Minutes of W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference held on
28 March 2001.
1. Roll call
- Akamai Technologies Mark Nottingham
- Allaire Simeon Simeonov
- AT&T Mark Jones
- Bowstreet Alex Ceponkus
- Canon Herve Ruellan
- Canon Jean-Jacques Moreau
- Cisco Krishna Sankar
- Commerce One David Burdett
- Compaq Yin-Leng Husband
- Data Research Associates Mark Needleman
- DataChannel Brian Eisenberg
- DevelopMentor Martin Gudgin
- Engenia Software Eric Jenkins
- Hewlett Packard David Ezell
- Hewlett Packard Stuart Williams
- IBM David Fallside
- IBM John Ibbotson
- IDOOX Jacek Kopecky
- Informix Software Charles Campbell
- Intel Randy Hall
- Interwoven Mark Hale
- IONA Technologies Oisin Hurley
- Library of Congress Ray Denenberg
- Lotus Development Noah Mendelsohn
- Matsushita Electric Ryuji Inoue
- Microsoft Corporation Henrik Nielsen
- Microsoft Corporation Paul Cotton
- Mitre Paul Denning
- Mitre Marwan Sabbouh
- Netscape Ray Whitmer
- Novell Scott Isaacson
- Oracle David Clay
- Philips Research Amr Yassin
- Rogue Wave Murali Janakiraman
- Rogue Wave Patrick Thompson
- SAP AG Volker Wiechers
- Software AG Michael Champion
- Sun Microsystems Chris Ferris
- Tibco Frank DeRose
- W3C Hugo Haas
- WebMethods Randy Waldrop
- Xerox Ugo Corda
- AT&T Michah Lerner
- Bowstreet James Tauber
- Commerce One Murray Maloney
- Compaq Kevin Perkins
- DevelopMentor Don Box
- IBM Fransisco Cubera
- IDOOX Miroslav Simek
- Informix Software Soumitro Tagore
- Interwoven Ron Daniel
- IONA Technologies Eric Newcomer
- Library of Congress Rich Greenfield
- Netscape Vidur Apparao
- Oracle Jim Trezzo
- Philips Research Yasser alSafadi
- SAP AG Gerd Hoelzing
- Software AG Dietmar Gaertner
- W3C Yves Lafon
ABSENT WITHOUT EXPLANATION
- Active Data Exchange Richard Martin
- Active Data Exchange Eric Fedok
- Allaire Glen Daniels
- Calico Commerce Rekha Nagarajan
- DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech Mario Jeckle
- DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech Andreas Riegg
- Engenia Software Jeffrey Kay
- Ericsson Research Canada Nilo Mitra
- Fujitsu Software Corporation Kazunori Iwasa
- Fujitsu Software Corporation Masahiko Narita
- Group 8760 Dick Brooks
- Jamcracker David Orchard
- Sun Microsystems Marc Hadley
- Tradia George Scott
- Tradia Erin Hoffman
- Unisys Lynne Thompson
- Unisys Nick Smilonich
- Epicentric Bjoern Heckel
- Epicentric Dean Moses
- OMG Henry Lowe
- Progress Software Peter Lecuyer
- Vitria Technology Inc. Richard Koo
- Vitria Technology Inc. Waqar Sadiq
- XMLSolutions Kevin Mitchell
- XMLSolutions John Evdemon
- Eric Jenkins
- Action items:
- Henrik Nielsen
2. Agenda review, call for AOB
David Fallside: The abstract model group will present an overview of the
model and an explanation of any outstanding issues. WG members will be asking
questions. The AM Group will provide a draft at end of the week.
The XMLP WG will have one or two weeks to comment.
Then we will send a draft to W3C for publication on, or around, Friday the
Noah: Question about Travel logistics (deferred to the end of the
??: Are we going to have a discussion about Web services conference?
David Fallside: Take the discussion to the member list.
3. Approval of minutes from 14 March and 21 March telecons
No corrections, additions, or modifications. Minutes stand as is and will
be published internally and on the public site.
4. Review Action Items
Follow up on i41:
Noah: Whether we specify an explicit actor value. Henrik and I received
input from other members of the group and put together a proposal.
Larger issues about what you do and don't know about abstractions like
path and endpoint. Propose we defer resolution until after do general
architecture about meaning of path.
David F: Action is to make sure that we resolve this issue. Defn.s of
path-target-actor, are these covered in other issue(s)?
Noah: Are all design questions listed as issues?
