Based on IRC log of xmlprotocol on 2002-05-29
May 22 telcon minutes approved
mh: probably need another review cycle to look at all the changes triggered by review feedback nm: thought that we were only making changes of a strictly editorial nature... can't afford another 2-3 days to review these specs. df: those were the ground rules nm: prefer we minimize changes that are no more than a matter of taste mh: lots and lots of little changes nm: 95% isolated enough, but there are a few where an isolated change changes meaning elsewhere df: need to scale back on this activity, strictly enforce the rule that we're only looking at changes that are very very minor df: to those about to review part 2, are these in the spirit of small changes? if so, when will the reviews be completed? skw: tried to identify the changes that are important and those which are informational df: still planning on part 2 review? skw: yes, but not sure can complete by eow df: rather see editors wrap up what we already have. move immediately to LC as soon as GET changes are incorporated. publish a WD with last few small changes in it, then another WD (LC) with GET changes incorporated when will list be finished? mh: can finish my bits tomorrow DF: can you finish be end of day tomorrow (THurs)? DF asks editors to finish by EOB tomorrow Editors agree Henrik: do we skip things that are more than editorial? df: yes, put on last call issues list todo to editors to add those issues to the list. Agreed by editors. df: anish, plans for finishing editorial work? ak: by next telcon mj: what exactly goes to LC? df: look at last agenda item, should answer that question df: will ask next telcon whether we are comfortable with that doc (that doesn't include GET) going out for LC df: highland, any update on email? hmm: nope df: mark baker, any update on application/soap+xml ID? mb: updated ID sent out df: issue w/r/t namespace? mb: kind of important for ID to have this fixed df: is there a way that we can publish this draft with the ability to change the namespace? mb: think there is, but useful to know ahead of time that the namespace might change df: are we ready to make the decision to publish this ID to IANA now? mb: would prefer to have someone review this first nm: any time sensitive issues? mb: july ?? mb: could publish as another IETF ID before submitting to IANA df: okay, why not submit as new ID to IETF, plan to get final opinion before july 1 df: couple weeks before we need final decision, remind group we need another look at the draft at that point
ask i18n wg if they have any recommendation for [I] requirements in charmod not part of charmod lc review
URI for GETF proposal for MEP nd HTTP binding changes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2002May/0173.html still a wip df: when GETF and WG are comfortable and reaching consensus, then we'll approach the TAG seeking a yeah/nay. GETF seeking permission from WG to go to TAG for informal feedback so we can have a fast f/b loop with TAG. silence is assent. cf: reviews the essence of the GETF proposal for the oneway pull MEP and associated HTTP binding changes hfn: reviews the three options that cf and hfn discussed after the call df: any other comments from GETF folk? none df: any comments from WG? jk: concerned about sending the empty SOAP message... jk: wanted a true oneway pull nm: anything we can do to get to closure fast is a good thing. Either approach is reasonably acceptable and there are deeper things to get right in this jk: +1 to noah cf: 1++ df: silence is thumbs up df: revisit f2f question nm: major thing that we have to get through in GETF is RPC... references email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002May/0096.html nm: GETF has yet to review this proposal hfn: FWIW, I just sent the three options to the WG list - they of course have no standing within the GETF or the WG, you can find it at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2002May/0217.html mj: how far out, assume not in august? df: yes, that's another factor that makes this more complex hfn: if we have everything except GET by Friday, if we commit the GETF to get a proposal out by a week, is there no reason we can't review this by next wednesday? nm: reason we're delaying is that we don't want to do this with the possibility that the TAG will delay nm: if we had a proposal tomorrow, might still take a week to get f/b from TAG nm: concerned that rushing it out doesn't solve the problem df: general sense from group that we probably should move the f2f? df: if we thought that GETF was done, and we could go to LC in three weeks from end of this week, then we could have f2f on jul 30-aug 1 and cut duration of LC by one week df: that would be 5 instead of 6 weeks df: doable if GETF and WG can reach consensus in 2 weeks nm: schema is meeting that week (of jul), so is query, meeting in redmond df: we may decide something now that for the benefit of our host... df: bay area or redmond (west coast) df: if we went to LC 17 Jun, would give us almost 6 week LC if we had f2f 30 Jul. What does WG think of 5 week LC period? What does WG think of GETF getting work done in 3 weeks? nm, hfn, cf: think we can do this df: that's 3 GETF members, anyone else? silence is assent df: resolved; postpone f2f to 30 Jul, pencil in rrsagent, please list actions Adjourned.