See also: IRC log
Agenda: Minutes, action items (1 by 1 due to upcoming F2F)
Next week's meeting, 1 last issue, issues list; no other business
No corrections to minutes; minutes approved.
Jan 3 minutes.
Issue 21: Anish will take a look and confer with Hugo before F2F; due Friday
Mark N finished his action item about WSDL
Paco finished reviewing core
Scope of addressing properties incorporated in drafts
Gudge to redraw charts; not present.
Hugo reviewed interface names in submission; drop this item.
Jonathan taking over MarcH's action to make proposal re: issue 35; due Friday.
Thanks for the correction.
Future meetings: F2F next week; any problems/suggestions for agenda? None.
No questions on logistics.
Issue 26, multiple ports, deferred because owners not attending F2F
Phone access by Zakim
Joint meeting with WSDL working group: 2 hours on Wed.
What are the issues; where do these specs affect each other?
<anish> another two issues that are related to what WSD WG is doing are: 20 and 21
Issue 22; bindings of WS-Addressing and SOAP to WSDL unclear
Jonathan to list options to frame discussion; Mark N: may not be time to address all of this
ACTION: paul to write up the problems this WG has had with WSDL extensibility
What was resolution of use of WSDL 1.1 location feature? The belief was that there was no objection, but that will be cross-checked
MarkN: Should someone prepare of list of issues with WSDL already discussed?
ACTION: davido to put together a presentation about the relationship of addressing to wsdl wrt to MEP/binding/variable-adressing
David's proposal will be discussed at F2F; may discuss with WSDL group afterward.
Perhaps Issue 20 should also be discussed with WSDL group
Run-through of changes to editor's drafts since last F2F; scheduled for half an hour
WSDL joint meeting can't be moved to Wed morning for benefit of phone-ins
Issues: First Issue 9; Paul completed his action item.
Paul's walkthrough: can we allow multiple ReplyTos using mustIgnore?
There's no ordering on the ReplyTos, hard to tell which to ignore
Add annotation against ReplyTo to collate? Might cause more issues
Paul prefers option 3; he prefers a processing style, but wishes to consult group
Tom Rutt: prefers option 3
Jonathan: How does processing style attribute work?
Paul: this is one of the problems
Jonathan: Is there a difference between a header I don't understand and an attribute I don't understand?
Bob wants multiple ReplyTos to as alternative endpoints
TomR: this spec shouldn't describe the semantic of more than one ReplyTo
Paul: still prefers Option 3 after discussion, but not convinced of processing style
<TomRutt> I like option 3, without processing style, with the "if more than one, this spec does not define behaviour"
Paul: 1 processing style for whole core; different replyTos would have the same processing style
<anish> i kinda like option 2
Umit: can we discuss the other options?
MarkN: let's, but wanted to discuss 3 first
<anish> but would like to understand the full semantics of 'processingStyle'
MarkN: do WSDL bindings constrain cardinality? Paul: no, wide open; WSDL constrains in Option 2
Paul: processing style is really a separate proposal
ACTION: paul to put together a separate processingStyle proposal (issue 009)
Hugo: Paco's amendment to his proposal just fine.
Issue 14 closed? No objections.
Issue 34, action defaults: Jonathan proposed porting WSDL 1.1 to 2.0
Hugo had a proposal; should we wait on Issue 35 before closing 34?
Hugo: it is a shame we are not going re-use a WSDL 2.0 spec URI; instead we are introducing a new mechanism.
We should communicate this to the WSDL group.
Jonathan proposes a syntax taking target namespace and appends interface name and a slash etc.
It's backward compatible with WSDL 1.1
Close Issue 34 with Jonathan's proposal? No objections
Issue 35: Jonathan will get this to us by end of week
Harris: can send out template for test cases to list today.
Issue 25: multiple actions. Postponed due to Gudge's absence.
Issue 40, processing model for SOAP faults:
Arun has sent a message to list to start discussion.
Issue 38: Gudge owns, Paco has completed an action item.
Paco's proposal changes core spec; marc's changes are in WSDL binding; changes are complimentary? yes
Marc: my proposal is a relatively complete resolution
for Issue 38
People still need to look over Issue 38 before closing.
Marc has added editor's notes to aid review.
Issue 6, property optionality:
Issue 6, part 1, will be deferred to F2F to give MS further time to review
Issue 7, processing model of headers in the SOAP binding
Touches on 21 and 22; and also optionality issue
Marc: we define SOAP headers but not what a receiver should do with them
Messages traverse multiple hops; intermediaries should process WS-Addressing headers
There's an assumption in the spec headers are targetted to ultimate recipient, not intermediaries
Should we specify re-inserting headers when intermediaries process?
Should headers be targetted to Next?
Marc is not sure they should be mustUnderstand=true
Paul: what are use cases?
Anish: would it make sense to divide properties into buckets, some which must survive to ultimate recipient, some which don't?
Marc: perhaps, but must consider; he believes most must survive
MarkN: doesn't the spec say all must be end to end? Marc agrees
<MSEder> queue
Marc: use case is intermediary doing routing based on WS-Addressing headers
GlenD: 2 intermediaries, known to sender, transparent to sender
<anish> I assumed that Marc was talking about forwarding intermediaries
<anish> as wrt active intermediaries all bets are off
does your thinking include both types of intermediaries?
Marc: we could decide every intermediary is (or may be) an active intermediaries
MarkN: Marc, take this to email. Marc: okay