W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 15 January 2003

11:05 AM to 11:50 AM Pacific Time.

1. Roll

Present 15/12 Excused Regrets Absent

2. PRIOR MINUTES

Skipped approval of 8 Jan telcon minutes (because they haven't been
published yet).

3. PRIOR ACTION ITEMS

http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/Admin/#pending

[repeated request; no response yet] 2002/11/20: Yves
Get confirmation from DIME authors that we can reuse the spec

[done] 2003/01/08: DavidF
Poll the group about possible f2f combinations around the Tech Plenary
in March

[done, see below] 2003/01/08: Carine & Yves
Investigate room f2f at Sonesta

[done, see below] 2003/01/08: JohnI
Investigate room for said f2f at the Lotus building

[done] 2003/01/08: DavidF
Ask WSCG for further discussion on c14n further work/rechartering issue

[pending] 2003/01/08: Gudge & MarcH
Check with DSig and possibly others on C14N issues by end of January.

[done] 2003/01/08: MarcH
Send email to xmlp-comments and A.T.Manes and J.Sievert to close issue
397

4. STATUS


-- Parts 0, 1, 2: no outstanding items

-- Abstract Model: New W3C copyright to be used for all new drafts
(including this one).

ACTION: DavidF find reference to new W3C copyright rules and post to public
list
ACTION: All editors to make copyright change to all unpublished drafts

-- IPR: no new news

-- Test Collection: no new news

-- f2f meeting:
Moving forward with two-day, four session (two per day) telecon 11-12 Feb
to address CR issues.

Would like to schedule face-to-face meeting in conjunction with plenary in
Boston on Thursday or Friday, principally to discuss attachments.
Alternative venues include Sonesta hotel or Lotus (perhaps without
high-speed network access); to finalize venue (room), need to get an
accurate head count.

ACTION: DavidF solicit a count of participants
ACTION: Noah check on room availability at Lotus (perhaps at

-- C14N spec progress
Marc sent note to XML Signature WG chairs. It was well-received with one
item of feedback: spec would be better as a signature transform (versus a
canonicalization algorithm). Expect one more round of XMLP WG review before
publication.

ACTION: Marc to revise as a signature transform.

5. CR PROGRESS AND ISSUES

http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html

-- CR implementations, see minutes of implementer's meeting report
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2003Jan/0051.html
and http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/03/soap1.2implementation.html.

An additional feature has been implemented; now down to only four
features that are not implemented: SOAP role "none", and the other three
are part of the GET binding (the MEP, and the GET method). For any
unimplemented features, we can: (a) remove the feature, (b) wait for an
implementation, or (c) keep the feature within the spec even without an
implementation. The GET binding features may need special treatment
since they meet requirements from architecture WG.

Currently there is no identifiable mapping between the implementations
listed by name on the implementations page and the features that each
implementations support. This was to prevent comparisons of number of
features supported by various implementations. Implementers were asked
if they were OK with minor compromises to this confidentiality for the
sake of simplifying interop testing. Implementers are urged to reply
soon.

-- #401, "relayed Infoset inconsistency", is this indeed an editorial
issue?
Agreed without objection that 401 is an editorial issue; some desire to
re-list exceptions whether the final term is SHOULD or MUST.

6. ATTACHMENTS

Attachment feature (abstract) spec is at
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/07/SOAP-AF/aftf-soap-af.html

Updated list of candidate requirements is at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Jan/0015.html

BEA\David concern re: bias targeting toward specific solution; for
example, some requirements are soft while others are strongly normative,
and that may lead toward a particular solution. Was this an explicit
intention of the task force? IBM\Noah interprets weakening of
requirements to provide additional flexibility in solution.

Specific concern re: loosely worded requirement to be describable in
WSDL 1.2 -- should it be stronger? General consensus that solution
should be describable in WSDL, and expect some requirements may flow
from XMLP WG to WSD (WSDL) WG. Should XMLP WG define the extensions to
WSDL 1.2 to describe attachments? Do not expect to but may give
commentary / guidance to the WSD (WSDL) WG.

7. NEXT MEETINGS

Implementers telecon this Friday.
Regular telecon next Wednesday.

Meeting adjourned