W3C

Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference

10 Oct 2005

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Abbie Barbir (Nortel Networks)
Rebecca Bergersen (IONA Technologies, Inc.)
Vikas Deolaliker (Sonoa Systems, Inc.)
Paul Downey (BT)
Michael Eder (Nokia)
Robert Freund (Hitachi, Ltd.)
Arun Gupta (Sun Microsystems, Inc.)
Hugo Haas (W3C)
Marc Hadley (Sun Microsystems, Inc.)
David Hull (TIBCO Software, Inc.)
Yin-Leng Husband (HP)
Anish Karmarkar (Oracle Corporation)
Mark Little (Arjuna Technologies Ltd.)
Jonathan Marsh (Microsoft Corporation)
Nilo Mitra (ERICSSON)
Mark Peel (Novell, Inc.)
Gilbert Pilz (BEA Systems, Inc.)
Tony Rogers (Computer Associates)
Tom Rutt (Fujitsu Limited)
Katy Warr (IBM Corporation)
Steve Winkler (SAP AG)
Ümit Yalçınalp (SAP AG)
Prasad Yendluri (webMethods, Inc.)
Absent
Andreas Bjärlestam (ERICSSON)
Ugo Corda (SeeBeyond Technology Corporation)
Dave Chappell (Sonic Software)
Glen Daniels (Sonic Software)
Jacques Durand (Fujitsu Limited)
Marc Goodner (Microsoft Corporation)
David Illsley (IBM Corporation)
Amelia Lewis (TIBCO Software, Inc.)
Paul Knight (Nortel Networks)
Philippe Le Hégaret (W3C)
Jeff Mischkinsky (Oracle Corporation)
Eisaku Nishiyama (Hitachi, Ltd.)
Ales Novy (Systinet Inc.)
David Orchard (BEA Systems, Inc.)
Rich Salz (DataPower Technology, Inc.)
Jiri Tejkl (Systinet Inc.)
Steve Vinoski (IONA Technologies, Inc.)
Pete Wenzel (SeeBeyond Technology Corporation)
Regrets
Francisco Curbera (IBM Corporation)
Mike Vernal (Microsoft Corporation)
Chair
Mark Nottingham
Scribe
Hugo Haas

Contents


<mnot> Scribe: Hugo Haas

Agenda review, AOB

Jonathan: I sent a new proposal for i064

Mark: we'll take this up in this call

Jonathan: I sent a couple of issues that are not on the issues list

Mark: one is on the issues list, and the other one was a typo and it was dispatched to Marc

Call for corrections to the minutes

Umit: I would like more time to review the minutes

Mark: we'll approve them next week then

Review action items

<scribe> ACTION: Marc Hadley to incorporate namespace policy into drafts and RDDL. [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Arun Gupta to iterate his testing document to categorize and reformat. Due 2005-10-10. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]

<scribe> ACTION: Editors to ensure we meet our charter with regard to backward compatibility warnings for WSDL 1.1, aligning it with the direction we took for SOAP 1.1 [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Jonathan Marsh to formulate a proposal for a migration guide. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action04]

WSDL Responses

<mnot> http://www.w3.org/mid/37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E849E1BD@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com

<mnot> http://www.w3.org/mid/37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E849E1E7@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com

Mark: it seems that the Group is happy with our comments

<mnot> http://www.w3.org/mid/37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E849E230@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com

<abbie> hi, can u please add me for the roll call

Jonathan: no, there was no pushback

Hugo: what's the status of our discussion about wsoap:action granularity?

Jonathan: we haven't made a decision yet

Hugo: in case we don't adopt this proposal, we should make this WG aware of it

Proposed: When, if ever, MUST action be used for dispatch?

http://www.w3.org/mid/433D6C7E.2070002@tibco.com

[ DaveH goes over his proposed issue ]

Hugo: I thought we had agreed not to talk about dispatching in the spec

DaveH: in that case, we should maybe be a little more explicit
... I find this sentence in our spec very vague
... I'm happy with not getting into dispatching in the core, but the SOAP bining may be different in that regards
... we're not really taking on dispatching, but we're implying we are

Paul: it seems to me that you're talking about what WSDL does with the message

DaveH: my assumption about the outbound side is that the value of action will be used in outgoing messages

Paul: I don't think we should consider SOAP+WSDL as a big lump when it comes to action

DaveH: we say action is mandatory, but we don't say what it means

<inserted> ... how about its meaning, uniqueness, etc.

Hugo: action identifies the semantics of the message, and it is possible to have identical actions for multiple messages in the same operation if they have the same meaning

Mark: do people want to see this on our issues list?

