W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference minutes: 7 March 2001
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
Canon Jean-Jacques Moreau principal
Cisco Krishna Sankar principal
Commerce One David Burdett principal
Compaq Kevin Perkins alternate
Compaq Yin-Leng Husband principal
DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech Mario Jeckle principal
DataChannel Brian Eisenberg principal
DevelopMentor Martin Gudgin principal
Engenia Software Jeffrey Kay principal
Fujitsu Software Corporation Kazunori Iwasa principal
Hewlett Packard Stuart Williams alternate
Hewlett Packard David Ezell principal
IBM David Fallside chair
IBM John Ibbotson principal
IDOOX Miroslav Simek alternate
Informix Software Charles Campbell principal
Interwoven Mark Hale principal
IONA Technologies Oisin Hurley principal
Jamcracker David Orchard 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 Paul Denning alternate
Mitre Marwan Sabbouh principal
Netscape Ray Whitmer alternate
Netscape Vidur Apparao principal
Novell Scott Isaacson principal
Oracle David Clay principal
Philips Research Yasser alSafadi principal
Philips Research Amr Yassin alternate
Rogue Wave Murali Janakiraman principal
Rogue Wave Patrick Thompson alternate
SAP AG Gerd Hoelzing alternate
SAP AG Volker Wiechers principal
Software AG Michael Champion principal
Sun Microsystems Marc Hadley principal
Tibco Frank DeRose principal
W3C Hugo Haas alt team contact
W3C Yves Lafon team contact
WebMethods Randy Waldrop principal
Active Data Exchange Eric Fedok alternate
Allaire Simeon Simeonov alternate
Canon Herve Ruellan alternate
Commerce One Murray Maloney alternate
DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech Andreas Riegg alternate
DevelopMentor Don Box alternate
Engenia Software Eric Jenkins alternate
Fujitsu Software Corporation Masahiko Narita alternate
IBM Fransisco Cubera alternate
Informix Software Soumitro Tagore alternate
Interwoven Ron Daniel alternate
IONA Technologies Eric Newcomer alternate
Library of Congress Rich Greenfield alternate
Oracle Jim Trezzo alternate
Software AG Dietmar Gaertner alternate
Sun Microsystems Mark Baker alternate
Bowstreet Alex Ceponkus (carpT) alternate
Calico Commerce Rekha Nagarajan principal
Data Research Associates Mark Needleman principal
Epicentric Bjoern Heckel principal
Ericsson Research Canada Nilo Mitra principal
Group 8760 Dick Brooks ebXML contact
IDOOX Jacek Kopecky principal
Intel Randy Hall principal
OMG Henry Lowe principal
Unisys Lynne Thompson principal
Unisys Nick Smilonich alternate
ABSENT WITHOUT EXPLANATION
Bowstreet James Tauber principal
Epicentric Dean Moses alternate
Progress Software Peter Lecuyer alternate
Tradia George Scott principal
Tradia Erin Hoffman alternate
Vitria Technology Inc. Richard Koo alternate
Vitria Technology Inc. Waqar Sadiq principal
Xerox Tom Breuel primary
XMLSolutions Kevin Mitchell principal
XMLSolutions John Evdemon alternate
3. Approval of minutes from Feb 21 teleconference:
Hugo should ask I18N whether they have objections to their item being made
No other suggestions for removal.
Hugo will take care of the minutes.
Chair: Minutes from F2F were posted yesterday; they will be on the next
telecon agenda for approval. Please read them!
4. Review of action items
Quick poll to determine whether we need to do more extensive polling
about adopting a new acronym: Is XMLP acceptable to group?
4-5 objections, Several approvals ...
Question: Why did we drop XP? Microsoft or trademark issue?
Answer: General appearance issue, a number of reasons,
Chair will generate call for discussion, vote. Send suggestions to Chair
for polling procedures.
Henrik: Promote DS 11 with edits. Done.
Mark Jones: DS 19 rewrite . Done at F2F and given to Henrik. Mark will
check online version to ensure that it is changed.
Jeff Kay: New wording for DS 17. Posted to list.
Ray Whitmer: Issue 43, Get clarification. Sent one around, Vidur suggested
we drop issue, Ray concurs. No objections. Issue closed.
David Fallside: Draft response to issue 46. Done. Several people read it,
WG expressed general approval. One small issue vis a vis URI, URL, URN.
Needs to be brought up as a separate issue.
Mark Nottingham: Draft is OK as general response, but what about RPC people
in IETF? What is the specific relationship with them? Chair: we haven't
run into this situation yet; the issue as broght up was vis a vis SOAP, we
have answered that requirement. We will continue to maintain contact with
IETF, but if SOAP's RPC spec meets our requirements, we're done. If an
issue arises, we will pay attention.
Chair proposes to close the issue, and will send mail to the public list,
Henrik will update the issues list. WG consensus agreement.
5. Results of BOF in Boston with I18N Members
Paul Denning: I18N wanted clarification regarding our statement that
receivers reject unnormalized control information. We propose "Recipients
should assume that text data is normalized, and must not normalized" The
I18N should replace the first MUST with SHOULD. See Paul's email message
linked off the agenda.
Chair: What is the effect? We said that we should reject any unnormalized
data that is received; I18N thinks we must assume that it is normalized,
so if you don't assume that it is normalized, you should take great care.
Thus, we can reject unnormalized data if we think we should; they agreed
to the premise that the payload is the applications responsibility, not
Mark Hale: We want to assure I18N that we can carry both normalized and
un-normalized payloads. The BOF agreed to come up with useage scenarios,
but they are not our responsibility.
