agenda - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0040.html

<toufic> hi philippe

<toufic> yes it's me, although i see myself as "toufic" here ...

<scribe> scribe: whenry

future scribes

Paul: Reviewing list
... Asir will do next week

<cferris> whenry, Paul_Cotton, Plh, Toufic, Tom_Rutt, asir, Chris_Ferris, Prasad, Ashok, DaveO,

Review of minutes - 26th

Paul: Minutes adopted for Sept 26th
... Anyone got some draft comments prepared or pending?
... Nothing, ok
... Editors?

Asir: Nothing

Review of action items

Paul: Chris please mark complete actions

Philippe: Still have issue (#?) pending

<PaulC> 344, 356 and 357 are all completed.

Phillipee: End of month - October

<PaulC> 333 re IESG link to our Rec should be done by end of Oct.

Agenda item 6

Paul: skip this item
... Moving to Primer item
... Discusses groupings of several items
... start 5187

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0026.html

Asir: about updating references
... concrete proposal made in attachment

Paul: Describes the various updated references in proposal

<cferris> look fine to me

Paul: anyone any itmes to discuss?

Chris: Has a question to Philippe about convention for 7.2

Philippe: Don't think we have a convention

Paul: Which spec?
... What about looking at WSDL spec?

<abbie> +abbie

Chris: Good idea

<cferris> [SOAP 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework (Second Edition)]

<cferris> SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework (Second Edition), M. Gudgin, et al., Editors. World Wide Web Consortium, 24 June 2003, revised 27 April 2007. This version of the "SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework (Second Edition)" Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-soap12-part1-20070427/. The latest version of "SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework" is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/.

Philippe: Look at XML schema

Paul: Asir is this okay?
... describes the mechanism
... With that addition do we have any objections?

<cferris> RESOLUTION: 5187 closed with proposal from Asir in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0026.html as amended by proposal to add (Second Edition) to SOAP 1.2 reference

Item 5188

<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0027.html

5188 - Incorrect Examples in Section 4 - Primer, Asir

Paul: Drop incorrect example in 4.1 and amend example in 4.2 with different namespace
... So don't use wsp namespace

Asir: right

Paul: There are some examples with future versions, is that wwhat we're saying?

??: How are we going to do this?

<plh> s/\?\?/DaveO/

Dave, Asir, Chris: discuss how this will get done

Paul: There are several namepsaces used that are not in table. Okay with using wsp16 here?

Dave: Yes

<PaulC> a) Accept proposal in message 27 to remove example in Section 4.1

<PaulC> b) change proposal in message 27 to NOT remove example in Section 4.2 but instead to use the prefix wsp16: instead of wsp:.

<cferris> RESOLUTION: close issue 5188 by accepting proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0027.html to remove example in Section 4.1 and b) change proposal in message 27 to NOT remove example in Section 4.2 but instead to use the prefix wsp16: instead of wsp:.

Paul: Any further discussion or objections?
... none heard

Asir: There is some editoral work that DaveO will do

Issue 5204 "vocabulary"

<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0052.html

Paul: Proposes to remove vocabulary term in the Primer
... describes the proposal

<PaulC> Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/att-0052/00-part

Paul: Detailed proposal is in attachment. No fabian on the call
... Show of hands of support

<Fabian> reading IRC

<FrederickHirsch> +1

Asir: I've reviewed. and support

Paul: Welcomes Ashok

<toufic> Now that ashok is here, I can drop off :) :)

Paul: Any further discussion or objections?
... None. Okay. Resolved

<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 5204 closed with proposal from Fabian in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/att-0052/00-part

<Fabian> thx guys

Toufic: I have to go to another call

Item 8 Guidelines

5128 - editorial nit in example in section 5.3.2, Chris

<PaulC> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5128#c1

Paul: Any objections?
... None heard. Mark as resolved

<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 5128 closed with proposal in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5128#c1

5184 - Editorial Changes - Guidelines, Asir

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0023.html

Bug: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5184

Paul: Items a thru n here

Asir: 14 items

Paul: We'll go through one at a time and Asir you can explain any pushback or only concentrate on ones with pushback. Out since last Friday. Any pref?

