See also: IRC log
RESOLUTION: approved
Bob:those examples were contained in email to ws-policy group
... and we have not heard back from then yet
Bob: WS-policy co-chairs hoping to get response back by end of next ws-policy call or two
<dhull> +1 on not going to LC until we hear back from WSP
<anish> waiting seems appropriate
Bob:Is group happy to wait until we have received response to ws-policy prior to going to LC?
RESOLUTION: Agreed, we will wait for wsp response prior to LC
<anish> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/Overview.html#lc136
DavidH: We already discussed what
kind of response endpoints are valid, would be nice to also say
'these sort of addresses are ok or not'
... we agreed not to design for this at the moment
... but I would like to be confident that we can extend to
cater for this at a later date
Anish: Is this something that one
could do via the extensibility point on the
anonymous/nonanonymous response assertions
... do we have this extensibility for this case, would
attribute extensibility be enough
DavidH: If we have nonAnonymous and someone could add 'mailTo only' that would be what we want
Tom: These elements were designed
for exactly this for the makeConnection protocol
... rather than extensibility elements, do an 'wsp:All'
composing wsaddressingNonAnon with makeConnection
<gpilz> +1 Tom
Tom: no need to use attribute and element extensibility - just have mailTo as its own highlevel assertion
DavidH: But makeConnection
composes if that's the only thing that I can do
... what if I know that from one source my server can cope with
http&mailTO and http&java - intersection should be
java
Tom: You can do this already with wsp vocab
DavidH: Not convinced that the intersection worked in this case
Gil: Most of DaveH's comments are critiques of wsp - should not be burden of this group to take on these issues
DaveO: Given wsp current status,
going to LC of the document anytime in next couple of weeks
would be premature
... very fundamental issues like absence is negation - tricky
stuff not goiing to be completed in next week or so
... may just be a case of proving that the composability with
makeconnection and intersection performs as required
... encouraging group to do the work at this stage to check
that the extensibility points can by used to do what wsa
required
Bob:At the very minimum prove that use case for CR 33 is solved
DaveO: should prove that the assertions do what we expected them to
Bob:+1 lots of work been done already on this but we should all critique and check we are happy with this
DavidH: From project management
point of view - we cannot do anything until wsp gets its story
straight
... I would like to be absolutely sure that the vocab allows to
define what addresses are allowed for future
Tom: Investigated these
intersections and they are difficult. I would like to
understand DavidH's concerns
... perhaps David and I could have private email exchange to
try to work through these issues without cc-ing the whole
group
Bob:Would be good to write up and share the results of this discussion with the group for us all to understand/critique
DavidH: happy to work with Tom on this
DaveO: ws-a is inherently dependent on wsp current issues. advocate holding on until wsp complete
DaveOthe addressing policy assertions seem simple, however it concerns me that ws addressing is having a dificult time meeting their requirements with ws policy. It concerns me that this has been so time consuming,
Bob:some of the ws policy terms are not used in the familiar manner, If the policy spec could be made less obscure it would help people use it.
DavidH: Question is what we could do now prior to wsp resolution
Bob:We can look into this issue and take assumption that alternative G is the right one
... and work on how
to resolve this issue with this assumption
... Agree with DavidH we should get this recorded somewhere
<David_Illsley> (aside) I believe our current schema prevents future parameters or nested assertions of the wsam:NonAnonymousResponses assertion
<anish> david, i'm begining to think the same thing
<scribe> ACTION: DavidH and Tom to work together to produce thought exercise on composability to cover LC 136 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/30-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
<anish> ... and i wonder if ws-policy framework is structured to encourage that
<Zakim> anish, you wanted to ask a question about assertion extensibility and negation to the policy experts
<scribe> ACTION: (cont) Target date middle of next week for meeting in fortnight [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/30-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]
Anish: Assuming that
absence=negation, does this mean that policy assertions are not
meant to be extensible,
... works with makeconnection maybe not others
Tom: there is distinction between
top level assertions and nested assertions
... because nested assertions are applied within a
context
... whereas top level ones are in global context
Bob:DavidH's issue remains open
Bob:Hopes for interop in May appear dashed
... would like an idea of who can participate on the future
Ram: Feel positive that MS could
participate but not committed plan
... do we have test scenarios that we can use for testing?
David: May be able to salvage
some of the work that we did last summer for this but haven't
had time to look over it in detail
... IBM still also abls to commit to some kind of interop when
spec returns to LC
Ram: In order to do an interop, the WG has to approve a set of test scenarios
Bob:Yes, we need to start looking at this now - need participation
Ram: Happy to be part of task
force
... would be useful to have some focus on future calls to
discuss this
Bob:We did have separate calls for testing before or we could just use the regular calls
<scribe> ACTION: David and Ram to refresh group on statud of test cases and what needs to be developed in 2 week's time [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/30-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]
Bob:I don't expect a meeting next Monday
Bob:AOB?
Bob:Assume that we will cancel next Monday but keep on calendar just in case
... we have published editors' draft of new spec, please take good look at it to check resolutions incorporated
<bob> Katy, thanks for scribing
np
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: katy Inferring ScribeNick: Katy WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Anish Anish_Karmarkar Bob_Freund DaveO Dave_Orchard David DavidH David_Hull David_Illsley Gil Gilbert_Pilz IPcaller Mark_Little Microsoft P0 P10 PaulKnight Paul_Knight Rama Sun TRutt__ Tom Tom_Rutt TonyR bob dhull dorchard gpilz joined katy m2 monica ram ws-addr You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Got date from IRC log name: 30 Apr 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/04/30-ws-addr-minutes.html People with action items: david davidh ram target tom[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]