W3C XML Protocol teleconference, 11 July 2001

1. Roll call

Present 34/30 Excused Regrets Absent

2. Agenda review, call for AOB

     David Fallside: Reviewed the agenda which follows.

     1. Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items (1.00 + 5m)

             RandyH (Intel) is scribe for minutes, Action Items taken on
     IRC (Henrik et al)

     2. Agenda review, call for AOB (1.05 + 5m)

     4. Review action items, (1.15 + 10m)

     5. Pseudo-Review of XML Encryption (1.25 + 5m)

     6. XMLP WG schedule (1.30 + 25m)
             -- Work items:
         Infoset, Primer
         (Transport Bindings), RPC, Encodings
         Resolve outstanding issues
         Check requirements met
         Validate usage scenarios
         Validate conformance criteria
             -- Meetings:
         Can the WG agree to (1) a 3-day f2f on November 27-29 on the east
     coast USA (modulo acceptance by XML Schema, XML Query and XSLT), and
     (2) a 3-day f2f in mid-February in France to co-incide with the XML

     7. Transport Binding Architecture (1.55 + 30m)
     Status report from Protocol Binding TF members on (copied from last

     8. Any Other Business (2.25 + 5m)

There was 1 AOB Item addressed during agenda review:  Scott Isaacson
confirmed dates for September F2F: 11-Sep-2001 through 13-Sep-2001 (3


4. Review action items

     2001/03/28: David Clay  to Start working on reconsiliation between
     what he has proposed with the most up to date version of the AM and
     Henrik's glossary mapping.

             Discussion of this pending action item was postponed since
     David Clay was not present.

     2001/06/06: Gudge and Henrik - Get back to the author of issue 19 -
     bring the issue on xml-dist-app.

          This item has not been taken to xml-dist-app and is still

          DavidF - This action item (2001/06/06) should be morphed into
          revisiting the issue on xml-dist-app.

     2001/06/07: Hugo - Start thinking about how to record conformance.

          Hugo:  this item is pending.

     2001/06/20: PaulC -PaulC to send e-mail on issue 30 by July 11

          DavidF:  this item is pending

     2001/06/20: DavidF - Think about whether we need the block/header
     entry distinction issue on the list

          DavidF:  thought he had put this on the issue list.  He will
          check, and so the item remains pending

     2001/06/27: DavidF - Write an email about the HTTP-Ext section with
     ChrisF and refer to issue # in issues list.

          Chris has just sent the draft e-mail to DavidF who has not yet
          had time to address (pending)


5. Pseudo Review of XML Encryption

     HugoH:  Hugo sent e-mail to list looking for volunteers.  David
     Orchard did a review.  Hugo will incorporate David Orchard's feedback
     and work with Joseph Reagle.  Hugo invited more feedback and noted
     friday deadline

     DavidO:  If people disagree with feedback, it may be appropriate to
     come up with a formal working group response

     HugoH:  Joseph didn't want a formal reply from WG but more from
     individuals.  If others have input, please send them to Joseph.  Hugo
     suggested that David O. discuss with Joseph at the Processing Model
     Workshop (12, 13-July-2001).


6. XMLP WG Schedule

     DavidF:  David sent a detailed timeline to WG members on Saturday, and
     proposed we briefly go through this propsal then address questions.
     Group agreed it would be useful to go through the e-mail.

     DavidF presented the schedule as follows:

     The schedule starts with Working Draft publications that happened on
     9-July.  The next item is September F2F in San Jose.  David noted that
     this working group seems to be able to publish after having a F2F. So
     the next milestone for publishing would be end of September (after the

     David proposed we have another F2F meeting in late November.  There is
     a possible slot back-to-back with XSL, Schema, and Query WG's.  We
     could have F2F in this timeframe.  Following the same sequence of
     events as September, we would publish again after this F2F.  This
     working draft will be the Last Call WD.  Last Call is a significant
     event in lifespan.  When a working group publishes a Last Call, it is
     indicating that the members believe they have met requirements in both
     the charter and the requirements document and that the membership
     believes all open issues have been addressed.  It's like saying "We
     think we're done."  This is a significant milestone.

     From late November-early December through February, we will be in Last
     Call review which gives the WG 3 months to solicit comments and
     respond to them.  We would give people approximately 1.5 months (out
     of the 3) to send in comments.  In responding to comments, we must be
     particular in how we respond:  there needs to be a paper/URL trail.
     When we believe we have responded to comments from Last Call review,
     we put together another version of the WD (Proposed Recommendation)
     that goes to the Director and all members of the consortium for final
     review.  Again, there may be issues raised against the PR.  Timeframe
     for Proposed Recomendation feedback is late Feburary to the end of

     This would mean that we would go immediately from Last Call to PR
     without a Candidate Rec stage.  CR is used for specs with little
     implementation history.  The point of CR is that at the end, you need
     to be able to show implementations.  This will apply to us, but given
     that there are already a large number of SOAP implementations out
     there today, we will simply have to show the Director that the
     technical features of the PR have been implemented.

