Minutes for the W3C XML Protocol Working Group Wednesday, 10 January, 2001, noon PST, duration 90 minutes.
Active Data Exchange Richard Martin principal Akamai Technologies Mark Nottingham principal AT&T Mark Jones principal AT&T Michah Lerner alternate Bowstreet Alex Ceponkus alternate Canon Jean-Jacques Moreau principal Cisco Krishna Sankar principal Compaq Yin-Leng Husband principal Compaq Kevin Perkins alternate DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech Mario Jeckle principal DataChannel Yan Xu principal DevelopMentor Martin Gudgin principal Engenia Software Eric Jenkins alternate Ericsson Nilo Mitra principal Fujitsu Software Corporation Kazunori Iwasa principal Hewlett Packard David Ezell principal Hewlett Packard Stuart Williams alternate IBM David Fallside chair IBM Fransisco Cubera alternate Informix Software Charles Campbell principal Informix Software Soumitro Tagore alternate Intel Randy Hall principal Jamcracker David Orchard principal Library of Congress Rich Greenfield alternate Lotus Development Noah Mendelsohn principal Microsoft Corporation Henrik Nielsen principal Microsoft Corporation Paul Cotton alternate Mitre Marwan Sabbouh principal Mitre Paul Denning alternate Netscape Vidur Apparao principal Netscape Ray Whitmer alternate Novell Scott Isaacson principal OMG Henry Lowe principal Oracle Jim Trezzo alternate Philips Research Yasser alSafadi principal Philips Research Amr Yassin alternate Progress Software Andrew Eisenberg alternate Rogue Wave Murali Janakiraman principal SAP AG Volker Wiechers principal SAP AG Gerd Hoelzing alternate Software AG Michael Champion principal Sun Microsystems Mark Baker alternate Unisys Lynne Thompson principal Unisys Nick Smilonich alternate Vitria Technology Inc. Waqar Sadiq principal W3C Yves Lafon team contact W3C Hugo Haas alt team contact Xerox Bill Anderson principal (SCRIBE) XMLSolutions Kevin Mitchell principal
Active Data Exchange Eric Fedok alternate Bowstreet James Tauber principal Canon Herve Ruellan alternate DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech Andreas Riegg alternate DataChannel Brian Eisenberg alternate DevelopMentor Don Box alternate Engenia Software Jeffrey Kay principal Fujitsu Software Corporation Masahiko Narita alternate IBM John Ibbotson principal Library of Congress Ray Denenberg principal XMLSolutions John Evdemon alternate Oracle David Clay principal Progress Software David Cleary principal Rogue Wave Patrick Thompson alternate Software AG Dietmar Gaertner alternate Sun Microsystems Ed Mooney principal Vitria Technology Inc. Richard Koo alternate Xerox Tom Breuel alternate
Allaire Glen Daniels principal Calico Commerce Rekha Nagarajan principal Data Research Associates Mark Needleman principal Epicentric Bjoern Heckel principal IONA Technologies Oisin Hurley principal IONA Technologies Eric Newcomer alternate Tibco Frank DeRose principal WebMethods Randy Waldrop principal
Allaire Simeon Simeonov alternate Commerce One David Burdett principal Commerce One Murray Maloney alternate Epicentric Dean Moses alternate Group 8760 Dick Brooks ebXML contact NCR Vilhelm Rosenqvist principal NCR Lew Shannon alternate
1. Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items (4 mins) 2. Agenda review, call for AOB (4 mins) - no new items 3. Approval of minutes from Jan 3 telcon . - minutes stand as submitted Approval of minutes from Dec f2f modulo corrections  (4 mins) - f2f minutes stand as corrected 4. Review action items, see  (4 mins) - put DR305/309 on agenda for next week - reqt's have been posted to xml-dev and other lists 5. Requirements Document (4 mins) -- Publication of interim versions of Requirements Document. Publication of interim versions will mirror the DSig WG's approach, see  and . - with little discussion the approach is adopted. 6. R300 states "architecture and extensibility framework must be explicitly defined" and StuartW has proposed  an abstract model for this purpose. The chair intends to quickly gauge the WG's sense for  with a view to starting more detailed discussion in future telcons. (5 minutes) Discussion summary: good starting point, issues with glossary, and scope regarding context for XP. Suggestion to send this off to a subgroup for work. David Fallside will coordinate this work offline. 7. Use cases (30 minutes) - Have been posted since 21 Dec 2000, task today is to choose to accept or send back for rework. -- DS1, see  and subsequent Discussion around this scenario specifically centered on role of intermediaries and on whether this is an RPC call. (Noah: we need to distinguish arbitrary XML msgs from RPC, methods/args model.) Meta-discussion on scenarios more generally focused on how to relate use scenarios to req'ts.: - Req'ts say what XP will do, use cases are not necessarily binding on the XP spec. - Keep use cases describing what users need end-to-end. - Who will do the editing for the req'ts document for this section? Disposition: DS1 as written is accepted as use scenario #1 -- DS2, see  and subsequent Discussion: at f2f there was