agenda [VER 2] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0034.html

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0034.html

<maryann> toufic sends regrets

scribe Ashok

<fsasaki> scribe: Ashok

Review and approval of minutes from last telcon

No objection. Minutes approved.

Editors' Report - Maryann

<scribe> Completed all open items and produced draft. Link is in the minutes.

Action Items

Actions 333 344 are still open

Rest closed

Rec issues and errata -- nothing outstanding

Primer

No outstanding issues against priner

Chris: Shd we advance primer to Last call?
... Even though it is not on the rec track

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-policy/2007Sep/0013.html

PBC: suggests we take primer and guidelines to last call on 9/28

With a 3 week last call period

Shd sent out notes to several WGs to review the documents

We can try and get drafts ready early November ...

Turn into WG Notes Nov 14

Chris: Is the WG ready to advance the draft of Primer to last call?

PC: It's good there are diff versions -- complements to the chef

<fsasaki> yes

<cferris> RESOLUTION: WG agrees to publish Primer ED at http://tinyurl.com/3dujm7 as LC WD with status from chairs and Felix

Guidelines document

We have a last call doc and a diff

Only one issue open

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0024.html response from Chris

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0027.html response from DaveO

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0029.html Ashok's response

Discussion of issue 4951

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0030.html monica's response

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0035.html from Sergey

<cferris> ashok: thinks that this is an issue, but one with no easy solution

<cferris> ... probably unwise to open it up again here, would be a big deal

<cferris> ... recommendation to close this and add words to the guidelines

<cferris> ... if there is interest, start discussion of a v.next issue

<cferris> ... Sergey's email offers a proposal for dealing with it

<cferris> ... need to think about it

<cferris> chris: are you asking to close with no action? or to add some specific text

assertion like <RMFirstSecuritySecond/> and use it like this :

<cferris> ashok: would like to add specific text to guidelines, possibly along the lines of Sergey's proposal... again, needs more thought

<cferris> maryann: in guidelines, this would be a suggestion that people would author it?

<cferris> ... should go to WSRX TC

<cferris> ashok: no

<Policy>

<cferris> maryann: wondering if this is a guideline or primer thing?

<cferris> ... when they craft a domain, that if necessary, they should add an ordering assertion

<cferris> ashok: this is one example of how to do that

<cferris> ... whether it belongs in guidelines or primer, I am not expert on

<cferris> chris: could we process this as a LC issue?

<cferris> ashok: yes

<cferris> chris: so, we close this with no action to get clean slate, and then you will open an appropriate primer or guidelines LC issue, once we have sorted out which it should be?

<cferris> ashok: yes

<cferris> RESOLUTION: close 4951 with no action to get clean slate, and then you will open an appropriate primer or guidelines LC issue, once we have sorted out which it should be

<PaulC> With regards to Sergey's proposed assertion we would have to consider the way that WS-SecuritPolicy handles this. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0021.html

<PaulC> In B. XML Namespaces the namespace URI for WS-A Metadata is wrong

<PaulC> The URI given is http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-ws-addr-metadata-20070904/ which is the URI of the document not the namespace URI which is http://www.w3.org/2007/05/addressing/metadata

PBC: Don't follow Sergey's example literally

<cferris> paul: like the resolution to 4951, but see Asir's note about how security policy handles it

<cferris> ... we need to read the whole thread going back to Asir's response, which was how do we do this with RM and security

<cferris> ... doesn't sit with advise in secpol

<cferris> ashok: behind that is a general pattern

<cferris> paul: second comment is that I scanned down the diff version, and found a bug

<cferris> ... the uri in the namespace table should be the link to the rddl doc

PBC: Found a bug ... reference to WS-ADDR metadata is incorrect

<cferris> maryann: have you checked to see if the primer is similarly challenged?

<cferris> paul: no

<cferris> asir: primer has same problem

Asir: Primer has the same problem

<cferris> paul: purely editorial, not a showstopper

<cferris> ... prefix is wsam

<PaulC> The URI given is http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-ws-addr-metadata-20070904/ which is the URI of the document not the namespace URI which is http://www.w3.org/2007/05/addressing/metadata

<cferris> chris: can editors do this quickly?

