W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 16 October 2002

common name abbreviations used in minutes * df == David Fallside * dm == Don Mullen * hfn == Henrik Frystyk Nielsen * jk == Jacek Kopecky * mh == Marc Hadley * nm == Noah Mendelsohn * rw == Ray Whitmer * yl == Yves Lafon

1. Roll call. Scribe for minutes selected from attached list. Actions to

be recorded on IRC. Present 21/16 Excused Regrets Absent

2. Agenda review, and AOB

DF: some major changes are in the renewed WG charter:
    o concrete model for attachment feature is now explicitly possible
    o end-of-charter date is now 31 December 2002
    o Change in section 5.1 IPR so that it now references the Current Patent Policy

DF: members' IPR statements from theirreponses to the new charter are available on one new IPR page. Members should look at this page to check their IPR statements are reflected correctly


3. Approval of 9 Oct telcon minutes

deferred to next telecon


4. Review action items


5. Status reports

-- Primer
Nilo: nothing to report

-- Spec
MH: part 2 changed in HTTP binding sec.
DF: part 2 will be on the reading list
NH: when will a version be  available?
DF: prefers snapshot at end of this week
MG: monday morning will be best
DF: can we agree to have a snapshot on friday EOB?
Editors: Yes.
Anish: the test document should be available shortly after the spec
DF: Snapshot of Spec Update should be available EOB Friday (PT).
    Test Collection Update available after Spec Snapshot (~ Monday).

-- Test Collection: status of update based on LC issue resolutions
Anish: requests editors for snapshot to refer to (broken links)
       Editors will help on a solution
       currently in sync with version from 10/11/2002

-- Attachment Feature: progress of LC review
DF: Response from QA group, issues on list

-- LC Issue List
Carine: nothing to report
-- Implementation tracking
DF: asks members for for a list of implemented features

-- Media type draft, IANA application
DF: nothing to report

-- Planning Oct f2f
DF: mail from Colleen with more f2f details, please look over the agenda and note any omissions
NM: everyone should read the docs on the reading list. Should allocate some time at f2f for comments on spec
HFN: we should talk about the concrete attachment feature
DF: we can talk about the spec and a concrete attachment feature at the f2f


6. LC Issues

-- Discussion of pushback to any issues we have closed

-- Potential new issues. For each potential new issue, we will first
   decide whether or not to accept it as an issue (based on severity, 
   "8-ball" impact, time to resolve, etc).

DF: new issues:
    we pushed back P3P issues(#240) on concrete implementation for P3P
    but P3P is not satisfied because there is no other group that has the mandate to
    pick up this issue. XMLP WG passed the issue to the WS coordination group

o Jacek points out
  that the new nodeType provides a more consistent and accurate means of
  distinguishing between value types than the terminal/non-terminal 
  distinction currently used in the Data Model section of Part 2.
  Therefore he proposes to remove the latter distinction from the spec, and to
  classify this as an editorial change.

MH: some clarification might be enough
DF: tune up wording on terminal/non-terminal
DF: action item to Jack to produce a list of changes that should be made
DF: accepted as new issue with issue# assigned by carine

o Noah has posted a potential issue
  based on the observation that it is currently not possible to ensure that 
  a header will travel to all downstream nodes using the obvious role='next'
  and mU='false' mechanism. The rationale for posting such a potential
  issue at this late date is that it appears to concern a very common scenario.
  The posting contains a proposed resolution.

YL: it will be ok to have a new role because it doesn't affect the
    other parts of the spec.  
JK: don't like the direction of adding a new role, because this will
    lose the ability to tag a header with a role indicating that no soap 
    node should process this header.
MK: don't believe that this use case is important
NM: States that this potential issue may be hard to fix later
HFN: agrees that this is an issue but does not like the solution in just
    flipping the exisitng default that requires an intermediary to remove
DF: postpone the decision to accept this as a new issue. It Will be on the
    agenda for next week, and in the meantime we should discuss in email.

-- 384, are gateways SOAP intermediaries?
   The issue is listed as editorial, however, the definition of a gateway
   is an important concept. There appears to be consensus (e.g.
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Oct/0019.html) that
   gateways are not necessarily SOAP intermediaries. This issue was
   postponed from last week's telcon to allow DavidO (and possibly others) to
   evaluate a WSA WG discussion thread on the same subject. Does anyone on the WG
   disagree with the consensus (check minutes on exactly how we left this

DF: We need a definition of a gateway first
NM: do we need to say anything about gateways, because they are out
    of scope?
DF: asks the WG if we should say anything about gateways?
No one states that we should mention gateways
DF: is there any objeciton to closing the issue by not doing anything on the basis
    that the spec is OK as is, and we see no needs to introduce gateways
No objections stated
DF: Issue 384 is closed with the status quo.

-- 305, SOAP-Response MEP does not need sending+receiving states
   Per last week's telcon, the editors are working on a solution based on
   option (iii) in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2002Oct/0012.html.

MH: Spec is fixed
DF: any objection against closing the issue with this resolution?
No objections raised
DF: issue 305 is closed with the resolution provided by the editors
MH: will send the comments

-- 300, How is version transition handled in the HTTP binding?
   Issue originator asks whether version transitions work when a SOAP 1.2
   node sends a SOAP 1.1 version mismatch error message using HTTP but with an
   application/xml+soap content-type (SOAP 1.1/HTTP used text/xml
   Email [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Sep/0107.html]
   suggests (i) keeping status quo, or (ii) adding text to clarify that a SOAP
   1.1 binding may be used in sending the version mismatch error message.
   We are awaiting text from Glen to close this issue. (Note possible tie-in
   to 395.)

DF: postpone because we do not have a solution
    Changes within the HTTP binding may be helpful for the resolution
    Waiting for text from Glen or failing such text we will reassign the
    action at the next telecon.

-- 355, CIIs in SOAP infoset
   The issue originator asks whether a SOAP infoset may contain Comment
   Info Items. At the last f2f we asked Gudge to create a proposal, which he has
   done [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Sep/0187.html].
   This proposal should also clarify editorial issue 262 regarding
   whitespace significance as written in the Primer. Noah has described
   [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Sep/0209.html] 3
   changes to the proposal (disallow intermediaries to remove HEADERs,
   include references to addt'l rules, editorial). Does the WG agree with the
   proposal and the suggested modifications? ..... we are awaiting (i) result of
   conversation between Henrik & Gudge, and (ii) a reading from Yves on
   whether the existing proposal would indeed send us back pre-LC.

YL: a solution will not bring us back to last call
NM: we are still expecting mail containing a proposed resolution from Gudge  
MG: the resolution addresses some issues raised at the last f2f related
    to XML-dsig.

-- 364, id and ref mutually exclusive
   Jacek has proposed closing this issue with the status quo and there is
   some agreement (e.g. 

DF: is there any discussion about this proposal?
No discussion
DF: is there any objeciton to closing this issue with the proposal (maintaining status quo)?
No objecitons
DF: issue 364 is closed with status quo.

-- 277, part 1 general comments
   Proposal from Herve
  regarding use of QNames. Proposal from Herve
  regarding use of namespaces.

DF: we will skip this for a week

-- 294, part 2, MEC motivation?
Proposal due from Marc

DF: we will skip this for a week

-- 363, RPC return accessor
   Asir proposes to close this issue without taking any action
   because the issue is not longer applicable given that we decided to
   the RPC array representation.

DF: is there any discussion?
No discussion
DF: is there any obejction to closing the issue with the proposal (maintaining status quo)?
No objections
DF: issue is closed without taking any action

meeting ended