Minutes of Transport Binding Task Force, 28 September 2001.


Status of activities from previous telcon:
1. SW has completed a re-write of his MEP binding
2. HFN has completed his description of an HTTP binding

There was a long discussion on whether or not to bring SW's MEP description
(the "single-request-response" description or similar) into HFN's HTTP
binding description. Some of the main points of this discussion are
captured in the following:

-- HFN stated that he thought the HTTP binding description was meant to be
cast in terms of the "SOAP Underlying Protocol Binding Framework".
-- NM stated that he had not made the connection between the binding
description and the Framework when he had first read them, and even now it
was difficult to make the connection.
-- HFN noted that the subheadings in the two documents correspond
-- ?? noted that he expected the connection between a binding and the
Framweork would be more than a correspondence between headings in tables of

-- HFN stated that SW's MEP descriptions are but one of several possible
descriptions, and SW's description should be treated like a 'proof of
concept' more than as a description that is incorporated into any
description of a binding
-- NM strongly disagreed, saying that he wants an 'abstract' description of
an MEP such as request-response that is independent of any particular
underlying transport binding description

-- CF distinguished between 'application MEPs' and 'transport MEPs', and NM
asked which does the TBTF thinks it is working on.

The Chair proposed that we incorporate the description of the
'single-request-response' MEP from SW's text [1] and incorporate it into
the HTTP binding text [2].

-- the issue of whether this MEP description would handle intermediaries
was left unresolved; HFN stated that the description would be uninteresting
without handling intermediaries; GD thought they could be omitted; NM
thought they should be handled in the description and that such handling
could be described relatively easily

-- HFN stated that the proposal represented an interesting excercise but
was otherwise not necessary
-- MH said he was in favour of the proposal. and he reckoned the TBTF has
spent more time debating what to do than the time it would have taken to
actually accomplish many of its debated activities
-- SW said he was in favour of the proposal
-- OH said he was in favour of the proposal, and he noted that such work
was important to his company
-- GD said he was in favour of the proposal, and noted a similar import to
his company
-- HMM was concerned about which parts of the spec would contain the
Framework and MEP descriptions, and whether the MEP description would
preclude descriptions provided by, say,  WSDL. DF suggested the Framework
might be included in Part 1, and MEP descriptions in Part 2. NM suggested
the Framework could actually be included in Part 1. ?? stated that any MEP
description was not intended to preclude exchange pattersn from WSDL etc.
After this discussion, HMM said he was in favour of the proposal
-- MJ said he was in favour of the proposal
-- YL had left the call by this time, and CF declined to comment

The Chair judged there was sufficient agreement to proceed with the
proposal. MH, SW and OH volunteered to re-write the HTTP binding per the
proposal, NM offered help on a can-do basis. The re-written binding
description is due on 4 October.

The TBTF agreed to another telcon on 5 October.