Re: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon

Hi, I will incorporate it updating the references. Best regards, Philipp. ----- Original Message ----- From: Heiko Ludwig Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:55 pm Subject: Re: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon

In response to the comment

- "several comments"; action item 3:

The XQueryX standard (XML Syntax for XQuery 1.0 (XQueryX)) became a candidate recommendation in November. The reference should be: http://www.w3.org/TR/xqueryx/ Let's use this reference.

Heiko

----- Heiko Ludwig, Dr. rer. pol. IBM TJ Watson Research Center, PO Box 704, Yorktown, NY, 10598 hludwig@us.ibm.com, tel. +1 914 784 7160, mob. +1 646 675 8469 http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hludwig/

Jim Pruyne Sent by: owner-graap-wg@ggf.org 01/11/2006 11:03 AM

To GRAAP-WG cc

Subject [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon

Attached...

--- Jim

Notes from Jan. 11 Teleconference ---------------------------------

Attendees ---------

Wolfgang Ziegler Heiko Ludwig Asit Dan Jim Pruyne Philipp Wieder

Agenda Items ------------

- GGF: No schedule has been posted yet. * One session on spec. updates prior to GGF16 * Two more sessions of implementation presentations, continuing discussions from presentations from previous GGF.

- OGSA F2F: * Jim will plan to attend for a couple hours * Will there be any feedback on the spec. through this? Philipp: perhaps not as they look only to consume based on last F2F.

- Wolfgang provided feedback to GGF Office on status of deliverables as requested by Joel.

- Comments: - Missing references: Philipp to do this in the next day, and re-upload - To Remove: SNAP - Also to update to the proper link for various specs.

- Flexibility of WS-A. comment: - 1. We don't think the current WS-Agreement prohibits what he's suggesting, but we also don't define it. - 2. Basically DoS attack concerns. Agreed, that this might be a nice thing to be able to do, but we consider it outside the scope of WS-Agreement. Many of these issues are true for any web service, and not specific to WS-Agreement, though how one searches the possible agreement space is somewhat more relevant. - 3. We specifically restricted to 2 parties to avoid specific remediation of multiple parties. That is, who specifically is at fault when there are more than two parties with specific responsibilities to one another. Therefore, we limit WS- Agreement to two party. - 4. Agreed that a library service is useful, but it is outside the scope of WS-Agreement. For signing, and authentication, other general practices for web services should be applicable.

- Discovery of compatible agreement parties - There is some hint as to the valid languages in the template based on the definition of namespaces. That is, an initiator should be sure that all namespaces declared in the template are understood. However, this seems like a good point, and the suggestion seems valid. Our current thinking is to consider this in a next version based on some experience with the current version. It may be that some practice like this will emerge which we could incorporate in a future version. The reference to a similar use in wsrp does help us to see a model that might be used.

- "sorry for the late post" to be addressed on future call due to time constraints.

- "several comments" - 1. Version will come from reference, and as needed in the specification name. Philipp to update along with references. - 2. Already has been addressed. Philipp to double check. - 3. Heiko to investigate status. - 4., 5., 6., 7. Are covered by the "Missing references" comment.