     GlenD:  Noted that several changes from the SOAP 1.2 working draft
     have already been implemented in SOAP::Lite.

     DavidF:  It would be helpful if Glen could send a pointer to
     xml-dist-app that someone has done this.  We need to have this audit

     GlenD:  Agreed.

     DavidF:  In August and October, David has listed possible WDs.  These
     are suggestions to the group that as we do significant pieces of work,
     it is better to get them out for feedback sooner rather than later.
     David thinks we should target one in September and at least one more.
     Does this seem reasonable?

     Mark Nottingham:  Is the November F2F something that works for

     DavidF:  We haven't discussed but it's on the agenda later.  First we
     need to determine whether this is a good approach.

     Silence is assent so the proposal and schedule as described above is

     DavidF:  Let's move to F2F discussion.  Agenda ordering changed,

     The chair proposed a 3-day F2F November 27-29 on the east coast.
     XSLT, Schema, and Query are scheduled to meet Monday through Friday
     after Thanksgiving.  If they stay with that arrangement, and given the
     overlap in the groups, it would make sense for us to meet during the
     following week, (December 5, 2001) or we could meet week of
     26-November 2001.

     The chair proposed making the meeting Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday
     to accommodate travel.  XML Query and XML Schema has indicated that
     they would like to change the date of the meeting so that it is the
     week of December 5.  If this is the case, would people be able to make
     a meeting on 26-Nov through 28-Nov on East Coast.

     MarkN: both weeks are difficult

     GlenD:  If this were in Boston, either week is OK; otherwise could not
     attend a meeting during the week of 26-Nov.
     DavidF:  We do not have venue yet.
     Group agreed that we could meet either the week of 26-November or the
     week of 3-December depending on when XSL, Schema and Query are

     DavidF:  Will negotiate  with Schema, Query and XSLT for the date.
     The chair also proposed a F2F in France in mid-February to coincide
     with XML Plenary.
     There was no objection to this proposal so we agree to have another
     F2F coinciding with XML Plenary in France.

     Work Item:  Primer Discussion
     The chair believes a primer is something we need to have.
     Mark (Hale?):  Schema primer was a lot of work.
     Nilo:  Suggested 2 ideas.  The first is to do something along the
     lines of what Tim Bray with Annotated XSL: take the spec and explain
     motivation for specification feature.  The second suggestion to
     develop a users guide.

     Mark Nottingham:  Doesn't know that the WG should pursue this due to
     resource constraints.  This would certainly add to our work.

     Henrik:  Agrees with Mark Nottingham.  It would be nice to have
     descriptions of how we build on top of the specifications.

     Mike Champion:  Would have had a hard time getting adoption without a
     Henrik:  Most agree that XML Schema is very difficult.  SOAP is not in
     the same category.
     Nilo:  Believes we need to validate the specifications against use
     cases.  Doesn't know how we can validate without putting these in a
     primer.  This would be a guide to how application developers could use

     DavidF:  We might use some of our work on scenario validation in the
     DavidF:  As the author of Schema primer, he indicated that it was not
     a bad use of his time.  In working through the primer, he encountered
     a couple of situations where he uncovered issues that the spec authors
     didn't see.  The objection thus far seems to be resource commitment.
     David noted that if someone handed a primer to the WG, we wouldn't say

     Nilo:  Nilo has come across a lot of tutorials but people are not able
     to see range of usages without tutorials.  Nilo is willing to draft a
     proposed primer and distribute to the WG.

     JohnI:  John is willing to help with primer as well.  There will
     always be a number of people to pick this up from scratch.

     DavidF:  Can we agree to sanction Nilo with help from others to
     produce a draft primer.
     Henrik:  Asked a question:  what is scope of this?  Is this a
     discussion of how to write modules?  If this is a discussion of how
     SOAP fits into model mechanisms, it will take a lot of time from the
     WG because the WG will have to show that the scenarios do, in fact,
     fit the model.

     Nilo:  The point of primer would be to outline abstract items that
     aren't described in detail spec.
     DavidF:  Nilo can you write a proposal for primer and what it
     Nilo:  Yes

     WG agrees to ask Nilo and others to generate a proposal outlining,
     with some examples, the Primer.

     Work Item:  Infoset Description Discussion
     DavidF:  Martin Gudgin provided a rewrite of section 4 in terms of
     Infoset.  We need to decide whether we're going to expand on this.

     Mark Nottingham:  There are 2 issues--whether we use infoset to
     describe structures and whether we use Infoset to describe
     serializations in the future.  Maybe we should discuss technical
     issues first.

