IRC log of ws-cg on 2002-09-17
Timestamps are in UTC.
- [Marsh]
- Zakim, list conferences
- [Zakim]
- I see WS_WSCG()1:00PM, XML_CG()12:00PM
- [Marsh]
- Zakim, this is WS_WSCG
- [Zakim]
- ok, Marsh
- [Marsh]
- Zakim, who's here?
- [Zakim]
- On the phone I see M_Champion, Jonathan_Marsh, Fallside,
Hugo
- On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, em, mchampion, DavidF, Marsh,
hugo
- [em]
- em has changed the topic to: WS-CG 2002-09-17
teleconference
- [Marsh]
- Zakim, aaaa is Kelvin
- Marsh will scribe
- [em]
- zakim, ??P3 is DaveH
- zakim, who is here?
- [Zakim]
- On the phone I see M_Champion, Jonathan_Marsh, Fallside, Hugo
(muted), Kelvin, EricM, DaveH
- On IRC I see MSM, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, mchampion, DavidF,
Marsh, hugo
- [Marsh]
- David: Spend 20 minutes on OASIS/W3C
- [hugo]
- Agenda is at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-cg/2002Sep/0006.html
- [Marsh]
- David: Two questions:
- David: 1 Report on the Forum on Security Standards for Web
Services held last week in Boston. Are there any topics raised
there that indicate a need for coordination?
- David: 2 Topics arising from your ftf this week that would
benefit from liaison between your TC and the W3C Web Services
Activity, and mechanisms for addressing any such topics.
- David: 3 What coordination should/can we do?
- Kelvin: W3C-meeting: Good first step, lay of the land.
- Kelvin: Overview of the focus of each group
- Kelvin: Industry scenarios, especially reinforcing the need for
security.
- Kelvin: Didn't go down into intermediaries etc, which is the
next level.
- [DavidF]
- s/Kelvin:/Chris:/
- [Marsh]
- Chris: Timing is important - WS-Security can't take two
years...
- Chris: Rather than taking on new stuff, rationalize the stuff
we're working on now.
- Kelvin: Speed of getting these standards out is critical.
- David: Talk of coordination?
- Chris: Some talk about security assertion formats. Many pushing
to have just one of SAML, XrML, etc.
- Chris: While it's important to rationalize these, it's more
important to understand the taxonomy so that people can choose one,
understand how they relate.
- David: Paraphrase: If people understood the taxonomy of
security stanards, there might be less inclination to reinvent the
world.
- Chris: But there is always going to be something new - creators
need to rationalize how it relates to existing stuff. Helps
customers choose which standard to apply.
- Chris: There will never be just one (of about anything). Need
to accomodate this.
- Chris: It would be good to have a structure for new ideas, so
you know where the technology fits into. IETF requirement to
document relationships with other standards.
- David: Taxonomy the business of the WS Arch WG?
- Mike: Likes the idea that unity is not achievable, but
coherence is. E.g. what are the attributes of various assertion
languages.
- Mike: Puts the ball in our court; that's how we see our
role.
- Mike: People will come to us to figure how things work
together.
- Mike: Need to do a lot more talking and listening.
- DaveH: We become more of a recording secretary.
- DaveH: We can eliminate conflicts in terminology, for
instance.
- DaveH: W3C activities have precedence, but they need to be put
in the greater context.
- Mike: We thought security needed to be high priority. Some
people initially thought that W3C missed the boat, but most have
come around to see that one org can't do it all.
- Kelvin: Re: Boston - 80% was show and tell. Reasonable scope
for a second meeting that has tighter focussed.
- Kelvin: Might want coordination meetings as issues arise.
- David: Taxonomy idea - what role can WSA play in providing a
role?
- Chris: Key value add to coordinate and describe work, but there
will always be multiple sets of vocabularies, terms, etc.
- Kelvin: We listed groups and which we wanted to liase
with.
- Mike: WSA should be talking to the OASIS joint steering
committee?
- Kelvin: Or the OASIS TAG...
- Kelvin: What's the role of the OASIS JS?
- Chris: Keep security TCs coordinated - largely administrative
function.
- David: Sounds like the WSCG.
- Chris: Joint Security Steering Committee - JSSC. They don't
produce specs.
- Chris: Also provides perpetuity as TCs come and go.
- David: One concrete suggestion: another iteration of the Boston
meeting.
- Kelvin: Worthwhile exercise. Might need another down the road,
a level deeper. Probably not right away.
- Kelvin: We reference XML DSig and XEnc
- David: Do you have reps?
- Kelvin: We have a joint member.
- Hugo: Is Hao a joint member of WSS and WSA?
- Kelvin: yes.
- [hugo]
- s/Hoa/Hal Lockhart/
- [Marsh]
- Hal Lockhart
- [DavidF]
- DF observation - JSSC may be at same level as WS-CG
- [Marsh]
- Kelvin: TC minutes are public domain.
- David: Should we meet again?
- Kelvin: Yes, after the next FTF.
- Kelvin, after the 24th.
- David: Two weeks will work.
- David: Next call is on Oct 1st. We'll take it off line, try to
get them back then.
- [em]
- agenda?
- [Marsh]
- ACTION: Jonathan to invite Chris & Kelvin back on the
1st.
