W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 6 November 2002

1. Roll

Present 18/15 Excused Regrets Absent

2. Agenda review


3. Approval of 9, 16, 23 Oct telcon and f2f minutes

9, 16, 23 Oct telcon minutes approved without objection.
F2F minutes have yet to be published for review.


4. Review action items


5. Status reports (11.30 + 20)

-- Primer: status of f2f decision related updates
Nilo not present; no report.

-- Spec: status of f2f decision related updates
Henrik:  Outstanding work items will be divided up for completion by end of week.

-- Test Collection: status of f2f decision related updates
Anish not present; no report.

-- Attachment Feature: status of f2f decision related updates
All changes have been made except one, for issue 385 (conformance
clause).  Nov 4 editor's copy is available.

-- LC Issue List
Carine: list is uptodate.

-- PAG/IPR situation, progress since f2f report
Yves:  All IPR statements have been reviewed to determine whether or not they
  are complete (meaning in compliance with the Current Patent Practice
  and WG Charter).
Since Tradia & Epicentric are no longer WG members, they are not
  subject to the CPP, so a Patent Advisory Group will not be launched
  on account of their statements.
Ericsson's statement is considered complete.  Yves will send an
  explanation to the WG.
More information has been requested from webMethods to determine
  whether their statement is "good".  A response is expected within a
We may also require clarification of Microsoft's statement.
DavidF: Will wait to publish the new IPR page until it is complete to minimise

-- Implementation tracking

Implementer's telcon on 11/5 reported by DavidF:

Representatives from all implementers listed on web page present.

A major goal was to ensure the Table 2 (Implementation Coverage)
  feature list is up-to-date.  Changes are detailed in the email
  referenced above.
Henrik:  Issue with a MUST in Part 2, Section 4.2.2 (see
  Propose to delete the last sentence that states an RPC response cannot
  contain both a result and a fault.  It is redundant with general SOAP
DavidF: any objection to deleting the sentence?
No objections.
DavidF: we'll delete it then.
Jacek:  Sent email
  proposing removal of feature #33.
Glen:  Action to start discussion on list about MUST allow headers
  containing additional info when using RPC.

DavidF:  Also discussed how to demonstrate interoperability for the
  feature list. In particular, are any of the existing soapbuilders
  tests for SOAP 1.1 applicable to 1.2?
  Another implmenter's call is scheduled for next week to tackle
  remaining Table 2 issues.  1 or 2 features have too few implementations;
  this is down from 5, so we are making progress.

-- Requirements coverage by spec, preliminary reports (final due Nov 13):
Colleen: sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3
PaulD: sections 4.4, 4.5
Jacek: sections 4.6, 4.7, believed done, see

DavidF (backup: Gudge): section 5


6. Docs, what shall we do with our 'supporting' documents? (11.50 + 20)

-- Abstract Model. Shall we publish the current Ed Copy
[http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/14-am/xmlp-am.html] as a Note?

DavidF proposes publication as a Note.  Feels that it is useful in
  exploring concepts, but will not become a REC document.
Jean-Jacques: There are 6 remaining issues for this document.
Henrik:  Concerned that attempts to map this model to SOAP 1.2 may not
  work due to evolution of the spec since the last draft of the model,
  so it may just result in confusion.
DavidF:  We could note in the intro to the AM doc that it reflects an
  early version of SOAP 1.2, and so is not expected to match the REC.
Mark Jones:  Latest editor's copy contains ed notes; should we resolve,
  remove, or leave these?
Noah:  Believes we should publish only "finished" work.  Prefer to do
  no more, or at most clean up the ed copy and publish a link to it to
  the xml-dist-app list only, not publish as Note.
DavidF: A Note is an appropriate W3C status for incomplete work such as
Mark:  Is there a difference between WD and Note, in that one reflects
  consensus?  Some parts have not been reviewed.  DavidF:  There is no
  difference in this regard.
Noah:  If we choose to publish as Note, I suggest do on its own schedule,
  possibly delaying until after REC, so that it will not be viewed as
  a related deliverable.
DavidF:  This document will not be attached to any publicity
  surrounding the REC.

-- Email Binding. Are there changes to the spec that obsolete the current
Note, and if so shall we update the Note? What to do with the request from
Don Mullen re the new Email binding

Don:  The WSDL WG created an alternate SOAP 1.2 binding, to make sure
  pub-sub was supported by WSDL.  WSD WG is not asking XMLP WG to do
  anything with the new binding formally, however, Don encourages
  review and feedback.
Mark:  How can we deprecate the current Note?
Yves:  Any changes to achieve deprecation requires republication.
Noah:  This Note is mentioned in Last Call announcement.  It was used
  to prove the framework, but is no longer needed.  Don's new binding
  does at least as good a job at this.
DavidF:  Consider dropping it from next announcement (for CR/PR).