     GlenD:  I don't think we're considering doing the latter yet.
     [AlexC left telcon]
     DavidF:  Noah had suggested that a normalized XML serialization that
     meets infoset is something that may be addressed by a protocol

     GlenD:  Noted that this may or may not use angle brackets.
     DavidF:  Is there anyone who thinks the use of infoset to describe
     structures is not a good idea.
     There was no objection
     DavidF:  We will provide an XML Schema that defines a serialisation,
     but we won't provide other serializations.  To Mark Nottingham - does
     this obviate your concerns?
     Mark Nottingham:  Yes
     DavidF:  Proposed that we request that Martin Gudgin continue
     developing infoset description of SOAP
     Henrik:  To be specific - for the envelope.
     DavidF:  I believe this is true.
     Mark Nottingham:  Henrik is alluding to the possible use of Infoset in
     a protocol binding.
     Henrik:  Yes.  I think we should say that the Infoset describes the
     envelope, and the protocol binding is a different discussion.

     ChrisF:  Suggested that Martin might attempt to provide the same
     characterization of the http binding so we can get a sense of what it
     would look like.

     DavidF:  We are postponing the discussion of how to deal with the
     protocol binding.
     DavidF:  We have decided to provide an infoset description to describe
     the envelope.
     DavidF:  Chair takes Action Item to ask Martin to complete basic
     description using Infoset.
     DavidF:  Noted that have finished with first 2 work items under XMLP
     WG schedule

     Transport Bindings, RPC, Encodings
     DavidF:  Noted that we  have kicked off a transport bindings Task
     Force and proposes creating  RPC and Encodings Task Forces.  David is
     not suggesting we kick off RPC and Encoding Task Forces immediately
     because it may dilute transport bindings work.  David will produce
     more detailed schedule of how these task forces play out over time.
     David noted that serializing will not allow us to complete on time.
     Chair proposes staggering start time.

     No objection
     Frank DeRose:  Volunteers for the RPC task force.
     DavidF:  Requests that working group members volunteer when we make
     the call for participation.  Does it make sense to stagger start times
     of task forces?

     No objections were raised.

     Resolving Outstanding Issues
     DavidF: Another work item for the WG is to resolve all outstanding
     issues. He indicated that he will be soon be bringing a list of issues
     to the WG that are believed to be closed, so that the WG can verify
     this is indeed the case.  We will also need to validate that we meet
     usage scenarios and requirements.

     DavidF:  On section 2 of processing model, we did a lot of
     clarification work.  He believes we will do the same with RPC and
     encoding sections.  This should take place within the context of the
     task forces.


7. Transport Binding Architecture

     DavidF:  Mark Nottingham and Mark Jones posted descriptions, and
     StuartW posted a detailed description of a scheme for transport
     bindings.  The TF needs to work on bringing these together.  The chair
     requested a brief discussion of the 3 proposals followed by discussion
     of recommendations from the working group for the task force to come
     back with a single proposal.

     DavidF:  Asked Stuart to describe his proposal.
     Stuart:  Proposed putting something together something based on work
     by John I and Marc Hadley.  In his proposal, Stuart attempted to
     define a purpose and architecture for binding.  The discussion of
     materials didn't get much beyond framing a process for a binding.  He
     indicated that this should not be considered a polished proposal.

     Henrik:  I agree that the main argument is the definition of the
     purpose for the protocol binding.
     Stuart:  The discussion hasn't proceeded beyond defining the purpose
     for the protocol binding.
     GlenD:  there does not seem to be consensus.
     Stuart:  There were 2 forms of wording.   Purpose of the binding is
     there to describe how to make use of an underlying protoocl to
     transport a message.

     Henrik:  The next question is what do we need.  Should it discuss
     message exchange patterns, should it describe QoS?  Henrik does not
     believe we should go beyond how we stick a SOAP message inside
     something else.

     Chris:  It's not just sticking something into something else.  We
     cannot just say, "you stick something in HTTP" without specifying how
     you return response.

     Henrik:  There needs to be a description of message exchange and
     semantics.  It doesn't appear to be a property of binding to say
     whether you expect to see response for a message.

     GlenD:  What you are suggesting is an RPC abstraction, HTTP
     abstraction and semantic bindings
     DavidF:  Henrik - what do you think the SOAP 1.1 HTTP binding actually
     does describe?
     Henrik:  We have http messages that can contain SOAP message.  This is
     how we stick a SOAP message into a request (and response).  The HTTP
     does not require that you get a SOAP response back.  You may get a 202
     error.  At the end of the day, HTTP is a request/response messaging
     pattern.  If we show how to break HTTP, we will get a lot of flak for

     DavidF:  We are out of time.  The protocol binding TF is charged with
     solving the problems.
     GlenD:  Asked for a Transport Binding telcon to address the situation.

     DavidF:  Would like to have someone lead this group.  Please send
     e-mail to David if you wish to lead.  Need to convene a telcon in a
     short period of time.  Chair asked if there were objections to a phone
     call happening sooner than the W3C process normally allows.

     No objections were raised.
     Discussion of setting up Protocol Binding telcon.
     DavidF:  We will have to have one Friday (late afternoon) and possibly
     one Monday.  Request to Henrik to set up telcon for 4pm Eastern time.


8. Any Other Business

   No additional items.

Meeting adjourned at 1:35pm PT