:
X-Issue-7791 Consistent Policy applied to a set of resources http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7791 -Fremantle
XL-Issue-8273 : All: "Security Considerations" sections vague and misleading http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8273 -Pilz
12D-Issue-8284 All: references to WSDL 1.1 should be to BP-corrected version http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8284 -Pilz

Enumeration:
X-Issue-6436 WS-Enumeration needs state table to fully describe protocol http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6436 -Pilz (LC)
B-Issue-8157 Enum: apply 6595 to enum http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8157 -Davis
-Issue-8304 Enum: misuse of RFC2119 terms http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8304 -Pilz
E-Issue-8306 Enum: description of Pull contains unclear sections http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8306 -Pilz

Frag:
-Issue-7774 @mode in ws-frag is harmful http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7774 -Lafon
-Issue-8181 Frag: description of fragment put is confusing http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8181 -Pilz
-Issue-8182 Frag: unclear if/when result of a fragment Put is XSD validated http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8182 -Pilz
-Issue-8191 serialization of fragment Put input is underspecified http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8191 -Pilz
AB-Issue-8192 Fragment: when is InvalidFragment fault generated? http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8192 -Davis
X-Issue-8196 Frag: inheriting enveloping namespace prefixes is dangerous http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8196 -Pilz
-Issue-8229 Frag: XPath Level 1's treatment of unqualified element names is dangerous http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8229 -Pilz
L-Issue-8185 Frag: fragment Put @Mode="Insert" underspecified http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8185 -Pilz
L-Issue-8193 Fragment: Replace mode could be clearer http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8193 -Davis
L-Issue-8257 Frag:AttributeNode/@name description unclear http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8257 -Pilz
L-Issue-8258 Frag: limits to expression languages and the Put operation http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8258 -Pilz
===


[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/chair-tools/scribelist.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/9/12/2009-12-15.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/wiki/Main_Page
[4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/tracker/actions/open
[5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/admin.html
[6] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/10/01/2010-01-05.html
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:53:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:18:22 GMT