-- The "application/soap+xml" Media Type document and IANA application. The
spec says:
This document references "The 'application/soap+xml' media type" Internet
Draft [SOAP MediaType
which defines the "application/soap+xml" media type. The XML Protocol
Working Group intends to use [SOAP MediaType] in an IANA
[http://www.iana.org/] application to register the "application/soap+xml"
media type. The Working Group also intends to incorporate the technical
content of [SOAP MediaType] into a near future version of SOAP Version 1.2
Part 2, and to maintain that content as part of the SOAP specification.

We could put the technical content of media type draft into Part 2.
Henrik:  It's already in Part 2, Appendix A, which is normative, as of
  LC draft.
DavidF:  Should we pursue IANA registration?
Henrik:  Believes Mark Baker produced a draft, and IESG was happy with
  it.  But there is no published document to reference from spec.
Action (assigned to Jean-Jacques) to prepare necessary pieces for IANA
  application, so that it can be submitted at the appropriate time.

-- Requirements and Usage Scenarios
Postponed discussion of these docs.


7. LC Issues [http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues] (12.10 + 40)

-- allowed values of array size
Noah to report on status of XML Schema WG's pattern facet for list types.
WG to decide whether and how to change SOAP description and schema of

Noah:  Gudge applied a pattern facet; Schema WG has an open issue that
  would resolve this in the way we assumed, so proposal made at F2F
  would be OK.
The Regex may or may not have been broken with respect to "0" value
  when leading zeroes were disallowed.
Action (Henrik) to determine status with Gudge.

-- MEP assumptions regarding intermediaries
We are awaiting a proposal from Henrik and Noah on this topic. WG will
evaluate the proposal and decide whether and how to incorporate it
into the spec.

Henrik: Proposal is at
  It is unclear whether the two MEPs we define allow intermediaries.
  Do RPC representation & HTTP binding support multiple MEPs?
  Clarify in the first paragraph of each MEP.
Noah:  We don't say anything about intermediaries.  We shouldn't
  prohibit anyone from inserting an intermediary that is transparent
  to client.  Leave status quo.  By not saying anything, we allow such
  a case.  Don't believe soapbuilders would be able to demonstrate
  intermediaries with the proposed text.
Jacek:  Agrees with Noah.
DavidF:  Continue discussion via email and make decision at next

-- text to illustrate use of HTTP binding with non-default port.
See proposed text from Yves at
WG will evaluate the proposal and decide whether and how to incorporate it
into the spec.

Yves:  HTTP server will serve different resources depending on URI.
  Port is not relevant, but different ports can be used as needed for
Jacek:  Amend term "port" to read "TCP port".
Henrik:  Need to reference port discussion in security section.
DavidF: Propose that editors adopt Yves proposed text with 2 amendments
  above and massage grammar as appropriate.
No objections.
DavidF: editors are instructed to make the changes

-- changes to SQLX name mapping algorithm
See report
on the SQLX's algorithm changes and its status within ANSI/ISO. WG to
decide whether or not to adopt the changes.

Henrik:  OK with changes proposed by Paul Cotton.
DavidF: any objection to adopting changes proposed?
No objections.
DavidF: editors are instructed to make the changes.

-- 385, 367, 368, 369, conformance issues
See thread on proposal starting at

QA group requested a statement saying that conformance = compliance
  with all mandatory statements in text.
Noah:  We do not specify a SOAP processor or implementation, so the
  proposed statement is inappropriate.
DavidF: Take further discussion to email.

-- question from editors
Request to change "Web Method Specification Feature" to "SOAP Web Method
Feature", see

DavidF: any objections to this request?
No objections.
DavidF: editors are instructed to make the change.

DavidF: Are there any issues for which we have received pushback?
There has been no pushback to recent issue closures, with the
  exception of issue 50, which is still ongoing.


8. Attachment Feature Implementation Spec (12.50 + 10)

-- report from Chair/Staff on IP/copyright re. DIME and SwA
-- next steps?

Yves: Copyright holders for SOAP with Attachments are the same as for
  SOAP 1.1. (?)
Would like to fix webMethods' IPR issue, since they are an author. (?)
Awaiting reply on question as to whether DIME will continue in W3C or
  IETF standards track.

Telcon Schedule:
  No WG telcon next week. The next WG telcon will be Nov 20.

Meeting adjourned.