Minutes, meeting of 2006-08-14

  <http://www.w3.org/> 


Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference
14 Aug 2006


Agenda
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0062.h
tml> 

See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2006/08/14-ws-addr-irc> 


Attendees


Present 

Glen Daniels (Sonic Software) 

Paul Downey (BT) 

Robert Freund (Hitachi, Ltd.) 

Arun Gupta (Sun Microsystems, Inc.) 

Marc Hadley (Sun Microsystems, Inc.) 

David Hull (TIBCO Software, Inc.) 

Yin-Leng Husband (HP) 

David Illsley (IBM Corporation) 

Anish Karmarkar (Oracle Corporation) 

Paul Knight (Nortel Networks) 

Philippe Le Hegaret (W3C) 

Mark Little (JBoss Inc.) 

Jonathan Marsh (Microsoft Corporation) 

Gilbert Pilz (BEA Systems, Inc.) 

Tony Rogers (Computer Associates) 

Katy Warr (IBM Corporation) 

Prasad Yendluri (webMethods, Inc.) 

Guests 

Doug Davis (IBM Corporation) 

Alastair Green (Choreology) 

Absent 

Abbie Barbir (Nortel Networks) 

Andreas Bjarlestam (ERICSSON) 

Dave Chappell (Sonic Software) 

Francisco Curbera (IBM Corporation) 

Vikas Deolaliker (Sonoa Systems, Inc.) 

Jacques Durand (Fujitsu Limited) 

Marc Goodner (Microsoft Corporation) 

Hugo Haas (W3C) 

Amelia Lewis (TIBCO Software, Inc.) 

Bozhong Lin (IONA Technologies, Inc.) 

Jeganathan Markandu (Nortel Networks) 

Jeff Mischkinsky (Oracle Corporation) 

Nilo Mitra (ERICSSON) 

Eisaku Nishiyama (Hitachi, Ltd.) 

David Orchard (BEA Systems, Inc.) 

Alain Regnier (Ricoh Company Ltd.) 

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu Limited) 

Davanum Srinivas (WSO2) 

Pete Wenzel (Sun Microsystems, Inc.) 

Regrets 

Chair 

Bob Freund 

Scribe 

Yin-Leng Husband 


Contents


*         Topics
<file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\freund\My%20Documents\workspace\a
ddr\6\08\14-ws-addr-minutes.html#agenda#agenda>  

1.      Call for correction to the minutes of the 2006-08-07 meeting
<file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\freund\My%20Documents\workspace\a
ddr\6\08\14-ws-addr-minutes.html#item00#item00>  

2.      cr33
<file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\freund\My%20Documents\workspace\a
ddr\6\08\14-ws-addr-minutes.html#item01#item01>  

3.      cr32
<file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\freund\My%20Documents\workspace\a
ddr\6\08\14-ws-addr-minutes.html#item01#item01>  

*         Summary of Action Items
<file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\freund\My%20Documents\workspace\a
ddr\6\08\14-ws-addr-minutes.html#ActionSummary#ActionSummary>  

________________________________

Call for corrections to minutes of 2006-08-07 meeting

Minutes accepted without objection.

Because of invitation to Dug, his issue will be the first item of
business

cr33

Dug: Described the problem presented in CR33
... Hopes WSDL spec will soften wording to allow change of wording of
use of anon URI from MUST to SHOULD
... Considered using a ref param, but seems inappropriate for this use.

Jonathan: You have to know out of band whether a URI is needed or not

Dug: You need to know whether RM supports anon URI.

Jonathan: RM assertion would have to extend the addressing layer

<anish> RM anon URL is not 'anonymous', there is an embeded identity in
it

<anish> so, can't use the ws-addr anon uri

<Jonathan> exactly. It's a identifiable anonymous.

<Jonathan> A named anonymous, if you will.

<Jonathan> An oxymoron.

<anish> the other issue with using refps is that, what happens when
there are more than one refps in the EPR

<anish> which makes use of refps for this purpose very tricky

<Jonathan> Why would you have more than one?

<anish> well, the user could be using refps for other purposes (outside
of polling)

<anish> i.e., interaction of polling refp with other refps

<anish> anonymous name is an oxymoron, has to do with its history

<anish> it no longer means "anonymous", it means backchannel

<anish> afaiui

Jonathan: The question comes down to exactly what anonymous means?
... it is context dependent

<pauld> thinks if we were earlier in the process, I'd suggest an
"anonymous=true" attribute. but given we're a rec ..

<anish> i should note that it is context-dependent, but the context is
defined by the binding not the MEP

Jonathan: In the spec, it is one to one mapping to anon URI. With RM it
is no long one to one mapping of concept to the anon URI.
... Anish has another type of anon URI use.

Tony: Let's not make things sloppy, we should separate the concept of
replying on the back channel, instead of changing it to SHOULD - that
will weaken the spec

<mlittle> +1

<anish> how about replacing wsaw:Anonymous with wsaw:Backchannel ?

