See also:
PRESENT 46/35 Active Data Exchange Richard Martin principal Akamai Technologies Mark Nottingham principal Allaire Glen Daniels principal AT&T Mark Jones principal AT&T Michah Lerner alternate Bowstreet Alex Ceponkus alternate Canon Jean-Jacques Moreau principal Compaq Yin-Leng Husband principal Compaq Kevin Perkins alternate DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech Mario Jeckle principal Data Research Associates Mark Needleman principal DataChannel Brian Eisenberg alternate Engenia Software Jeffrey Kay principal Epicentric Bjoern Heckel principal Ericsson Research Canada Nilo Mitra principal Hewlett Packard David Ezell principal Hewlett Packard Stuart Williams alternate IBM David Fallside chair IBM John Ibbotson principal IONA Technologies Oisin Hurley principal Library of Congress Ray Denenberg principal Lotus Development Noah Mendelsohn principal Matsushita Electric Ryuji Inoue principal Microsoft Corporation Henrik Nielsen principal Microsoft Corporation Paul Cotton alternate Mitre Marwan Sabbouh principal Mitre Paul Denning alternate Netscape Vidur Apparao principal Oracle David Clay principal Oracle Jim Trezzo alternate Philips Research Yasser alSafadi principal Progress Software Andrew Eisenberg principal Rogue Wave Murali Janakiraman principal SAP AG Volker Wiechers principal SAP AG Gerd Hoelzing alternate Software AG Michael Champion principal Sun Microsystems Ed Mooney principal Sun Microsystems Mark Baker alternate Tibco Frank DeRose principal 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 WebMethods Randy Waldrop principal Xerox Tom Breuel primary XMLSolutions Kevin Mitchell principal AUTOMATICALLY EXCUSED Active Data Exchange Eric Fedok alternate Allaire Simeon Simeonov alternate Bowstreet James Tauber principal Canon Herve Ruellan alternate DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech Andreas Riegg alternate DataChannel Mike Dierken primary Engenia Software Eric Jenkins alternate Epicentric Dean Moses alternate IBM Fransisco Cubera alternate IONA Technologies Eric Newcomer alternate Library of Congress Rich Greenfield alternate Netscape Ray Whitmer alternate Philips Research Amr Yassin alternate Progress Software Peter Lecuyer alternate Rogue Wave Patrick Thompson alternate Software AG Dietmar Gaertner alternate Vitria Technology Inc. Richard Koo alternate XMLSolutions John Evdemon alternate REGRETS Calico Commerce Rekha Nagarajan principal Cisco Krishna Sankar principal Fujitsu Software Corporation Kazunori Iwasa principal Fujitsu Software Corporation Masahiko Narita alternate Group 8760 Dick Brooks ebXML contact Informix Software Soumitro Tagore alternate Intel Randy Hall principal Jamcracker David Orchard principal Novell Scott Isaacson principal OMG Henry Lowe principal ABSENT WITHOUT EXPLANATION Commerce One David Burdett principal Commerce One Murray Maloney alternate DevelopMentor Martin Gudgin principal DevelopMentor Don Box alternate Informix Software Charles Campbell principal NCR Vilhelm Rosenqvist principal NCR Lew Shannon alternate
Minutes: Kevin Perkins (& Yin Leng Husband) Action items: Henrik Nielsen
David Fallside: majority of the meeting time will be spent going through the usage scenarios. Ed Mooney: request for the format of envelope to be discussed.
Approved with 1 amendment.
Glen Daniels: Send use-cases to xml-dist
waiting for discussions, otherwise, complete.
David Fallside: done
Henrik: Introductory text
done, incorporated Bill's revised introductory text
Hugo: Minutes published
done.
Henrik: done, updated editors' version of requirements doc.
Stuart: done, timeline for Strawman not needed. Public can
comment
and join in discussions.
Hugo: pending as it is an agenda item.
Req section leads: pending
Hugo: done, checked hits on Requirements doc, around 2100 between
day of release to January 17th.
