Timestamps are in UTC.
1. Roll call Present 17/14 AT&T Mark Jones BEA Systems Mark Nottingham BEA Systems David Orchard Canon Herve Ruellan DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech Mario Jeckle IBM David Fallside (chair) IBM John Ibbotson Microsoft Corporation Martin Gudgin Oracle Anish Karmarkar Progress Software Colleen Evans SAP AG Volker Wiechers Software AG Michael Champion (scribe) Sun Microsystems Tony Graham Sun Microsystems Marc Hadley Systinet (IDOOX) Jacek Kopecky Unisys Lynne Thompson W3C Carine Bournez Excused AT&T Michah Lerner Canon Jean-Jacques Moreau DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech Andreas Riegg IBM Noah Mendelsohn Microsoft Corp Don Box Oracle Jeff Mischkinsky Progress Software David Chappell SAP AG Gerd Hoelzing Software AG Dietmar Gaertner Systinet (IDOOX) Miroslav Simek Unisys Nick Smilonich W3C Yves Lafon Regrets Ericsson Nilo Mitra IONA Technologies Oisin Hurley SeeBeyond Pete Wenzel Absent Fujitsu Limited Masahiko Narita Fujitsu Limited Kazunori Iwasa IONA Technologies Eric Newcomer Macromedia Glen Daniels Matsushita Electric Ryuji Inoue Tibco Don Mullen 19:13:05 [mchampion] 2. Agenda review ... 19:13:41 [mchampion] Minutes from F2F not yet ready, therefore omit agenda item 3 19:16:25 [mchampion] Plan to end call after 90 minutes at latest 19:16:37 [mchampion] No additional items for agenda 3. F2f minutes review postponed until next week 19:16:47 [mchampion] Item #4 - Review action items 19:17:39 [mchampion] Publish nln as note: Pending, perhaps by end of week 19:17:53 [mchampion] Gudge closed issue 415. Done 19:17:59 [mchampion] Editors: Done 19:18:09 [mchampion] Issue 416 done 19:18:53 [mchampion] Editors remove root attribute ... done 19:19:07 [mchampion] Editors remove ref attr .... done 19:19:27 [mchampion] Editors remove uniqueness constraint ... done 19:20:00 [mchampion] Editors fix schema to allow soap NS elements as immediate children of header ... done 19:20:21 [mchampion] Chair draft message to WSD on use attribute ... done 19:21:00 [mchampion] Colleen Send comments on QA last call working draft ... done 19:21:59 [mchampion] But some pushback on deprecations ... 19:22:33 [mchampion] DavidF Update feature 27.1 ... done 19:23:00 [mchampion] Gudge contact SOAP implementators on nodeType ... done 19:23:18 [mchampion] Gudge Propose text for section 2.7.4 in part 1 ... done 19:23:50 [mchampion] Item #5 Status reports 19:24:34 [mchampion] Part 0 - Nothing to report 19:25:08 [mchampion] Part 1 - All changes gone through at F2F have been made 19:25:40 [mchampion] Only change needed before PR is the final namespace NS URI and boilerplate about "Proposed Rec" 19:26:01 [mchampion] Gudge: Need to check F2F minutes to confirm that all changes made 19:27:12 [mchampion] Jacek: Send mail about namespaces ... Will PR namespace be same as Rec namespace? Depends on date of publication, which implies that they will be different between PR and Rec. 19:28:04 [mchampion] Chair: Should we push back on this? Go to just using 2003 in NS URI? 19:28:30 [mchampion] Gudge: We may have to make changes, and keeping month might be better in long run. 19:30:24 [mchampion] ACTION: Editors and W3C staff should request that we can keep the PR namespace if nothing changes, and to get an explanation if this is not possible 19:31:14 [mchampion] Editors: Nothing else on part 1 or 2 19:31:40 [mchampion] Question to editors: is diff version of spec available? No, but they will produce one tomorrow 19:32:14 [mchampion] Test collection: Nothing to report, status same as at F2F 19:32:39 [mchampion] Registration of media type. Yves not on call ... 19:32:53 [mchampion] nln publication - pending 19:32:59 [mchampion] IPR - nothing to report 19:33:16 [mchampion] agenda item 6. CR Progress and issues 19:33:35 [mchampion] DavidF: Nothing really to report. Telcon Friday with implementers 19:34:46 [mchampion] Node Type: Gudge has three responses so far ... low on everyone's priority list 19:35:53 [mchampion] Jacek also responded directly to list... people who don't implement encoding don't need nodeType; 19:36:01 [mchampion] Sometimes useful if no WSDL available. 19:36:46 [mchampion] BEA sez they will look into this with their implementers. 19:37:48 [mchampion] May also get answers from Apache and Paul Kulchenko .. good to get responses from them 19:38:01 [Gudge] ACTION: Gudge to chase Apache, BEA and PaulK re: nodeType 19:38:03 [mchampion] before next week. Then we'll make a decision. 19:38:34 [mchampion] DavidF: Operhaps 3 options: (i) Drop nodeType from spec, (ii) go to PR with incomplete implementation evidence and say that we have minimal implementations now and more possible in future. 