Web Services Addressing WG Teleconference

<scribe> scribe: plh

<scribe> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Jan/0048.html

<scribe> Chair: Bob Freund

[agenda review]

previous minutes

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Jan/att-0046/22-ws-addressing-minutes.html previous minutes

Katy: minutes are slightly wrong with examples
... also an action item came out of that

Tony: the action item I got was related to the discussion on optional rather than examples.

Bob: we didn't reach a conclusion on the examples
... is this an after last call issue?

Katy: yes

<scribe> ACTION: Katy to provide the description of the examples that she would like to see included [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/29-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]

Bob: objections to accept the minutes as posted?

Resolved: minutes accepted

<bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Jan/0049.html

proposal for use of policy

[Tony explains the changes he is proposing]

Tom: I'm happy with the new wording
... the text doesn't say anything of not supporting

Tony: the absence of the policy assertions doesn't mean you don't support it

Paco: I like the text but worried about "alternatives". would prefer "in other words"

Tony: "In other words, the endpoint guarantees support"

Resolved: In other words, the endpoint guarantees support for anonymous responses.

<Zakim> anish, you wanted to ask whether it is enuf to say 'endpoint' or we need 'endpoint+binding'

Tony: by endpoint, I meant the service, the server, etc. Not talking about the endpoint in the WSDL sense

Anish: endpoint and/or binding ?

Tony: I'm talking about the thing that the WSDL represents

Anish: service?

David: WSDL is a collection of endpoints...

Anish: it's editorial.

[no changes]

Tony: 3.1.4 issues: talking about anonymous and non-anonymous responses. the reason we have this is for the client to find the service that suits it.

[Tony reads his proposal]

Tom: Tony's assertions seem all correct to me. I now see this as a feasible use case.
... gave an other example with ignorable
... it is ignorable only to the intersection algorithm
... I want an example with the use of the ignorable attribute
... maybe the use case could be mixed with the use of optional

Bob: objections to the second part of the proposal, understanding that Tom can raise an issue during LC?

Tom: I provide an example already that could be included

Tony: sounds fine to me

<bob> Tom's proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Jan/0050.html

[Tom explains his new example]

Tony: I'll put the example in.
... using lax

Bob: objections to put those in?

Tony: I'll put these things in 3.1.4
... can anyone speak about the ws policy attachment options?

Tom: that's regarding attaching policy to endpoint references
... it's up to us to do it if we want to

MarcG: that's the issue the policy group closed with no actions

Tony: I could take the editorial note out

<scribe> ACTION: Tony to take out the editorial note on policy attachment out [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/29-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]

Bob: URLs need fixes in editor drafts

<scribe> ACTION: Philippe to look into editor's version of latest version link [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/29-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]

Bob: so we have Tony part A and B, + Tom additional example, are we willing to allow Tony to proceed and take the new draft to LC?

Resolved: the document as edited by Tony with new changes should be raised to LC

Bob: we'll move to LC asap

XMLP request for one-way MEP

<bob> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-soap12-part3-20061219/

Bob: got a request from XMLP to review their draft on one way MEP
... no particular deadline. No intention of taking this Note to REC.
... but the Chair of XMLP would like us to look over it

David: we have a review deadline of February something but no particular urgency
... follow-up from our task force that it would be nice to have a one way MEP
... big editorial note in there about multicast. the MEP is currently allowing multicast but doesn't require it.
... the idea behind it in a truly one way situation, you don't know what happen to a message. could be sent to more than one person, etc.
... some pushback on how it fits with the soap model.
... we resolved the issues
... anyway, we're going back to the WSDL and WS-A groups with the proposal

Bob: will collect comments at our next meeting
... given the timing of LC, will be changing for a slower heartbeat

Tony: will check in tonight for a new draft

Philippe & Bob will take over after that

Bob: last call minimal duration is 3 weeks
... February 23 would be 3 weeks from this Friday
... I'd like to propose that we move to every other week phone schedule.

next meeting

Bob: Next meeting would be February 12, then 26, hopefully for less than 2 hours
... I'll look at the one way MEP document.

[meeting adjourned]