Jonathan: it doesn't seem to harm

<uyalcina> +1 to Marc Hadley

Marc: I'd like to understand how the current draft is broken

DaveH: nowhere in this spec do we ever define what dispatching off of action means

Marc: I don't think we should go there

<pauld> WSDL position on dispatching is a rather unhappy compromise resulting from a lot of discussion and a minority opinion or two

Mark: we talked about raising the bar for accepting as issue

<RebeccaB> +1 to Marc's position that we don't need to go there

Mark: I would like to have issues seconded by somebody
... does somebody want to second this issue?

Umit: given the history in WSDL, I don't think we should talk about this issue

RESOLUTION: proposed issue not accepted in the issues list

UsingAddressing with other bindings than our SOAP binding.

<mnot> http://www.w3.org/mid/37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E831ED79@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com

[ Jonathan describes the issue ]

<mnot> Minutes of i021 decision: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/04/20-ws-addr-minutes.html#item05

Mark: my concern is that we may be reopening a previous issue (i021)
... it's not clear that an explicit decision was made at the time

Hugo: I thought we considered wsoap:module, but ended up with UsingAddressing because we wanted to go beyond SOAP
... is that what we want to reconsider?

Mark: my recollection is that we wanted to have a cross-WSDL versions mechanism

Marc: I think the minutes are pretty clear about defining UsingAddressing beyond SOAP

Jonathan: so how would you use it beyond SOAP?

Rebecca: how about if you use multiple bindings, e.g. multiple ports with different bindings?

Marc: does that mean that you want to highlight the use Addressing for our SOAP binding regardless of the underlying protocol?

Jonathan: yes

Marc: I think that we have some mentions of SOAPAction that may be HTTP specific

Jonathan: I'm assuming that it's only applying to cases when SOAPAction makes sense
... if we leave it the way it is, it's not clear with WS-A binding is in use

Mark: is that a lie down on the road issue for you?

Jonathan: no, it's a spec consistency issue

<uyalcina> it is implicit in the context

Hugo: have you considered using having a marker for specifying what exact binding is in use?

Jonathan: no, I think that you can do that in WSDL in already, so we don't need to architect an extensibility point here

<marc> the location of UsingAddressing extension in the WSDL gives the necessary context to determine th ebinding in use

Mark: anyone seconding this issue?

[ silence ]

RESOLUTION: proposed issue not accepted in the issues list

Propose: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict?

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/0027.html

<mnot> http://www.w3.org/mid/OF6F7462C5.C2E3A435-ON80257090.006FAE6C-80257090.00715FDC@uk.ibm.com

Marc: I'd like to think about it more
... it looks like a backwards compatibility feature
... but it may complicate the defaulting rules

<uyalcina> I prefer getting this into the issues list

Anish: I think we can put it on the issues list

<uyalcina> lets discuss next week

Anish: I am seconding it

RESOLUTION: Issue added to the issues list

Migration of @Action from WS-A 200408 to WS-A 1.0 [i064]

<scribe> New proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/0028.html

Mark: are people comfortable with this new text or do they want more time?

Anish, Hugo: we're OK

Marc: what's the point of the last paragraph?

Jonathan: letting people know that they may want to go and fix their action values

Marc: I'm OK to aprove it now

Mark: any objection to this proposal?

[ silence ]

RESOLUTION: i064 closed and resolved as proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/0028.html

cr6 - wsa:InvalidAddress: redundancy and wsa:ProblemIRI error

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2005Sep/0004

[ Hugo summarizes where we're at ]

<Marsh> +1 if it'sn not substantial

Mark: we wanted to make sure the proposal wasn't a substantial change

Tony: I agree it isn't

RESOLUTION: cr6 closed and resolved with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2005Sep/0004

[ nobody objected to this resolution ]

cr8 - SOAPAction

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2005Oct/0000

Anish: if we have quotes in an HTTP header, are the quotes significant?

Mark: it's specified per header

Marc: I'd like to go and check the media type definition

<scribe> ACTION: Marc to come up with a proposal for cr8 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action05]

CR Testing

<mnot> http://www.w3.org/mid/434703A4.6070401@sun.com

CR test cases: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/att-0018/CR_TestCases.html

[ Arun introduces the document ]

<inserted> -- Core 1. "none" URI (2.1) - REQUIRED

DaveH: I don't think that test 1 is a valid test as it's not tied to a requirement

Paul: I think that a "none" URI identifies a one-way message

DaveH: the "none" sort of turns a req-resp into a one-way

<mnot> "Messages sent to EPRs whose [address] is this value MUST be discarded (i.e. not sent). This URI is typically used in EPRs that designate a reply or fault endpoint (see section 3.1 Abstract Property Definitions) to indicate that no reply or fault message should be sent."