Dave: Only nes commented on are important

Asir: a,d,e, g, k, i, l

Paul: That's half!

And you then get a call from her while in isle 4

Paul: Item a then

Asir: [reads the sentence] Don't know what a policy domain. Replaced ws-policy to a specific domain.
... Pushback from Maryann

Chris: describes compromise

Asir: [agrees]

Paul: Type it in please Chris

<cferris> An assertion is a piece of metadata that describes a capability related to a specific domain that has chosen to express their capabilities via the WS-Policy expressions

Paul: IS this okay? I'll move on

Woops

Asir: Didn't understand what relationship was talking about

Chris: Maryann thinks relationship is the right word
... There may not be a relationship - domains unrelated - but there is a relationship

<FrederickHirsch> +1 to Chris

Paul: 'd' is deleted

Asir: Item 'e'
... Drop the example

Chris: Maryann pushed back
... this maybe a confusion issue
... I agree that this is a bad example
... I think RM spec will say this is not allowed

Paul: Move on to 'g'
... [reviews items so far]
... Item 'g'

Asir: About multiple assertions. Sentence is not accurate or consistent with framework. Suggested sentence to one similar in framework doc

Chris: I agree with the issue. [reviews proposal]

Frederick: Break it into two sentences and change ending

Asir: agrees

<FrederickHirsch> change "simply redundancy, and multiple" to "simply redundancy. Multiple"

Chris: [is going to rewrite and post for review]

Chris and Asir discuss proposed sentence changes

Chris: Let's take it off line and we'll work ou a proposal

Paul: Item 'i'

Asir: section 7.5.1
... Looking at the exmaple and best practice they are the same. I suggest we drop 2nd sentence

Chris: Maryann pushed back and thought we'd adopted the template and we're violating the template

Asir: NEver really had this

Chris: Is there an e.g. for this best practice. I'll believe you if there is

Asir: Yes

Chris: I think we can accept this

Paul: We'll label this accepted tentitively
... Item 'k'

Asir: Section 5.7.1
... This is saying if we have an overloaded assertion we should break it up
... However I think this is wrong if you look more closely at it
... We put it all together and rephrased it

Chris: Maryann says it was fine the way it was
... We lose someting if we leave it the way it is.

Paul: Asir, willing to leave it the way it is?

Asir: I think it's broken

Chris: I'm fine with some of the change

<PaulC> Item k proposal:

<PaulC> If the behavior indicated by an assertion varies when attached to different policy subjects the Assertion Authors should consider the following:

Paul is typing up the change

<PaulC> Decompose the semantics with several assertions.

<PaulC> Rewrite a single assertion targeting a specific policy subject.

Chris: okay

Asir: grammatical errors but okay

Paul: Item 'l'

Asir

Asir: Maryann didn't see context

Chris: I don't see any push back

Paul: The first point

Chris: Looks fine but let me have a look at it

Paul: Leave the title and add your [Asir's] text.

Paul types up recommenation

<PaulC> Proposl l: Assertion Extensibility. Assertion authors should allow for extensibility (see best practice 5. Start with a Simple Assertion).

Asir: That's fine

Paul: Summary

<PaulC> Summary: a) adopted as amended

<PaulC> d) not adopted

<PaulC> e) adopted as proposed

<PaulC> g) not processed

<PaulC> i) Adopted as proposed

<PaulC> k) adopted as amended

<PaulC> l) adopted as amended

Paul: Do we want to keep open until we finish 'g'? Or Chris new issue?