Henrik: Is it reasonable to say that we plan on getting to it.
David Fallside: If we add the comments that Noah made to i41 and leave it
as open, then we can deal with those issues.
Noah: message patterns and paths is the dog, and 41 is the tail, concern
that we address the dog rather than the tail.
New action item to Noah to look at issues list and determine where the dog
David Fallside: If not in the issues list, then we do not have a
guaranteed way of having it tracked.
Action Item regarding i41 is accomplished:
Action Item for Stuart was accomplished
Action Item for Henrik to write proposal for merging Glossary w/ SOAP 1.1.
Action Item for Jeff Kay. He sent out an email this morning with a further
suggestion about how we should manage the issues list, in particular we should
be specific about pointing to and recording the solution to issues on the list.
Need to ask Jeff Kay whether the current version of the issues list satisfies
his request. Action Item to David Fallside to query Jeff Kay about this.
5. Abstract Model, overview and pending issues
Stuart Williams: In terms of process, we are in good shape to have finalized
proposal to put to the working group on Friday.
Mark Jones will take on editor role while Stuart is on
vacation. The mapping to Soap and the comparisons to ??? are
not on the critical path.
John Ibbotson has been making good progress on scenarios.
Henrik has been making good progress on glossary.
Issues list will be revised, many of the issues have been
Change log will be moved from front to back of document.
Issue 5 will generate a new minimalist picture to add to the
document, similar to fig 2.1, but without intermediaries.
Subgroup has no issues against section 1 of the document.
Section 2 (overview of abstract model, picture plus narrative)
Minor editorial glitches to be fixed.
Major issue to be fixed are the concepts of path and
targeting, plus concept of module and handler. These remain
as topics of discussion, and we plan to capture output of
debate in document at a later time. WG may need to form
subgroup to address this.
Section3 generated the most controversial discussion.
I posted something late last week which made an alternate
proposal over request-response.
I believe the issue is that if let it go, we would lose
causality. I proposed that it would be possible to
reintroduce notion of causality into one way message. Believe
is possible and have posted that proposal.
Another change in the document, collapsing UnitData operation
into four events: send, receive, status and forwarding.
Forwarding is not creating a new message, since it is
conceptually the same message.
All of this will make it a slightly shorter document
Ray Denenberg: Is XMLP_Data is no longer part of the model?
RayD: Are you confortable that there is consensus on this?
Stuart: I've had no feedback that indicates dissent.
Henrik: I would say that the current model is more flexible than previous
model. This more unified model supports the concept of dialogs,
David Fallside: Consensus so far has been in the AM subgroup, now this
needs to go to the larger group.
Stuart: The line of thought that convinced me to make this change was that
we wanted causality rather than XMLP_Data. My proposal is not simply
one way messaging but one way messaging with correlation built in
David Clay: Does this make it easier to support bindings?
Stuart: Mark Hadley has been working on the bindings section, he probably
needs to think about this.
Marwan: (Summarized Stuart). So, the notion of causality would be lost if
we went to a one way model. I disagree with this and want to follow
up on the mailing list
Noah: I just think this is an example where the abstract work is taking us
into the core work. I'm not saying this is bad, I'm just pointing out
the timing. I feel it is important to tie into a concrete syntax.
There should be limits to degree that we want the abstract group to
drive the specification process.
Stuart: Some folks feel that the definition of path needs to be nailed
down and some folks feel that it is fine as is.
Frank DeRose: With regard to the correlation message ref member, it's not
clear to me that is reflected anywhere within the xml message
Stuart: not necessarily, will depend on the underlying protocols to do
Frank: Is this issue brought out explicitly in the document?
Stuart: I will take as an Action to go look in the doc and add if
Section 4 is largely Mark Jones' work
Major issue: question of path and targeting and the apparent magic between
targeted blocks and how intermediaries
Things that we intend to do before submitting doc to WG:
-Maintenance of headers and bodies and speak about blocks and remove
headers and bodies distinction.
-Switch order of 4.1 and 4.2
-Intend to highlite, but not delete, the parts of text that have to
do with soap.
Mark: there may be some small changes in the terminology before the
document goes out
Focuses on protocol bindings:
Work done by Mark Hadley presents a binding model for the transport side of
This may be another area where the WG wishes to commission some activity.
There has been some discussion about the service module bindings, remove http
specifics, and minor changes about how to nest bindings.
David Fallside: what is status of section 5.3?
Stuart: Henrik and I agree that the matter of carrying arbitrary content
is a binding issue, hope to be able to exploit binding capabilities.