19:38:49 [mchampion] (iii) try to persuade more people to implement remaining features and check interop. 19:38:57 [mchampion] DavidF: Need more data before we can really decide. 19:39:18 [mchampion] ACTION: Gudge should ping BEA, APache, and Kulchenko about nodeType implementation 19:40:10 [mchampion] Issue 417 .... Came in after we decided to go to PR net of edits from F2F. 19:40:43 [mchampion] Chair: There's a high bar to changes in spec at this point. Not clear what changes are needed (no specific proposal was made), and we won't consider anything 19:41:00 [mchampion] that doesn't include proposed text at this point. 19:42:12 [mchampion] Commentator says - A new person wouldn't suspect that other children are possible, so we can live with explaining it outside the spec. 19:42:58 [mchampion] Jacek (speaking as issue originator) Will not push for it unless others care strongly, willing to withdraw issue 19:43:11 [mchampion] Item 6 - Pushback on closed issues 19:43:15 [mchampion] DavidF: none mentioned 19:43:47 [mchampion] ACTION: Issue list maintainer should close 417 with notation that issue withdrawn 19:44:37 [mchampion] Item 7 - Attachments 19:44:59 [mchampion] DavidF (reviewing agenda item): Considering two lines of moving forward -- Concrete attachment scheme is one ... 19:45:53 [mchampion] would have met most of requirements. Most favor concrete implementation in short term. 19:46:02 [mchampion] Do we have consensus? 19:46:32 [mchampion] Second part: Infoset based model of attachments from BEA and MS. Chair believes that many interested, but they are concerned about impact 19:46:59 [mchampion] on 1.2 spec and on details of what it would entail. Extensive discussion at F2F, see minutes. 19:47:40 [mchampion] Compared to first approach, more of a long-term thing. How can we gain a greater understanding of the second approach. 19:48:11 [mchampion] How do we get a writeup of the second approach so we can decide? 19:49:14 [mchampion] DavidO: Action item to DavidF from F2F that's not on action item list ... 19:51:03 [mchampion] Exact text may not have been recorded ...gist is that the chair should look into issue of how the WG can bring in technology from outside and what the options are. 19:51:42 [mchampion] DavidO - Understood action for the chair to determine what is in scope for WG vis a vis this specific technology, not the general procedural issue. 19:52:18 [mchampion] DavidF - no definitive answer, because it's not clear what this "thing" is. 19:53:09 [mchampion] DO: The gist of the issue is that we don't want to waste time on something that is ultimately out of scope. Let's resolve the scope issue in the next 1-2 weeks. 19:54:13 [mchampion] DavidF: One issue on scope is that the second approach appears to rely on XInclude, and the use of XInclude requires changes to XInclude. 19:54:30 [mchampion] Multiple dependencies make a yes/no answer hard. 19:54:50 [mchampion] DaveO - The coordination issue is separate from the in-scope issue. 19:55:19 [mchampion] MarkJ: It could also be soap:include, not necessarily XInclude 19:55:22 [mchampion] Others concur. 19:57:53 [mchampion] DavidF: It would be very helpful for the proponents of the 2nd approach to make a more detailed description available. 19:58:16 [mchampion] DaveO: When would we need such a thing? 19:58:57 [mchampion] DavidF: ASAP. Preliminary answer on scope possible in a week, but still need more detail. 19:59:30 [mchampion] DaveO: Understands that there is a circular dependency, and did promise a document by next week concall. 20:00:08 [mchampion] MarkJ - actually two weeks from F2F, so 2 concalls hence. 20:00:23 [mchampion] DaveO: Will try before concall, but commitment was by Friday. 20:01:12 [mchampion] "It will have a URI" is the only promise vis a vis where it will be published. 20:01:36 [mchampion] MarkJ - Can we move forward before then? 20:02:36 [mchampion] Will propose an ordering of requirements that aren't dependent on the two actual proposals. Wants to get issue settled ASAP, 20:03:02 [mchampion] but want us to be productive while waiting for details on the second approach. 20:03:46 [mchampion] ACTION: Mark Jones will prepare an index for the AF requirements doc, in order of least to most dependent on the choice of the proposals under consideraiton 20:05:09 [mchampion] DavidF: Back to part 1 of agenda item 7, would like to get a sense from people who were not at F2F whether they wish to see a concrete attachment scheme as a work product of the WG. 20:07:27 [mchampion] MarkN: We could go forward with SwA or InfoSet approach. There may be some middle ground 20:08:13 [mchampion] We need to agree on what "attachments" means before we can have this discussion. 