<cferris> asir: already done

<cferris> ... for both

WDs publication

Any objections to publising the newly revised Primer and Guideleines as last call drafts

No objections heard

<cferris> RESOLUTION: WG agrees to publish Primer ED as LCWD

<asir> Updated Guidelines is http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#xml-namespaces

<fsasaki> yes

Felix, can we get them out Friday?

Felix: Yes

<asir> Updated Primer is http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-primer.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#xml-namespaces

Issue on WS-PAEPR

Agreed to put link in home page under related documents

<maryann> ashok: the question is that WS-PAEPR talks about a new and different way of attaching policy

<maryann> ashok: do we work on this under WS-Addressing, do we do this in the Policy working group?

<maryann> chris: the chairs were just giving Phillipe an update that there was a relationship, and that this was at the very least a v-next issue

<maryann> paul: i think the essence of the action is to report that we had discussed this issue before and point to our closed issues

<maryann> paul: how the WG wants to handle its v-next issues, is covered by the charter, which includes producing a new charter

<maryann> if there is significant interest in pursuing v-next issues, but that its out of scope for the current charter

<maryann> paul: i think we should separate the 2 issues

<maryann> paul: report to the coordination committee and then the general discussion of v-next issues

<maryann> tom requests to be on the Q

<maryann> (not on the chat)

Tom Rutt: There is no more addressing group. It went away

<maryann> tom: I agree its a v-next issue, just wanted to point out that there is no addressing group

<maryann> passing the scribe baton to Ashok :-)

I think we have a major hole in the architecture -- put a policy in a ReplyTo

<cferris> ashok: I agree with tom... would like this addressed somehow

I wnat this work done somehow -- how do we get this work done

Ashok: I agree with Tom

PC: Minutes on Coor Grp mtg sept 4 -- bottom line from PLH "These are all questions for the group"

Chris: I'll take the action -- I'll write it up. Possibly today

vNext issue 4055

Why does interesection fail

<cferris> 2/4055/5045/

<Dug> http://nosheep.net/story/man-commits-suicide-with-homemade-guillotine/

Customers want to know why Policy intersection fails -- which assertion failed? Was the namespace incorrect?

<fsasaki> "Bug xxx depends on: " field

Close issue with no action -- mark as vNext

No disagreement

<cferris> RESOLUTION: close 5045 with no action, mark as v.next and add dependencies to related issues 3616 and 3639

<asir> My bug query says - Zarro Boogs found.

Review of MTOM Assertion

Asir sent note

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0031.html

Asir: I used best practices to review the assertion

Does the best practice apply ... if it does does the assertion follw the best practice

Assertion follows all the applicable best practices

We can respond saying we have no problem with the assertion

Monica: Are looking to make changes to our documents based on this?

The assertion name has changed. We use it in examples.

We need to fix all 4 our documents

PC: Things move on, we don't always have to fix
... I would like to send a comment to XMLP and say we have a positive comment

<scribe> ACTION: Asir to send a positive note to XMLP with analysis [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/26-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-356 - Send a positive note to XMLP with analysis [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2007-10-03].

Chris: Does anyone need to do any more review?

Modulo Monica's comment

AOB

Chris: Ken Lasky responded to us. Can we review.

<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0033.html

Chris takes the WG thru Ken Lasky's response

He is not asking for anything

He is making some observations

Ashok: He makes an interesting comment saying we need "guidance in wider areas ..."

PC: Mark Ken's issues as vNext issues and may impact all the documents

<scribe> ACTION: Chris to updates Ken Lasky's issues to indicate they are related to vNext. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/26-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-357 - Updates Ken Lasky\'s issues to indicate they are related to vNext. [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-10-03].

PC: When do we meet next?

Suggests we take next week off Oct 3. Make telcon on Oct 10 optional and plan to meet definitely on Oct 17

Meet on Oct 10 if there is work to do.

Decide by Oct 5 if we meet on Oct 10 -- send Agenda or note saying No Meeting

Adjourned

<cferris> adjourned