Chair: Is the I18N prepared to do this?
Mark: volunteered to come up with these scenarios.
Chair: Does this make sense? No objection
Yasser: BOF discussions mentioned use of terms sender and receiver; they
will review their use of various synonyms for these terms, and agreed that
they need better terminology. Also, they brought up term "originator" ...
will clarify the boundary of "sender" or "originator" and "receiver" or
Chair: Need audit trail of this discussion.
Dave Clay: I have notes, will offer them, and contact I18N.
ACTION ITEM: David Clay takes action item to contact I18N to get their
response to our response to these issues.
Chair: Have not yet reached closure on whether we recommend this change to
change "MUST" to "SHOULD". Any discussion?
Yin-Leng: Can we explain why we proposed the change in our response?
Chair: David or Paul, please do so ... Dave, Paul: they will coordinate.
Action item on Paul Denning and David Clay to draft such language and bring
it back to the group.
6. State of the Glossary
Chair: We decided at F2F to publish requirements doc with changes that have
accrued since December and will use this opportunity to do a proper
"heartbeat" update. We hoped to have a glossary before then, and need to
have this by "heartbeat" deadline of March 19. Need to discuss revised
glossary at next telecon, need revisions in time to discuss them. Stuart
and Martin, where are we?
Martin: Had call today to reconcile terms in abstract model and glossary,
made good progress but did not finish. (2/3 done) "Block", "Handler", and
"Module" were problematic, will take to email. Can publish something early
Chair: Do you have new text written for agreed upon items?
Stuart: Yes, this was written up as we went along.
Chair: Hopes for resolution of the three terms, and others that they
skipped. The sense of the participants in the telecon is that the
disagreements are not major, and agree to put this in the next version of
Chair: Any questions about glossary?
Question: Who receives recommendations for submissions to glossary?
Chair: Send them to the list, or Martin. Martin will send draft to dist-app
in time for discussion over weekend, will publish proposal on Monday that
we can discuss on Wednesday.
7. TODO list from Abstract model group
>From F2F meeting ... group should come up with proposed TODO list.
Stuart: Constructed a draft list which has been circulated, got three
responses. List rearranged and reposted yesterday. Trying to reach state
where that list is closed. AMG teleconference scheduled for Friday, will
make plans and assignments based on the list at that point.
List itself --
1 - Reconcile glossary and AMG terms and definitions.
2 - Do more work on service model abstractions, Section 3, 1 way and 2-way
3 - XML Protocol modules; define message processing model, and message
handling, fault handling.
4 - Template for XML protocol specification; guidance to those writing a
module as to what they should put into a module specificaiton. Good model
is XML digital signatures for SOAP
5 - Template for XML protocol binding specifications
6 - Model for arbitrary attachments, convergence with ebXML.
7 - Sanity checking AMG against SOAP 1.1,
8 - Sanity check against SOAP with attachment
9 - Sanity check against our requirements document and use cases.
Chair: 4 and 5 are "good things" we are charged with doing ... but these
are general working group things, not AMG issues. Put them on overall TODO
list. 7 and 8 are low priority, on this list, but should be used to scope
effort from the start. We should not spend time developing model that is
larger than we need, and this is bounded by SOAP 1.1 and SOAP with
Chair: We are charged with starting from SOAP 1.1, so the AM must be able
to describe these specs; actual mapping of our requirements onto SOAP is
another task. By doing that mapping, we bound the functionality that is
expressible in the AM. AMG should give this more urgent consideration to
avoid feature creep. Hope to publish AM document at the end of this month.
AMG agrees to this objective.
Chair: Spin out 4 and 5 to larger group ... develop new subgroup to
work on these. Mark Hadley and Henrik will take this on and try to
have a draft by the end of the month. Decide later if this is part of
the AM document or larger spec.
Number 4 Dave Clay volunteers to work on it. Glenn also volunteers.
Chair: Stuart, are you covered for items 2 and 3?
Stuart: Item 3 is large, but item 2 is close to being done. Fault handling
needs further discussion. There are enough bodies on the AMG, need more
coordination. AMG commits to 2 and 3 being done by end of month.
Chair: 6, Mark Jones signed up, also there is an ebXML convergence
subgroup. Will extract commitments at teleconference on Friday. Stuart
will sweep up whatever is left.
8. Issue reports postponed
9. Continue discussion from F2F on when do we publish first draft
Chair: revised timeline put forth at F2F mapping out timeline, everything
moved out two months. January WD milestone for specification moved to end
of March. There is a list of issues created by mapping requirements
against 1.1. Can we just publish draft spec with these issues? No, we
need to do more substantive work on specification. One way of measuring
this is resolution of the issues put up against the requirements. Chair
will generate prioritized list of these issues (critical, less critical).
WG could consider trying to resolve the critical issues, and then
publishing the draft spec that reflects this resolution. Chair will get
issues out by end of the week. Any comments or concerns?
Mark Jones: Since we turned DS's into S's, thought we would do publication
of requirements doc.
Chair: Yes, we will.
Comment: A conversation at F2F considered publishing issues list as WD.
Chair: Comment back from WG at F2F indicated that this was not sufficient.
Now we need agreement on the specific list of critical issues from the
group. Several enthusiastic agreements.
Paul Cotton: "end of March" used as both time to complete AM and to publish
WD. This doesn't give WG much time to consider this .. probably need 2
telecons to discuss the draft documents. What timeframe does chair have in
Chair: Will take to email.