Marc: could we have an endpoint which always generates faults, except when the recipient is the "none" URI?

DaveH: that's a way indeed

Mark: we could have an HTTP transport response, without a SOAP response
... we need to work with keeping in mind that we need to demonstrate features using these tests

Marc: the way I saw this is that you'd better use "none" in a one-way message becouse of the defaulting rule

Arun: so we're not going to do the the 1&2 sub-bullets as specified; we're going to use a request-response with a "none" URI which will degenerate into a one-way

-- Core 2. Endpoint Reference Infoset Representation (2.2) - REQUIRED

Mark: this seems to be a behovioral text of a reply

Arun: we can add more tests about how a FaultTo gets represented

Katy: is this text just to test the serialization of an EPR?

Mark: yes

DaveH: how do you get out the abstract properties from these?

Mark: it's implementation specific

Arun: I'll add some information about success criteria

Mark: we talked about using XPath for this

-- Core 3. Endpoint Reference Extensibility (2.5) - REQUIRED

<pauld> i can build test cases from these, and build XPath expressions to compare, however some complete example messages would be useful

Anish: if the test doesn't define what these extensions mean, how do we know if the receiving end saw them?
... for SOAP 1.2, we had defined a header whose function was to be echo'ed back

Mark: could you make some proposals around this?

<scribe> ACTION: Anish to propose meaningful EPR extensions for test 3. Endpoint Reference Extensibility (2.5) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action06]

Katy: it's not clear what we're testing here: the sending agent or the receiving one?

DaveH: I don't think that we could test the client side

Mark: I think that these differences will become more clear when we put those tests into Paul's framework

-- Core 4. XML Infoset Representation of Message Addressing Properties (3.2)

Arun: 2.1. may apply here

-- Core 5. wsa:To defaulting (3.2)

[ no comments ]

-- Core 6. wsa:ReplyTo defaulting (3.2)

DaveH: in that case, you don't need to talk about the client at all, it's a server test

-- Core 9. Formulating a normal Reply (3.3)

Arun: More tests can be added here

-- Core 5. wsa:To defaulting (3.2)

[ Going back as requested by Umit ]

Umit: you're talking about the reply message here, right?

Arun: that's correct

-- Core 10. Formulating a Fault Reply (3.3)

Katy: do we need the isRefParam="true" in the EPR?
... there's a typo in sub-bullet 1

Arun: thank you

-- SOAP 1. SOAP 1.2 Feature interaction with Action (2.4)

[ No comments ]

-- SOAP 3. SOAP 1.2 Anonymous Address (3.5)

[ No comments ]

-- SOAP 5. SOAP 1.1 interaction with Action (4.2)

[ No comments ]

-- SOAP 6. SOAP 1.1 Anonymous Address (3.5)

[ No comments ]

-- SOAP 8. InvalidAddressingFailure Fault (5, 3.2)

[ No comments ]

Mark: I think that the next step is for Arun and Paul to integrate those in Paul's framework

Paul: we will need messages for inclusion in the framework

Mark: I'd like us to identify which features are not tested by those tests

<scribe> ACTION: Paul to take Arun's work and integrate it in his framework with Arun's help by 2005-10-17 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action07]

Paul: do you think that we have good coverage with those base on the list we discussed in Palo Alto 2 weeks ago?

Mark: have you guys changed the spec so that we have a section called creating a message from an EPR?

Tony: not yet, but soon

Mark: we will be considering Paul's document in the coming weeks to make user we understand it and we have enough tests to test implementation in CR
... we have 3 concalls between now and Tokyo
... we're going to continue revising the test doc
... does that seem reasonable?

[ silence ]

ADJOURNED

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Anish to propose meaningful EPR extensions for test 3. Endpoint Reference Extensibility (2.5) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Marc to come up with a proposal for cr8 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Paul to take Arun's work and integrate it in his framework with Arun's help by 2005-10-17 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action07]
 
[PENDING] ACTION: Editors to ensure we meet our charter with regard to backward compatibility warnings for WSDL 1.1, aligning it with the direction we took for SOAP 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]
[PENDING] ACTION: Marc Hadley to incorporate namespace policy into drafts and RDDL. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
 
[DONE] ACTION: Arun Gupta to iterate his testing document to categorize and reformat. Due 2005-10-10. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]
[DONE] ACTION: Jonathan Marsh to formulate a proposal for a migration guide. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/10-ws-addr-minutes.html#action04]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/10/10 21:52:34 $