See also: IRC log
sribe: MSEder
<scribe> scribe: MSEder
<mnot> {When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" is specified as
<mnot> the address of an EPR, such as the ReplyTo or FaultTo EPR, the
<mnot> underlying SOAP protocol binding provides a channel to the specified
<mnot> endpoint. Any underlying protocol binding supporting the SOAP
<mnot> request-response message exchange pattern provides such a channel for
<mnot> response messages. For instance, the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding[SOAP 1.2 Part
<mnot> 2: Adjuncts] puts the reply message in the HTTP response.
<mnot> }
<mnot> Note that the only difference with what is recorded in the minutes (and
<mnot> reflected to the CR resolution) and what I remember is the clause (",
<mnot> such as ...") which appears editorial, but I thought I should bring this
<mnot> up. In my opinion, my recollection provides clearer text, but I want to
<mnot> check since I want to send it to the ws-rx tc.
<GlenD> +1
text posted to IRC as resolution
resolution: no objections to
Umits resolution from the face-to-face
... no objections to posting minutes from face-to-face with
Umits amendments.
... no objections to posting minutes from last week's
face-to-face
October 10, 2005
<Arun> brb
Marc has completed his action items
Umit will get to her items next week
Paul completed his action item
Anish has not been able to get to his action item
Katy will own the issue
<Arun> back
Katy: summarizes the issue
i065 - What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict?
i065 - What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict?
i065 - What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict?
discussion about changing the must to a should
a plus 1 from Glen's cat
a number of people speaking for the original solution as proposed by Katy
Glen: cleaner to keep WS-A action and soap action as the same thing
Anish: value of soap action in WSDL has to be URI?
Mark: wants to know if people are ready to close this issue
<scribe> ACTION: Katy to document the current proposals, and put them in an e-mail for next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/17-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
<marc> Need to consider which migration scenario is more important: WSDL without WS-Addr or WSDL with WS-Addr submission - that shoudl inform our discussion
resolution: Katy will document the current proposals in an e-mail for future discussion
resolution: wait for proposals
<marc> http://www.w3.org/mid/4B4D2001-302D-48CD-9FA4-C170E0891718@Sun.COM
Marc: summarizes issue
Mark: by nature restricted a soap 1.1
Marc: Yes
Anish: what does soap 1.2 say
Marc: issue restricted to SOAP 1.1
resolution: accept Marc's proposal for cr8
mark: no more open CR issues
<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/0055.html
Marsh: is there a CR issue about
what action should be used for general purpose soap
faults
... why are we not saying anything about soap faults
... proposal is to use our general URI
Marc: soap already has strict
definition about what is the fault
... does not see that we have to do this
<dhull> (I prefer "different from", "different to" just sounds British to me, "different than" bugs me, but it's not ungrammatical)
Marsh: maybe we need to talk more about faults
resolution: Marsh will post this issue to the CR list
Paul: summarizes issue
<pauld> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/0095.html
Paul: test suite with test cases being built up
<pauld> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/att-0095/CR_TestCases-fixed.html
Mark: how should we proceed on
this?
... maybe we need an extra call or people go back and look at
this
... identify soon who is planning to do testing
Glen: Apache is planning to
Katy: IBM is planning to
<marc> Arun: Sun is planning to
Microsoft and Sun
Mark: should we have a separate testers call?
Glen: General agreement