- Action item review:
- Hugo (or Dave) to follow-up on MEP document and most likely
open a WSAWG issue about it [PENDING]
- MC to inform XML CG that WS may have reqs re. processing and
call for reqs should include WS WGs [PENDING]
- [hugo]
- ACTION: Hugo (or Dave) to follow-up on MEP document and most
likely open a WSAWG issue about it [PENDING]
- [Marsh]
- MC and JM to continue trying to find venue for f2f, and figure
out whether or not to have an overlap day [PENDING]
- [hugo]
- ACTION: MC to inform XML CG that WS may have reqs re.
processing and call for reqs should include WS WGs [PENDING]
- ACTION: MC and JM to continue trying to find venue for f2f, and
figure out whether or not to have an overlap day [PENDING]
- [Marsh]
- JM to ask Kelvin and Chris to attend next time, to report on
W3C-OASIS meeting, first WS-Security FTF, and any thoughts on
liasons. [done]
- DH & MC to report on charter progress from WS ARch f2f mtg
[done]
- ACTION: Review Hugo's additions to the minutes of the last
meeting. Hugo to consider comments until the end of the week, then
post.
- Skip agenda item 4
- Agenda item 5: choreography charter
- David: What happened at the FTF>
- DaveH: Three discussions. First: statement of need from the WG
stating that choreography is important, general scope, and
encourages open group for this work. Unanimous consensus.
- [em]
- DaveH, can you provide a URI for this statement and notes?
- [Marsh]
- DaveH: Note, doesn't say that this must happen at W3c, or give
it a priority.
- DaveH: Second: Encourages the WSCG to form a WG to address
choreography. Attached charter proposal.
- After debate, a vote resulted 17 yes, 1 no, 8 abstain, 4 not
present.
- Follow-on conversation: Strong consensus that there should be a
Workshop, but confusion on how to do this.
- Mike: Main issue is the venue - should it be W3C?
- DaveH: no consensus...
- DaveH: Third item: Including BPEL4WS in the WG, and without it
there may be reason not to move ahead. Authors of BPEL4WS did not
vote yes for the group.
- Mike: No consensus on a resolution to encourage BPEL4WS authors
to contribute to the group.
- Mike: Don't know how the politics will fall out.
- DaveH: We have a mandate to present the charter to the WSCG. We
are doing so now.
- David: JeffM's charter?
- DaveH: Yes. No substantive changes.
- DaveH: WG feels that it is important that all parties are
involved.
- Jon: Are we being asked to take up the "encouragement"?
- David: We can recommend a course of action.
- Mike: Envisioned asking W3C to solicit authors to submit those
specs.
- David: Is there a definitive list of the specs in
question?>
- Mike: One in the charter, doesn't include everything
- David: WSA needs to create a definitive list.
- DaveH: There is one in the charter?
- David: Two different answers.
- David: Straw plan of action: Ask WSA to create the definitive
list, then pass it to W3C Management.
- DaveH: We do have a definitive-enough list in the charter.
Please use that.
- Hugo: WG is happy enough with the list.
- Hugo: Only omissions might be WS-Coordination, DAML-S.
- Mike: BPEL seems to be a show-stopper, others might not
be.
- Hugo: Team prefers a consensus, so they'd be welcome at the
table of a RF group.
- David: They are welcome, or necessary?
- Mike: Not completely clear from the WG.
- David: We're trying to determine which items on the list are
essential.
- [hugo]
- s/prefers a consensus, so they'd be welcome at the table of a
RF group./thinks that this is an important work, which must be done
in a public, consensus-driven environment, in a RF WG./
- [Marsh]
- Mike: The charter list represents those which are viewed as
essential.
- David: Given that the list is not unambiguously "definitive",
the WSA should reaffirm that the list is indeed the definitive
list.
- David: And the list of which are essential and which are
not.
- DaveH: BPEL was affirmed as essential. Others we will need to
check.
- David: Is it our opinion to ask the WSA to reaffirm the items
on their spec list and their importance.
- Hugo: Pretty clear the WG wanted to get the key players to the
table. The list won't change in 2 weeks.
- David: Don't you want to confirm that the list is
accurate?
- DaveH: BPEL can happen in parallel.
- David: Has W3M already embarked on a plan to do this>?
- Hugo: Haven't met yet.
- David: Will W3T recommend W3M to do this?
- DaveH: Propose chair work with W3M to develop a plan.
- Mike: Clearly we want to approach BPEL authors to sort this
out.
- ACTION: David, discuss this topic with W3M (MSM).
- David: WSCG generally in favor that it is in the scope of the
WSCG to work with W3M on this topic.
- [Zakim]
- WS_WSCG()1:00PM has ended
- [hugo]
- Zakim, please excuse us
- RRSAgent, please excuse us
- [RRSAgent]
- I see 6 open action items:
- ACTION: Jonathan to invite Chris & Kelvin back on the 1st.
[1]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/09/17-ws-cg-irc#T17-35-11
- ACTION: Hugo (or Dave) to follow-up on MEP document and most
likely open a WSAWG issue about it [PENDING] [2]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/09/17-ws-cg-irc#T17-36-32
- ACTION: MC to inform XML CG that WS may have reqs re.
processing and call for reqs should include WS WGs [PENDING]
[3]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/09/17-ws-cg-irc#T17-36-58
- ACTION: MC and JM to continue trying to find venue for f2f, and
figure out whether or not to have an overlap day [PENDING] [4]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/09/17-ws-cg-irc#T17-37-13
- ACTION: Review Hugo's additions to the minutes of the last
meeting. Hugo to consider comments until the end of the week, then
post. [5]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/09/17-ws-cg-irc#T17-40-01
- ACTION: David, discuss this topic with W3M (MSM). [6]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/09/17-ws-cg-irc#T18-06-44