W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 06 March 2002

1. Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items

Present 30/26 Excused Regrets Absent

2. Agenda review, and AOB

-- Reminder for implementers to send in details for posting on XMLP web
page
It is desired to bypass the CR step and so we will need a list of
implementation details.
-- Date of next f2f
5 possible dates between end of May and beginning of June
May 13-15
May 15-17
May 21-23
May 29-31
June 4-6
It should be a west coast meeting.
We need to make a decision on this in the coming week

	

3. Approval of February 20 Feb telcon minutes

Postponed until next week

        

4. Review action items


        

5. Status reports

-- Primer
The processing model discussion might be too intimidating in its current
position in the document. It will be moved to a more appropriate location.
The document is fairly closely aligned to the other 2 parts of the specs.
Section 4.2 describes using other serialization schemes, it needs further
work.
-- Spec
- Editor's CVS repository is now functional
- Resolution 137 will affect this section??
- Only the XML version is up to date.
- XMLP web page maintainer is asked to ensure the XML/HTML doc differences
are obvious.
- Data Model and Encoding section are currently being edited
-- TBTF
Nothing to report.
-- ETF
Nothing to report.
-- Conformance work
The test collection document needs some editorial work to get it into
shape. The doc's editors will release a version as soon as possible
and make it open for comments. Planned to be released on Monday. End of
the week would be better.
-- Usage Scenarios
Nothing to report.

ACTION: DavidF: Look for a new editor for requirements document

-- Email binding. Approve Jacek's "Letter of Intent" [16].
Discussions regarding Mark Baker's query whether the email binding provides
suitable exercising of the binding framework, and why SMTP is not included.
ACTION: MarkB and Jacek to provide appendix for SMTP and POP3 details as
part of e-mail binding, deadline is 2 weeks hence.

        

6. Issue 137, Intermediaries relaying SOAP messages without modifying them.

Some discussion on the appropriateness of the examples, e.g. calling out
logging in the context of an active intermediary. Also, the example text in
the final text of the proposal was agreed to be too dense.

No objection was voiced to closing the issue with the proposed wording and
with
the understanding that the editors will improve the wording associated with
the
examples.
ACTION: gudge: send closing text on issue 137

        

7. Issue 183, Default values of SOAP header block attributes.

No objection was voiced to closing the issue with the proposal.
ACTION: Stuart to send closing text on issue 183

        

8. Issue 180, Parameter ordering in Section 4.1.

No objection was voiced to closing the issue with the proposal.
ACTION: DavidF to send closing text on issue 180

        

9. Issue 181, Incostitency between section 4.4.3 and section 2.

No objection was voiced to closing the issue with the proposal.
ACTION: Gudge:send closing text on issue 181

        

10. Issue 182, Fault code restriction.

Proposed text was modified as follows:
"Failure is indicted by the generation of a fault.  SOAP message
processing MAY result in the generation of at-most one fault.
Header-related faults other than mustUnderstand faults  MUST conform to
the specification for the corresponding SOAP header block."

No objection was voiced to closing the issue with the revised text.
ACTION: StuartW to send closing text on issue 182

        

11. Issue 57.

No objection was voiced to closing the issue with the proposal.
ACTION: Murali to send closing text on issue 57

        

12. Issue 142, namespace for SOAP fault codes.

No objection was voiced to closing the issue with the proposal.
ACTION: MartinG to send closing text on issue 142

        

13. Issue 51, support different message patterns.

No objection was voiced to closing the issue with the proposal.
ACTION: Volker to send closing text on issue 51

        

14. Issue 67, convey error information.

No objection was voiced to closing the issue with the proposal.
ACTION: StuartW send closing text on issue 67

        

15. Issue 154, invariance of role.

No objection was voiced to closing the issue with the proposal.
ACTION: Deitmar to send closing text on issue 154

Meeting ended.