Minutes of Transport Binding Task Force, 14 January 2002.


Current list of TBTF Action Items
SW to speak on 131 at WG telcon this week in NM's absence
DF to put 12 69 131 on WG telcon agenda this week for resolution
SW to send email describing differences between 2 formalisms with special
focus on internal process of a node, and including fragment illustrating
this (due in time for Jan 18 telcon)
SW will identify received comments that have not yet been covered in our
work (due in time for Jan 18 telcon)
CF will prioritise list of issues (due in time for Jan 18 telcon)

*****Minutes from Monday, 14 Jan meeting*****

1. DF change of status as chair/scribe of TBTF
+ discussion about amount of work left to the TBTF and concerns expressed
about how volunteering for chair of TBTF affects ability to do this work,
especially given that many people on TBTF are primary contributors to WG's
work effort; some support for a relvolving chair position; discussion

2. Summary of current situation. The purpose is to identify items for the
TBTF to consider. Current items to consider are:
-- text in spec
+ the following items were identified:
  security considerations in (i) binding framework Pt1 5.4 & 5.5, (ii) HTTP
binding (Pt2 sec 8)
  ed. note in Pt1 5.1
  ed. note in Pt2 8.1
  ed. note in Pt2 7.1.6
  general proof reading and completion of Pt1 sec 5, Pt2 secs 6, 7, 8

-- issues [3]
+ amended list, see also action list

-- another transport (HMM)
+ discussion of motivation for providing another transport; we recalled
that it was to (a) validate our framework, (b) meet some concerns that SOAP
appears to be HTTP-binding specific; suggestion that people be encouraged
to document another binding in a W3C Note - downside is that the WG would
likely be asked to handle it; suggestion that we document enough of a
second binding in the SOAP Primer to satisfy (a) and (b); TBTF did not
decide on which approach to take
*****Minutes of Tuesday, 15 Jan meeting start here*****

+ Chair suggested, and those present agreed, that at the previous TBTF
telcon, the lightweight/Primer approach was generally favoured

-- "wire trace variant" proposal [1] (SW)
+ need to understand how much this proposal overlaps/underlaps with
existing state machine description; those present on call generally
(SW joins call)
+ NM formulates question: currently describe state machine at each node; do
the trace descriptions replace state transitions at each node and how would
you represent semantics like timeouts?
+ SW response: the trace formalism motivated by (i) an early comment on
TBTF work which asked for a wire description, (ii) desire for a more formal
+ discussion followed
+ DF summary: SW asserts that the proposal can describe everything
currently covered by the state machine descriptions, and the representation
in the proposal is more 'usable' than the current transition diagrams and
their accompanying tables. The onus is currently on proponents of the
proposal to show that it does indeed provide the same coverage.

-- response to public feedback [2] (SW)
+ WG had asked for public feedback on TBTF material (pre-WD). SW has
catalogued some of this, he notes that it was mostly questions of technical
interest rather than criticism of style or content. He will continue to
work on the feedback.

-- any others?
+ none

3. Assign people to work on items
+ At the next TBTF telcon, DF will (a) propose CF & HFN write the security
consideration sections listed above, (b) propose HMM generate a SMTP
binding description for Primer, (c) ask for volunteers to generate proposed
resolutions to issues on list (above).

4. Next TBTF telcon is Friday Jan 18 9-10a PST, DF has already sent out
call details

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Jan/0089.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Jan/0163.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html