W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 10 July 2002

1. Roll Call

Present Excused Regrets Absent

2. Review of Agenda and AOB


Done.

3. Approval of July 3 telcon minutes


Minutes not available. Postponed.

4. Review of Action Items


Editors: ?: Done
DavidF: Media type: Remove
Lynn: Extra SOAP requirements: Done
Anish: Extra SOAP requirements: Pending
DavidF: Find feature owner: Done
Yves: Update table 2: Remove
DavidF: Respond to TAG: Done
Mark+Editors: Incorporate I-D: Done
DavidF: ?: Done
DavidF: ?: Done
Stuart: 206: Done
Lynn: Status 208: Done
Editors: 210: Pending
Editors: 211: Pending
DonM: Closing text: Pending
Editors: ?: Pending
Editors: ?: Pending
Editors: ?: Pending

5. Status reports


5.1 Media Type

DavidF: In sum, the Internet-Draft has been reduced to a shell. Its
substantive content is now in Part 2, Appendix A. Pointer from I-D to Part
2. There is unofficial IESG approval to the approach we are taking,
according to MarkB.

DavidF: I-D should point to a stable spec. Hence suggest we produce a
snapshot ed-copy.

MarkB: Use draf-01 or draf-02? Draft-02 not submitted to IETF yet.

DavidF: Take to email.

5.2 AFTF

DavidF: Hervé has revised Henrik's Abstract feature draft. Now follows SOAP
Framework conventions, i.e. uses properties. AFTF meets again tomorrow.

DavidF: Question whether to publish as W3C Note or IETF draft? In LC email,
said WG expects to publish as W3C Note. Opinions?

Henrik: What is the real intent of this document? Describes abstract
attachment feature, usable in by other specs; unlike the email binding
document, not just a proof-of-concept. We need a real spec. The IETF is
suitable, since
already on standards track.

MarcH: Assumed W3C Note, at least temporarily, until rechartering, and then
later a REC (or part of a REC).

DavidF: Notes generally used to start new WG.

PaulC: Any example?

DavidF: This is what the process document says.

PaulC: Generally, a Note is work WGs want to shelve.

Henrik: Need a foundation on which to build other specs; quickly.

DavidF: In Rennes [Dinard] last year, the WG agreed attachments are
important, but not enough time. Hence W3C Note describing the abstract
part, tied in with SOAP framework. We expected: a) a WG would take it up
later; b) would show the world that Attachments are on our radar.

Henrik: Not ownership!

DavidF: Disagree!

Henrik: Currently on standards track!

DavidF: Internet Draft doesn't mean on standards track. And we are talking
about work from this WG.

Stuart: Agree with both MarcH and Henrik. The work should be normative at
end of day. Could this be a REC now?

DavidF: Been there before. Time issue.

PaulC: So (trying to understand) the status section could say (roughly)
important, abstract, foundation, Note, fastest way to get it out?

DavidF: Along these lines.

PaulC: Nothing would prevent someone to take that Note later and turn it in
an RFC, if no further work had been done on the it for some time?

DavidF: Nothing would prevent that.

PaulC: Cannot make a normative reference to a Note.

DavidF: The I-D was quiet for a long time; so it is reasonable for this WG
to take onwnership.

Henrik: Note is not a living document!

DavidF: Depends on status section.

Stuart: Any copyright issue?

Henrik: No, just used boilerplate IETF copyright.

Stuart: However, the current I-D is derivative work from previous work of
yours...

DavidF: No copyright issue. Noah already pointed out he had posted some
similar text earlier on dist-app.

PaulC: How will we reach a decision?

DavidF: Take it offline.

PaulC: Out of this WG?

DavidF: No, the discussion is not over yet, and the chair has asked several
times for people's opinions.

PaulC: Ok.

6. Implementation tracking

DavidF: Need feedback on status of remaining table 2 entries from Anish and
Asir. I'll take this to email.

7. LC Issues

In each of the following decisions, the Chair asked whether there were any
objections to the resolution that is noted. No objections were raised
regarding any of the decisions.

208
Lynn: Latest draft is clearer. We should add an extra bullet, saying
whitespaces insignificant unless specified otherwise.
WG decided this is an editorial issue. Issue closed with the suggested
clarification.