some discussion of what "set of receivers" mean? Is this multicast? or a set of point-to-point mgs? One key point in this discussion was expressed by Noah: map our abstractions (e.g., request/response) to underlying transports; e.g., we're req'd to do one-way and request/response over HTTP. We should not agree that all bindings are req'd to do all things, but we need to clarify what we have to do with the HTTP binding we're committed to deliver. There was some concensus to accept draft scenarios now and note what parts of scenarios are supported by our work later. This will help us clarify in- and out-of-scope req'ts. Disposition: DS2 accepted as written. ** Discussion on the following draft scenarios was tabled to move to Agenda item 8. -- DS3, see  and subsequent -- DS4, see  and subsequent -- DS5, see  and subsequent -- DS6, see  and subsequent 8. Specification Schedule (30 minutes) The Charter shows a first XP Specification WD in January 2001 although this seems unlikely given our current status. The WG's next f2f meeting is at the end of February, and it is a good date around which to plan our schedule. Our next steps are. (a) finish a 'complete' version of the Reqs Doc. By 'complete' I mean having enough content that we can start work on XP specification; 'complete' does *not* imply there are no future revisions of the Reqs Doc. We need to decide the criteria for 'compete', I suggest it involves at a minimum: (i) a set of use-cases, and (ii) a review of the Reqs as a whole (we have tended to work on reqs individually). (b) figure out a process for creating an XP Spec. We are chartered to "evaluate the technical solutions proposed in the SOAP 1.1 specification against these requirements" . In other words, we will need to apply our Reqs Doc to the SOAP 1.1 spec (along the lines of what we did at the Redmond f2f). There may be other inputs as well, for example, WG members' evaluations of the SOAP 1.1 spec and/or an abstract model like . For scheduling purposes, we need to describe the XP Spec creation process in more detail. Given these next steps, there are a couple of likely scheduling alternatives. (a) Before the f2f: finish a complete version of the Reqs Doc and publish it as a WD AND figure out the process for creating an XP Spec. The February f2f meeting would be largely devoted to working the XP Spec process to generate material for a first draft of the Spec. (b) Before the f2f: finish a complete version of the Reqs Doc and publish it as a WD. The February f2f meeting would be largely devoted to figuring out the process for creating the XP Spec, and possibly generating a limited amount of material for it. The chair's opinion is that this option will lead us to spend too much time working on the Reqs Doc with the result that we are loathe to change much or any of it. The chair prefers a model of publish early and often. (c) Before the f2f: finish a complete version of the Reqs Doc and publish it as a WD AND figure out the process for creating an XP Spec AND create a first draft of the spec (possibly including something like ). The February f2f meeting would be largely devoted to working the XP Spec process to generate more material for the Spec. Note that there are about 6 weeks before the f2f. If we want to create any douments before the f2f, they probably needs to be available one week before the f2f. Discussion of this agenda item will be limited to 30 minutes. The chair is interested in the WG members' opinions about how and when to move forward with an XP Specification. David F (summarizing discussion): (a) have use cases first in hand before looking at SOAP spec (b) take SOAP 1.1 as opening working draft and post issues against our req'ts doc (subsequent discussion): If we're to move quickly with XP then we need to work use cases in parallel and need more help from WG members. Good support for casting SOAP 1.1 as working draft for XP, but some concern about committing to SOAP prematurely, before we have a good understanding of req'ts and use cases. David F will take discussion under advisement; send email in a couple of days. Do need to decide if SOAP 1.1 is good enough. 9. Any Other Business (5 mins) None
 http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/01/03-pminutes.html  http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/Admin/#pending  http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/  http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/WD-xmldsig-core-latest/  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0220.html  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0217.html  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0218.html  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0219.html  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2001Jan/0024.html  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2001Jan/0004.html  http://www.w3.org/2000/09/XML-Protocol-Charter#scope  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0221.html  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0222.html