Web Services Architecture Working Group call
22 Jan 2004

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Contents

• Topics
  1. Abbie's security
  2. Mike's revision of 1.6
  3. agenda for the F2F
  4. mail lists
  5. end of life as we know it
• Summary of Action Items

Scribe: Any corrections on minutes?
... No

<Scribe> ACTION: Katia to review Policy and Message models and update OWL by next week. [DONE]

<Scribe> ACTION: dbooth to clarify term "service provider" and "service requester" and expand glossary [DONE]

<Scribe> ACTION: Mike to add and wordsmith text in 3.11 choreography [PENDING]

<Scribe> ACTION: Mike to propose changes to WS Reliability section in stakeholders perspective [PENDING]

<Scribe> ACTION: MikeC to ping DavidOrchard for his input on the Resource [DONE]

<Scribe> ACTION: Suresh to review doc and propose text on EBXML [DROPPED]

<Scribe> ACTION: dbooth to remove the Management Model from section 2 [DONE]

<Scribe> ACTION: YinLeng to verify that the Management Stakeholder section is using the correct text [DONE]

<Scribe> ACTION: YinLeng to verify that management terms are ok in Glossary [DONE]

<Scribe> ACTION: MikeC to add Abbie's security text to next week's agenda [DONE]

Abbie's security

Scribe: 3 questions at teh editors call:
... any existing text from security needs to be incorporated?
... what about the requirements, duplication with requirements doc
... should the securities spec be in the arch or in roger's list

Roger: needs to be preserved
... abbie's list is a good section. Needs to be preserved.

hugo: we had a section on trust and discovery added to abbies section

Scribe: duplication of requirements less obvious now, so it is now good glue for the security section
... the technologies: only place in the arch where technologies discussed. taken out for now.

Roger: I think the security specs deserve attention. The section is useful.

Abbie: i'm relaxed about this
... I added it because it was requested

Gerald: I want to see security addressed

Scribe: scribe votes for annex
... Mike propose an annex
... frank

Roger: I like the idea. The text has a higher level of consensus than my list.

<mchampion> dbooth, you're on IRC but not able to call in?

<mitrepauld> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/wsa/wd-wsa-arch-review2.html?rev=1.100#id2281640

<mchampion> ACTION: hugo will incorporate Abbies list of security specs as an appendix

Scribe: ACTION: Hugo will incoporate Abibie's security as an annex
... The initial version of the OWL models are in http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~softagents/WSA_Ontologies/

Mike's revision of 1.6

<mchampion> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/wsa/wd-wsa-arch-review2.html?rev=1.100&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1#service_oriented_architecture

Roger: hugo's version reads more smoothly
... SOA has two arch constraints: small set of simple interfaces
... descriptive messages

<mitrepauld> rat hole

Scribe: Roger suggests using mike wording: Messages sent in a platform-neutral, standardized format delivered through the interfaces.

<mitrepauld> Avoid "self-descriptive"

Scribe: Agreed.
... Description is part of SOA.
... Third SOA constraint: describe everythign to death

<mitrepauld> 1.6.3 WWW is a SOA?

Scribe: Third SOA constraint: Services, messages are described in a machine processable format

Roger: section of REST is paltry
... we can be more aggressive about what we mean
... I proposed some text

<dbooth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2004Jan/0144.html

oger: what should we say about REST?

Dbooth: Our arch permits both RESTful and non-RESTful Web services

Roger: No critical analysis of REST

<mitrepauld> soap 1.2 provides the guidelines

<hugo> Note that I have replaced in the document my #2 constraint by Mike's

Mario: REST does not include intermediaries security etc.

Roger: We should write a critical analysis of REST, SOAP etc

Mike: Will draft something

Roger: The world needs something on the meaning of REST

Scribe: ACTION: mike will draft text on REST

<yinleng> Frank, I've just checked CVS, the current version of section 3.8 is old, not my latest

<mitrepauld> Yin Leng: set of mgmt "operations" since wsdl 1.2 has single "interface"
... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2004Jan/0122.html

Roger: we need a common reference version of the arch

pauld: The WWW is a SOA? Maybe not ...

<dbooth> We should all print the document at 4pm US Pacific time on Friday so that we are all looking at the same version.
... US pacific time is UTC-8.

Scribe: Any other comments on Abbie's security text?
... Liberty Alliance to go into security annex list

agenda for the F2F

Scribe: Time proportional to pages

<mitrepauld> +1

Scribe: Introduction needs a disproportionate amount of time
... Reliability needs time
... Remaining issues
... The future and what we don't do

<mitrepauld> MEP in 2.3.1.7

Scribe: MEP text needs special thinking
... Editorial comment: how about dropping 3.6? It seems vestigial

paulD: registry model seems blurry

davidB: authoratative applies to registry not to its contents

mail lists

pauld: registries some are authoratative others are not.

Scribe: how do you spell authorotative?

Mike: registries are auth...ive because people tend to go there

Scribe: everyone is in agreement

<Scribe> ACTION: DavidB to revise wording on autho...ive

<yinleng> Should we say "recognized" place rather than "authoritative" place to look?

end of life as we know it

davidB: please ask your AC rep to voice your opinion

Katia: what happens to document, editing etc.

Scribe: Only mechanical changes can be sanctioned
... W3C can only promote the doc if there is an obvious continuation of some kind
... private individuals and companies can mention and reference it
... SWSL intends to reference it

Mike: plan to use it for evangelical purposes

Roger: also intends to pretend that its authorotative

<yinleng> Got to go now, have a good f2f!

<mitrepauld> got to go too, bye

<dbooth> http://weather.yahoo.com/forecast/02144_f.html

Summary of Action Items