Chris: Happy too open new issue

Paul: Any objection?
... None

<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 5184 closed with proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0023.html amended as follows: Summary: a) adopted as amended

<cferris> d) not adopted

<cferris> e) adopted as proposed

<cferris> g) not processed

<cferris> i) Adopted as proposed

<cferris> k) adopted as amended

<cferris> l) adopted as amended

<cferris> ACTION: Chris to open issue related to idem g in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0023.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-358 - Open issue related to idem g in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0023.html [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-10-24].

5185 - Guidelines - BP 1 and 21 are Duplicates, Asir

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0030.html

Bug: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5185

Asir: Found two best practices and there appears to be dups
... Suggest use text in BP 1 and move it. I sent change marker
... No feedback

Paul: Any other discusson or objections?
... None

<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue TOPIC: 5185 resolved with proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0030.html

<cferris> rrsaget, where am i?

5186 - Update References - Guidelines, Asir

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0025.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0025.html

Asir: Lots of references out of date

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5186

Paul: Any discussion or objections?

<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 5186 closed wiht proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0025.html amended as we did with 5187 with regards to SOAP 1.2 Second Edition reference

Paul: None

5189 - Guidelines - BP 19 Lacks Motivation, Asir

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0028.html

Bug: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5189

Asir: Talks about granularity currently captured by 28.
... What are we trying to motivate?
... Suggesting 2 point proposal

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

Asir: Some email discussion.

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0041.html

Asir: Maryann said bp 28 could move up to 5.7.1
... Suggest drop BP 19

Paul: Part 1 is make 28 more generic
... Part 2 is whether we need 19 or not. No consensus yet on this. Chris?

<toufic> we could always remove the "optional" attribute from the spec

Chris: There is some special consideration especially with mesage exchange patterns.

<toufic> JUST KIDDING!

Chris: There will be a point that will be lost if we drop 19

Paul: Should we rework 19?

Chris: [describes use case with 'optional'] Will work with Maryann to reword 19.

<PaulC> Optionality is covered in 5.6.1

Asir: [regarding Chris' example] I think mtom is pretty detailed covered in section 5.6.1

Chris: I'll enter Action item later.

Item 10 Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD

<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0004.html

<Ashok> However, authors can write assertions that control the order in which behaviors are applied.

Ashok: I'd like an example of this in the primer. If we could do that I'm done.

Paul: Can people use the queue? I'll start
... Shouldn't this go in the Guidelines?

Ashok: I'm okay with that
... I thought the primer was better but either place.

Paul: So you're flexible?

<cferris> ACTION: Chris to draft concrete proposal for resolving 5189 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-359 - Draft concrete proposal for resolving 5189 [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-10-24].

Ashok: yes

Everyone denies being in the queue

Chris asks about a rewording

Ashok: I'd like one that goes across domains

<Zakim> DaveO, you wanted to support using existing assertion

Dave: I want to support Chris' proposal to use WS-Security
... This is a real use case with a real solution and makes sense

<cferris> +1 to doing as little work as possible!

Dave: If we try to create our one it causes problems: we'd have to make one up and we'd get into debates

Asir: +1 to Chris and Dave
... Tech committee in OASIS have example doc. And I don't know why we'd do additional work

Ashok: Cause I'd like an example

<DaveO> -1 to across domain example.

<cferris> I would like to add that Tony Nadalin has also privately expressed a desire to reuse an existing example, notably the ws-security policy example

<cferris> +1 to daveo's -1

<asir> +1 to daveo's -1

Paul: What you're hearing is that we've discussed this before and people don't believe a cross domain example is good.

Ashok: I've argued that WS_Policy should be independent. It will be used in lots of different places.

Chris: [asks for clarification when there are conflicts] Which one do we use?

Ashok: [describes how he has asked various people and couldn't get an answer for an example]

Chris looks for example in security spec.

Dave: Does this matter - whether example is there or not?