207
MarkB: Still thinks not email binding, but can live with.
WG decided to close the issue without taking any action.

209
MarcH: Change SHOULD to MUST, to bring text in agreement with Schema.
WG decided this is an editorial/clarification issue. Issue closed with the
change.

212
WG decided this is an editorial issue. Issue closed with the suggested
change.

216
The Issue is a request for clarification:
a) Clarify security section
b) Move into appendix
DavidF: Is there a volunteer to write clarification text?
No one volunteered.
The WG decided the issue is editorial, but without text or a volunteer, the
WG chooses to close the issue without taking any action.

217
DavidF: The proposal is to soften MUST to MAY.
Henrik: I am hesitant to do this for philosophical reasons.
The WG decided this is a substantive issue and to revisit it later after
MarcH has made some further investigations.

218
MarcH: We deleted before LC, but Noah wanted text back.
Henrik: I think it is useful text for the spec.
MarcH: It adds nothing, it is a tutorial.
Henrik: Ok, but we should keep it.
RayW: Goes well with description.
Henrik: Tutorial.
DavidF: How about we move it to the Primer?
The WG decided the issue is editorial, and the disputed paragraph be moved
to the Primer.

219
Henrik: The spec is clear enough, I am reluctant to make changes.
DavidO: We should wait for Stuart to be on the call.
DavidF: I note there is no replacement text suggested.
Postponed. Wait for Stuart.

220
DavidO: I don't understand the issue.
MarcH: Neither do I.
DavidO: We should wait for Stuart to explian it.
Postponed. Wait for Stuart.

221
MarcH: PI, comments are not significant.
DavidO: What about headers?
Henrik: Shouldn't touch those.
DavidO: PI's in headers should not be forwarded.
DavidF: Do we need to clarify intermediary's handling of PI's?
MarcH: Agree. We do so for whitespaces already.
DavidF: It appears the WG wants clarification. We need a volunteer to
formulate new (clarified) text.
Henrik volunteers to create new text.

222
Henrik: Issue is broader??
MarcH: I think the there is already clarification in LC WD, section 5.1.1.
The WG decided the issue is taken care of by text in the LC WD that was
written after the issue was formulated, and the issue can be closed without
any action.

223
Henrik: Fine.
The WG decided the issue is editorial, and that text along the lines
suggested be adopted.

224
Henrik: This is a issue of clarification.
DavidF: It seems to be no longer section 7.4.1.2
Henrik: It is now table 17
The WG decided the issue is editorial, and that the suggested text be
adopted.

225
Jean-Jacques: Editorial. Proposal is result of long discussion on dist-app
between Henrik, Chris and myself.
Henrik: Agree.
The WG decided the issue is editorial, and that the suggested text be
adopted.

226
DavidF: This seems out of scope, and is partially covered by GETF.
MarkB: Also in primer (section 3.1). I suggest we hand the issue over to
WS-Arch.
PaulD: TAG? DavidO?
WG decided the issue is out of scope, and the topic be passed to WS-Arch
WG.

227
Henrik: Suggest we wait for Stuart. There are many emails on this topic.
DavidF: Stuart should provide a summary of discussion.
Postponed. Wait for Stuart.

228
MarcH: This is related to 227.
Postponed.

229
MarcH: The word "processing" is used ambiguously.
Henrik: Agree.
DavidF: MarcH, can you provide clarification text?
MarcH: Ok

Editorial.
Marc to provide clarification text.

230
Jean-Jacques: This issue was raised by Glen before LC, but spec was already
frozen and so we put it in the LC issue list.
Henrik: It is asking for something that cannot be tested.
Jean-Jacques: It is useful though to refer to features by URI.
Henrik: However problem for abstract features.
DavidF: Is his issue covered already by mention of URIs for modules in
section 3.2?
DavidF: We should wait for Glen.

Discussion Postponed. DonM to contact Glenn.

231
MarcH: ?
RayW: ?
DavidF: Out of time. Take discussion to email.

8. AOB


Last Call reviews from other WGs.
DavidF: Some WG have said they will be late.
PaulC: Problem if received 50 emails in one go. These WGs probably have
collected issues already, sitting somewhere in a file. Should negotiate,
accept delay and ask for issues to be sent when they are ready, rather than
waiting to send them all in one go.
DavidF: Good point, I'll bear it in mind when talking with other WGs.

Meeting adjourned.