<Dug> I like the idea of anon=true attribute on the wsa:Address element

<Dug> then it can be any URI - which would make sync and async much more
alike :-)

<Dug> no, in the EPR itself

<Dug> I think that's what PaulD was suggesting, but I'm just guessing.

Gil: Idea of anon attribute on the address element seems to solve the
problem.

<Dug> +1 Gil

<TonyR> +1

GilP: Problem is we are rather late in how we define the anonymous

GlenD: What is the point of the wsa:address markup?
... We are already using some contextual understanding of the URI, so is
it really a problem?

<Zakim> Jonathan, you wanted to propose the nuclear option

Jonathan: The more we make the marker open-ended, the anon marker will
lose its value.

<Dug> killing the marker works too :-)

<Jonathan> +1 to Marc!

<bob> +2 to Marc

<Jonathan> but, RM isn't a REc yet ;-)

<pauld> we've shipped!

MarcH: This is already a RC, which should be stable

Anish: Agree with Jono that it is an oxymoron, but should not let that
prevent us from moving forward.

Tony: Suggest RM is changed rather than changing a spec that has gone to
RC.

<GlenD> IIRC, the reason we originally said "you can have other anon
uris" was also for RM, but that was about the idea that RM endpoints
might actually send you a message that IS NOT the response to your
request down the HTTP response, even though you are doing a req/resp...

Dhull: We are getting further away from the HTTP concept of anon.

<GlenD> but I think since then we backed off a little on saying
"anonymous URI == specifically the response of a SOAP req/resp"

Dhull: Valid concern that WSA is already in RC, should look at how much
room there is for change before seeing what to do

MarcH: If I am unaware of the RM spec, how do I know the meaning of the
anon URI to be used?

<David_Illsley> yes, CORE 3.2.1

<marc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-core-20060509/#compiri

Jonathan: not heard any solution that I am completely comfortable with
... What about talking about the endpoint instead. Turn it the other way
round

<anish> i.e, wsaw:NewConnection={prohibited|required|optional} ?

<GlenD> yah, just have to get the specese right

Dug: Not sure this will solve the problem.

Jonathan: is it possible to solve this in conjunction with the policy
document?

<Dug> bob - if I'm allowed (not being a WSA member) I can work on some
text with Anish

Alistair: Have we established that they are completely orthogonal?

Jonathan: We have established that the two specs don't allow the use of
the RM URI in the use of our markup WSDL

<scribe> ACTION: Dug and Anish to go away and work on a text by
thurs/fri. [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/08/14-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]

<Dug> yup

Bob: invites Dug back to next Monday's call
... Action item review
... Still looking for testers

Bob: Arun not present at the moment, but the updated table is posted.

Bob: CR27 Philippe's action- pending, due Wednesday 
... CR30 Tony's action- pending, due Wednesday 

<marc> Updated table: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/att-005
0/anonymous-semantics.htm__charset_WINDOWS-1252

Bob:Per the minutes of the last meeting it is our intention to include
table in the spec.

Anish: Want to point to another issue that might change the content of
this table.
... Also there is an issue with rule 4

Philippe: Is this related to CR32?

Gil: If Anish thinks 4 E is incorrect, is 8 D also incorrect?

Jonathan: Will this also affect 9, 10 , 11, 12?

Anish: Need to decide on None/Anon mismatch

<h3 id="item03">cr32</h3>

<GlenD> +1 to Tony

<anish> may i suggest that we resolve the other issue first, it might
make this much clearer

<agupta> got pulled over, now back

<GlenD> gotta run....

Discussion on Anish's and Tony's differing viewpoints

Tony: there are two issues

Anish: Do we need to say None URI is prohibited in response?

Tony: Don't think so

Resolution: Folks agree that none is acceptable for use when
anon=required or anon=prohibited. This will close cr32.

<scribe> ACTION: Tony is to propose modifications to the table on
discussions of sending notifications to the backchannel when wsa headers
are invalid [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/08/14-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]

<David_Illsley> gpilz, I can agree that there might be those situations
but I think thery're edge cases and predictability is more valuable

<Jonathan> I don't want to force lazy evaluation, but I'm interested in
enabling it.

<dhull> do we have an issue for this?

<gpilz> Jonathan, it's a little like being "slightly pregnant"

<anish> i'm begining to think that this (lazy eval as a MAY) is a good
idea

<bob> I didn't think that it was our intention to be prescriptive about
the sequence of error detection. Validate before use or validate at the
point of use should both be acceptable.

<bob> yinleng, thanks for scribing


Summary of Action Items


[NEW] ACTION: Dug and Anish to go away and work on a text by Wednesday.
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/14-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: TonyR to propose mods to table to reflect discussion of
resp on backchannel when wsa headers are invalid [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/08/14-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]
 
[End of minutes]

________________________________

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm>  version
1.127 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/> )
$Date: 2006/08/14 22:01:29 $