Asir: That's what I was going to ask.
... DaveO made my point. I don't think it matters

Paul: We have consensus to try and meet part of your need by adding an exampel to one of the documents.
... What I'm not hearing is consensus to go beyond that

Ashok: If thhey could find the examples we could make pointers to it and make it even better

DaveO: I don't understand that point

Ashok: If there is an example "ordering of assertions is subject to following rules" then we could reference that and it would make the guidence better.
... I just want to make it a bit better. What's the problem with that?

<trackbot> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/

DaveO: Why is it better?

Ashok: Because it isn't useful.
... It's not taking us forward.

Paul: I agree with that
... I'm still not consensus
... Primer or Guidlelines

Chris: Guidelines

Paul: Where?

Chris: Still trying to work ?? out

Paul: Someone else provide some help on where this should go?

Chris: Section 5.3 ?

<dmoberg> got to leave for airport

Paul: It could be 5.3.5, right?

Chris: yup

Paul: take this as a strawman - section 5.3.5. Does someone want to take an action item.
... BTW we have no issue here. Nothing in bugzilla. We need to create a bugzilla issue and someone on point to write a proposal

Chris: Can I take Ashok's paragraph?
... First paragraph

<dorchard> I have to drop off now. My position is clear, BEA proxy to Chris Ferris

Paul: Is there a budding propposal in there (september)

Asir: Proposal would be the email I sent Monday
... This monday in response to DaveO's question

Paul: I disagree (that it was that email)

<cferris> new guidelines issue http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5206

<asir> Here is action 350 - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0021.html

<PaulC> Asir's older note on this topic: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Sep/0021.html

Asir: Maybe I added more details. Let me pull it up

Paul: Ashok, if you look at this you can see an example

<asir> here is the message that relates to WS-Security - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0029.html

Paul: I thought there was an example in there
... This is a pretty complicated example

Asir: YEs. But we're talking about security

Paul: Looking at watch, will we make an advance on this issue?
... Need someone to take Action item

Asir: I want to make sure Ashok is involved

Paul: Three of you (Chris, Asir, Ashok) get something done for next week

<cferris> ACTION: Asir to work with Chris, Ashok and Maryann on a concrete proposal for issue 5206 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-360 - Work with Chris, Ashok and Maryann on a concrete proposal for issue 5206 [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2007-10-24].

Paul: Did the little birdy or angel Philleppe drop off?

Asir: Looking for a link back to security policy

<PaulC> Looking for text, example and link back to SP that explains the text in the issue from the framework.

Asir: Okay!

Paul: Summarize: Last call next Friday. Next weeks agenda 3 items. Chris's 5184. 5189(Chris Maryann), 5206 (Chris, Asir, Ashok)
... Be forewarned if we close issues next week co-chairs will vote to move documents
... Chris I'll make a draft agenda and send it out to you

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128  of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Phillippe/Philippe/g
FAILED: s/\?\?/DaveO/
Succeeded: s/Aisr/Asir/
Succeeded: s/wsp1/wsp16/
Succeeded: s/??/DaveO/
Succeeded: s/a,b/a,d/
Succeeded: s/Air/Asir/
Succeeded: s/assser/asser/
Succeeded: s/simpliar/similar/
Succeeded: s/way it is/way it is?/
Succeeded: s/keep up/keep open/
Succeeded: s/5185/TOPIC: 5185/
Succeeded: s/to 5.7.2/to 5.7.1/
Succeeded: s/Action time/Action item/
Succeeded: s/: Ashok,/Paul: Ashok,/
Succeeded: s/Looing/Looking/
Found Scribe: whenry
Inferring ScribeNick: whenry
Present: 04_01whenry Paul_Cotton Plh Toufic Tom_Rutt asir Chris_Ferris Prasad Ashok DaveO Frederick Ashok Abbie Dale
Regrets: Maryann Charlton Fabian Sergey Felix

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 17 Oct 2007
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17-ws-policy-minutes.html
People with action items: asir chris

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.