Henrik: done, 305
Henrik: done, 309
Glen Daniels: done, reworded DS5
Glen Daniels: done, reworded DS6
John Ibbotson: pending, to clarify DS7 by end of week
John Ibbotson: done, expanded DS8
Stuart Williams: reported that he has posted names of subgroup members, timeline, and exposed draft of model. No dissent received. There will be an AMG (John Ibbotson, Martin Gudgin, Stuart Williams) f2f meeting on 29 Jan, 10 am to 5 pm. Two conference call sessions (10.30 am ? 12 noon, 3 ? 4.30 pm GMT) will be made available. StuartW will send out conference call dial-in details and minutes of meeting ( when over) to dist-app.
4.1 General Reqs, John Ibbotson:
Nothing done yet, but has allocated time for it to be done by end of
the week. Format of report is to lodge each issue with an issue
number against spec.
4.2 Simplicity & Stability, David Ezell
R300 ? SOAP 1.1 lack of explicit architecture model is an issue. Will
report by end of week.
4.3 Data Encapsulation, Oisin Hurley
701a. Requirement for encapsulation ? SOAP partially satisfies.
701b. Requirement for encapsulation ? Envelope to produce fault
information, SOAP partially satisfies. Processing will extend
categorization.
700b. Requirement for extensibility ? SOAP partially satisfies, may
need to extend the must-understand attribute.
Requirement for evolution ? SOAP partially satisfies
Requirement for encapsulation of status ? not satisfied.
Will write up report after concall by next working day.
4.4 Intermediaries, Mark Nottingham
No firm concept of transport binding, this needs to be clarified.
803. Not a problem
806-808. Processing model not well enough defined.
802. Not a problem.
Will report by early next week before next concall.
4.5 Data Representation, Paul Cotton
Nothing done yet, but will have something before next concall.
4.6 Protocol Bindings, Oisin Hurley
Small amount of text available. Not specifically addressed by SOAP.
Will report with 4.3
4.7 RPC, Vidur Apparao
Will report by early next week before next concall.
David Fallside: Requested the WG to look at encoding. It will be on
agenda for next concall.
Hugo: Started sanitization. Will send to editorial team tomorrow.
Report from Nilo Mitra on collecting new usage scenarios Nilo: Reported that there were 9 overlooked use cases listed in emails. Will flesh out variants of similar use cases, annotate them with comments, make proposal for all, and send them to Henrik who will dispose of them as per existing set of use cases, i.e. will remain as draft scenarios. The text should consist of extracted intent, but should retain pointers to original text. Will be done by Monday for review at next concall. DS3 John Ibbotson: Re-written as a result of concall. Is revision consistent with issues raised? Only David Clay's issue outstanding. David sees no issue. So revised text acceptable to group and will be added to Editor's draft copy. It is proposed to label the scenario "S3" ? Henrick and Nilo to verify naming DS4 There is a comment from Mark Baker that the wording seems to specify a solution ? current text emphasizes programmatic RPC. Action is to re-word. Discussion on proposed wording: "The sender invokes the service by passing parameters that are serialised into a message for transmission to the receiving server." Frank will send a proposed re-wording. Another discussion on whether there should be additional separate use cases for 1-way vs. request-response. Nilo pointed out that DS19, DS22 deal with these. Action is to wait for revised text of DS4, then check out DS19 and DS22 to see if it is necessary to create a new DS. DS5 No comments received yet. Marwan queried the significance of positive acknowledgment (as opposed to negative acknowledgment?) A discussion on meaning of acknowledgement followed. Acknowledgment is at a lower level than user semantics; but not low enough to be at transport level's use of ACK and NACK. Question is what level scenarios should be kept at. This question is related to the Abstract Model work. Data is sent from the Application Layer down to XP. The XP should report on the success or failure of delivery of data to recipient. The issue is definition of "success" and how one reports "successful" transmission. In ebXML, there are varying degrees of reliable transmission, so it is possible to have different scenarios for different degrees of reliability. Proposals included removing mention of 'positive', and add some indication of degree of success in transmission: - "Message is returned indicating the disposition of transfer." John Ibbotson will take results of discussion and post proposals and co-ordinate re-wording. There was another query on whether multiple responses to a single request are permitted (see DS20). Need to look at whether more scenarios are required to cover the variations in single/multiple responses.
None.