(Henrik explained his example about the nested bindings piece).
Mark: What is the process for AM output?
David Fallside: Modifications will be put into draft by Friday and as of
Friday WG should consider this document a stable document.
WG should review that document (dated March 30) and we will
discuss that document and we may revise it on the basis of our
discussions. We could take a couple diff approaches. A formal
approach is to create an issues list, although it is not clear
we need to do that at this point. WG need to get consensus
about contents of a working draft. WG can decide about
including AM doc in the spec document in our final deliverable,
and whether the AM is normative or not. At the present time,
the proposal is that this doc will exist as a working draft in
its own right, but could gointo the front piece of the
Paul Cotton: I would like to consider the possibility that if it is published
as a separate document and we can't agree how they are linked
then we should record issues in the abstracts of both documents
explaining how they are related to each other and that the WG is
working on issues about the linkage.
David Fallside: Noah's caveat starts to address that issue though this does
not go as far as saying that there are formal areas of linkage
that we attempt to resolve at a further date.
PaulC: Mapping AM document to Soap is one place where the linkage is
David Fallside: When on Friday will the document be ready?
Stuart: Need to talk to Yves but should be first thing in the morning, PST.
6. Report on template for XML Protocol Module
David Clay: Report on template for xml protocol module.
Paul Denning and Glen Daniels also responsible for this work.
The tack we took was to ask:
-Who would define module template?
-Who would use it?
-How to combine modules into application?
Need to reconcile this with abstract model, because of many changes,
especially in section 4 of AM. They have different ideas about, for instance,
who orders the modules. Need to be reconciled.
Mark Jones: We need to reconcile boundaries of terms in the AM work, the
Template work and Henriks soap glossary mapping.
David Clay, Mark and Henriks will take offline and present at next telecon.
Paul Denning: Since we decided that RPC is a module, should we define as a
Marwan: I think this is a good idea.
David Fallside: Did you touch on RPC's in your template?
Mark: No our work is more general but we could test it on RPC.
Noah: I think this is a good direction to experiment with, but we have
technical and political factors to consider: Don't want to introduce
gratuitous differences with SOAP, etc. Let's have the group revisit it.
DavidC: It might be better to start out with an easier case than RPC.
Marwan: What would be simpler, wouldn't anything else be out of scope?
Would the proposed digital signature proposal be a module?
DavidC: Maybe, yes.
Noah: (long monolog) Let's try RPC.
DavidC: I didn't think from the definition of module that we would be
distinguishing between parts like a body or header. Many issues
discussed concerning what we mean by module.
David Fallside: The group should discuss these issues and attempt to model
RPC with the template and get back to the WG at next weeks
7. Issue Reports
(A) Ray Whitmer: Whether RPC works as a module, subgroup talked about it
and concluded you would find RPC in headers and other part
of the document. RPC, when it exists, tends to shield other
The group concluded:
RPC works well as a module.
No concrete proposals about how modules may be permitted to extend error
No clear deliverables for the group.
Recommend that RPC should be tried out as a module.
David Fallside: I think that the RPC recommendation answer was the main
deliverable for your group. Are your discussions summarized in
the message list?
Ray: Yes, it seems like a reasonable summary.
David Fallside: I think that the RPC task force has accomplished its
mission, and the best way to go forward is to test it out as
(B)Issue 47 & 48. David Ezell: There has not been much discussion on these
two issues. Essentially the soap encoding rules,
sitting on top of an RPC mechanism of some sort,
the actual wording was called out by Vidur.
We suggest that we back off from redefining the
encoding rules and point to soap note, and
address in a later WG.
Marwan: Why are encoding rules needed in the first place?
David Ezell: People are using these already and for certain cases have
Paul Cotton: I think there are lots of W3 groups that want these in a
normative location and that xml protocol is the appropriate
Noah: We need to do it to promote interoperability.
David Fallside: We will have to revisit this issue since we are about out
8. Any Other Business
Novell has offered to host the following F2F in San Jose.
PaulC: Are you aware that there may be a w3c plenary at that time?
David Fallside: Send me mail.
David Fallside: We have to reschedule the telecons starting next week, the
day will still be Wednesdays but the time may change must be
considered in the next day or so
Noah: How do we make TGV reservations?
Hervé: There is a web site, but they will not be taking reservations
until the beginning of next month. From Charles De Gaulle, trains leave
only a few times a day but from Paris they leave more frequently.
Will take this to email.