20:09:37 [mchampion] MarkJ: Both options are "concrete attachments schemes" Differences have more to do with processing model 20:11:13 [mchampion] MarkN (?): People have discomfort over "binary", "attachement" confusion 20:12:03 [mchampion] DavidF: New model may not be described by our existing abstract attachements feature. May meet some of AF requirements. 20:12:25 [mchampion] MarkJ: Abstract doc is silent on processing model, security, other important issues. 20:12:56 [mchampion] DaveO: Do current requiremmmments cover these issues? 20:13:13 [mchampion] MarkJ: yes, and these are the highest priority 20:13:45 [mchampion] DaveO: If we need a processing model requirement, SwA still needs more work to meet requirement. 20:14:05 [mchampion] MarkJ: We need a processing model 20:15:09 [mchampion] MarcHadley: Not there on Friday ... need concrete attachment feature. Infoset approach interesting, but not clear how it would work 20:16:52 [mchampion] DavidF: There is discussion of requirements, processing model, but there's also the "we need concrete attachment scheme NOW" issue since Rennes meeting. Infoset approach will take longer. 20:17:43 [mchampion] MarkN: Disputes that the Infoset approach will take longer. Both mechanisms need work to fully specify. Let's not rush if it's not well specified and modeled. 20:19:10 [mchampion] Jacek: People are waiting for something because SwA changes needed for SOAP 1.2 would be minimal. We should rubberstamp an existing approach in a couple of months, then consider Infoset approach. 20:20:23 [mchampion] MarcHadley: Infoset approach seems to be built on top of SwA, let's not have two specs because we didn't do due diligence 20:21:23 [mchampion] We seem to have decided that MIME is the answer, we should signal this to the world. This would answer MIME vs DIME. 20:23:11 [Gudge] ACTION: Chair to investigate whether SIM approach is in scope for XMLP WG 20:23:23 [mchampion] John: this is apples and oranges ... SwA is a concrete binding for an attachment mechanism for binary stuff to XML envelope. Infoset stuff is about representing message in abstract sense. SwA is potential binding for Infoset model 20:25:48 [mchampion] John: Infoset model would validate our model and let us determine whether SwA is a valid implementation of the abstraction 20:27:30 [mchampion] Anish: Agrees with John. These are two different things. SOAP community needs concrete attachment feature 20:27:51 [mchampion] DIME vs MIME - Oracle's preference is for MIME 20:29:23 [mchampion] MarkJ: Some Requirements could be implemented by either scheme. Other security and processing model requirements are more than packaging issues and would distinguish the approaches. 20:31:48 [mchampion] DavidF: In next week, let's continue convergence discussions on list. 20:32:12 [mchampion] Please expedite description documents if possible. 20:32:49 [mchampion] Next week we'll go through attachment feature requirements and try to agree on broadest requirements that would encompass either approach. 20:34:10 [Zakim] WS_XMLP()2:00PM has ended 20:36:02 [davidF] rrsagent, bye 20:36:02 [RRSAgent] I see 6 open action items: 20:36:02 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Editors and W3C staff should request that we can keep the PR namespace if nothing changes, and to get an explanation if this is not possible  20:36:02 [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/03/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T19-30-24 20:36:02 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Gudge to chase Apache, BEA and PaulK re: nodeType  20:36:02 [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/03/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T19-38-01 20:36:02 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Gudge should ping BEA, APache, and Kulchenko about nodeType implementation  20:36:02 [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/03/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T19-39-18 20:36:02 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Issue list maintainer should close 417 with notation that issue withdrawn  20:36:02 [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/03/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T19-43-47 20:36:02 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Mark Jones will prepare an index for the AF requirements doc, in order of least to most dependent on the choice of the proposals under consideraiton  20:36:02 [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/03/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-03-46 20:36:02 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Chair to investigate whether SIM approach is in scope for XMLP WG  20:36:02 [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/03/12-xmlprotocol-irc#T20-23-11