Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-05-16

W3C Web Services Addressing Working Group - distributed meeting agenda
   Monday, 16 May
   20:00-22:00 UTC; 13:00-15:00 US/Pacific; 16:00-18:00 US/Eastern; 
21:00-23:00 UK/London; 22:00-24:00 FR/Paris; 6:00-8:00 (Tuesday) 
AU/Melbourne & AU/Brisbane
   Dial-in information on WG Admin page 
<http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/admin>

1. Roll call, select scribe
(see scribe list below)

2. Agenda review, AOB

3. Call for corrections to the minutes
   - 2005-05-09: 
<http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/05/09-ws-addr-minutes.html>

4. Review action items 
<http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/admin#actionitems>
     2005-04-19: lc5 - Glen Daniels to drive discussion.  PENDING
     2005-04-19: lc7 - David Orchard to respond to reviewer.  DONE
     2005-04-19: lc13 - David Orchard to respond to reviewer.  DONE
     2005-04-20: i017 - Anish Karmarkar to write a new proposal.  PENDING
     2005-05-02: i060 - Jonathan Marsh to start discussion.  PENDING
     2005-05-09: Martin Gudgin to fix RFC2987 reference (core and soap). 
  PENDING
     2005-05-09: Martin Gudgin to fix type in 3.1 pseudo-syntax, last 
line.  PENDING
     2005-05-09: lc6 - Jonathan Marsh to revise proposal.  PENDING
     2005-05-09: lc33 - Marc Hadley to respond to reviewer.  DONE
     2005-05-09: lc34 - Marc Hadley to respond to reviewer.  PENDING

5. Last Call Issues <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/>

* lc65 - use of IRIs in WS-Addressing

* lc66 - presentation of typing information in element descriptions

* lc74 - Another Security Consideration

* lc77 - MAPs in EPR reference params

* lc80 - Definitions of MAPs in core section 3 should  have their own 
subsection

* lc81 - Use of mustUnderstand=1 in example

* lc82 - "... the processor MUST fault" in section 3.2 is vacuous.

* lc92 - Editorial nit

* lc93 - Editorial nit regd Example 1-1 in Core

* lc94 - section 1.1 editorial nit

* lc95 - section 1.2 (references)

* lc96 - requirement of XML 1.0

* lc97 - inconsistent use of 'Endpoint Reference'  (ed nit)

* lc98 - Notational conventions not explained

* lc99 - section 2.1 -- what does 'each of the EPRs'  refer to

* lc100 - section 2.1 -- unclear wording regarding  conflicts between 
metadata

* lc106 - Editorial Comment

* lc107 - WS Description WG comments on WS-A


* lc37 - More Security Considerations

* lc38 - Feedback on xs:nonNegativeInteger
* lc73 - nonNegativeInteger or duration for RetryAfter

* lc39 - Question regarding cardinality of [destination]

* lc46 - Section 3.2

* lc50 - IRI for SOAP 1.2 Module and SOAP 1.1 Extension

* lc55 - ReplyTo and security

* lc56 - Binding fault [detail] in SOAP 1.1 envelope

* lc57 - Normative text for fault properties binding

* lc58 - Intermediary Processing

* lc60 - entire route in ws-addressing

* lc61 - Migration Contracts in Core

* lc62 - Migration Contracts in SOAP binding

* lc68 - no mustUnderstand extensibility

* lc69 - mandatory ReplyTo, handling replies in WS-Addressing

* lc70 - mandatory action

* lc71 - mandatory fault reason

* lc72 - content of fault detail

* lc75 - Uniqueness of [message id]
* lc88 - Uniqueness of [message id]

* lc76 - Supported faults

* lc78 - Multiple reply relationships

* lc79 - Rewriting by intermediaries

* lc83 - When is a fault/reply expected?

* lc84 - Message compliance

* lc85 - Processors unconstrained in the face of  non-compliant 
messages.

* lc86 - [message id] should be optional

* lc87 - Security model is insufficient

* lc89 - Comments on WS-A Core

* lc90 - Security implications of [message id] in  re-transmissions

* lc91 - Comments on WS-A SOAP Binding

* lc101 - How does one extend the abstract properties  of an endpoint 
reference

* lc102 - immutability of MAPs

* lc103 - what is a 'request' and what is a 'reply'?

* lc104 - XML infoset representation of EPR > Information  model

* lc105 - IRI escaping when constructing a reply


* lc5 - Utility of [source endpoint] property not  clear
   ACTION: 2005-04-19: Glen Daniels to drive discussion.  PENDING

* lc6 - Disambiguate the Conformance statements in WS-A SOAP Binding 
specification
* lc35 - Clarify conformance requirements
   ACTION: 2005-05-09: Jonathan Marsh to revise proposal.  PENDING

* lc20 - Clarify Anonymous URI and for the case of HTTP responses


6. Other Business

-----------------------------------------------------------
Scribe list

A participant from the Member at the top of the list is expected to 
scribe the meeting. If no participant from that Member is able to 
scribe, a participant from the the next Member on the list is expected 
to scribe, and so forth. After one participant from a Member scribes, 
that Member's name goes to the bottom of the list.

Systinet
Arjuna
HP
SAP
Sonic
ERICSSON
Nortel
Novell
Oracle
TIBCO
Hitachi
IBM
Datapower
Sun
webMethods
SeeBeyond
Fujitsu
IONA
Microsoft
BEA
W3C
CA
BT
Nokia

See <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/minutes.html> for more information 
about taking minutes.


--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems

Received on Sunday, 15 May 2005 19:12:26 UTC