Minutes of XMLP WG telcon 16 April 2003

Based on IRC log http://www.w3.org/2003/04/16-xmlprotocol-irc.html

1. Roll
Present 19/14
AT&T	Mark	Jones
BEA Systems	Mark	Nottingham
BEA Systems	David	Orchard
Canon	Herve	Ruellan
DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech	Mario	Jeckle
IBM	David	Fallside
IBM	Noah	Mendelsohn
IBM	John	Ibbotson
Microsoft Corporation	Martin	Gudgin
Microsoft Corporation	Jeff	Schlimmer
Oracle	Anish	Karmarkar
Progress Software	Colleen	Evans
SAP AG	Volker	Wiechers
SeeBeyond	Pete	Wenzel
Software AG	Michael	Champion
Sun Microsystems	Marc	Hadley
Systinet (IDOOX)	Jacek	Kopecky
W3C	Yves	Lafon (scribe)
W3C	Carine	Bournez

AT&T	Michah	Lerner
Canon	Jean-Jacques	Moreau
DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech	Andreas	Riegg
Oracle	Jeff	Mischkinsky
Progress Software	David	Chappell
SAP AG	Gerd	Hoelzing
Software AG	Dietmar	Gaertner
Sun Microsystems	Tony	Graham
Systinet (IDOOX)	Miroslav	Simek

Ericsson	Nilo	Mitra
Fujitsu Limited	Kazunori	Iwasa
Fujitsu Limited	Masahiko	Narita

IONA Technologies	Eric	Newcomer
IONA Technologies	Oisin	Hurley
Macromedia	Glen	Daniels
Matsushita Electric	Ryuji	Inoue
Tibco	Don	Mullen
Unisys	Lynne	Thompson
Unisys	Nick	Smilonich

2. Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2003Apr/0052.html

3. approval of minutes:
April 9 telcon minutes approved

4. Action items:
[ScrYves] DavidF to send email requesting objections to making interop traces public.
Email was sent and no responses were received by the dealine stated in the email,
therefore the traces will be made public. Action is done.

[ScrYves] Chair/JJM/JohnI/W3C staff action to strategise on final disposition of
Reqs and Scenarios docs. Action is pending.

5. Status reports
[ScrYves] - media type registration
[ScrYves] registration has been sent to IETF
[ScrYves] MarkN: URL is here (published yesterday, I'll give you URIs)

[ScrYves] - IP: nothing new
[mnot] Yves: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-soap-media-reg-02.txt
[ScrYves] mark: thx!

6. CR progress & issues
[ScrYves] we have two traces for everyhting but two tests, CR issues list are closed
[ScrYves] no pushback on issues.

7. Proposed Rec
[ScrYves] schedule 
[ScrYves] latest informations, as it changed a lot today:
[ScrYves] schedule #1
[ScrYves] SOAP/1.2 will be a big event, so it needs much review before PR, press
release should be out on the right day, avoiding major holidays like golden week in japan
[ScrYves] the TBL telecon will be at beginning of may and publication around may 6
[ScrYves] schedule #2:
[ScrYves] call next week, wihtout Tim
[ScrYves] and PR end of next week
[ScrYves] Chair: What are the opinions of the group?
[ScrYves] no opinions from the group
[ScrYves] has anything changed?
[ScrYves] carine: schedule can also be mixed, earlier telcon but publication in may
[ScrYves] david to yves: per your recent email, do we in fact need testimonial?
[ScrYves] yves: not sure, depends on comm team desiderata
[ScrYves] david: according to janet daly's email, testimaonials will not be needed
[ScrYves] david: questions?
[ScrYves] -> no questions
[ScrYves] docs are not completely quite final, status/tweaking may be changed,
but technical content is final
[ScrYves] gudge: with regard technical content, everything is fine, latest changes
were in prev/current members list
[ScrYves] DavidF: implementation page is also complete. There may be some minor
admin/boilerplate changes. With this understanding, are there any formal objections
to requesting PR?
No objections raised.
[ScrYves] DavidF: We will request PR. Congratulations!

8. Attachments
-- IP & Copyright
[jeffsch] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2003Apr/0050.html
[ScrYves] DavidF: the WG agreed to the by-value/infoset attachment proposal as a
starting point depending of receiving IPR/(c) release statement from authors
[ScrYves] MS and BEA sent their statements 
[ScrYves] WG needs to evaluate MS statement
[ScrYves] it seems to be the same as the already accepted one
[ScrYves] we are still waiting for others
[ScrYves] AT&T: it should be done quite fast, for RF it may take more time,
but no foreseeable problem
[ScrYves] something like a month to have it happen
[ScrYves] volker: SAP is waiting for an official statement
[ScrYves] herve (Canon): some time needed but should be ok, no time estimate
[ScrYves] volker: will try to have it by end of next week
[ScrYves] DavidF: in summary then not all IPR releases have been received
[ScrYves] working on the proposal itself has to be postponed unless we have all
IPR statement 
[ScrYves] Marc: is it ok to post questions, but not to solve those problem?
[ScrYves] DavidF: that is a good summary of the situation
[ScrYves] Noah: we should move as fast as possible without having legal issues,
but we talked one full day during the f2f on that topic
[ScrYves] would any member be in a legally bad position if we continue regular
work and IPR clearance and not received?
[ScrYves] it may be difficult to raise issue without proposing solutions/conception
[ScrYves] DavidF: as I see it, in one discussion bucket, there is the proposal, and
in another discussion bucket, there is generation of attachment requirements, we
should start work in the second bicket
[ScrYves] DavidF: given that I only saw only one IPR statement and it is not the
std one, I'm not in a position yet to give a green light to unlimited discussion
[ScrYves] MarkN: are we talking about modifying doc or talking about issues?
talking about technologies should be ok
[ScrYves] DavidF: this point needs to be checked
[ScrYves] MarkJ: is it different than choreography, where the charter ask IPR
holder to work on technology?
[ScrYves] DavidF: the main issue is about IP statements, we should wait for
lawyers feedback

-- attachment requirements
[ScrYves] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Mar/0075.html
[ScrYves] R21 and R31 rewrite
[noah] Restatement link: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Mar/0075.html
[noah] R21. The specification should conveniently provide for the existence
46 [noah] and extension of metadata to be carried with a message.
46 [noah] R31. The specification should conveniently provide for the existence
46 [noah] and extension of metadata associated with individual parts.
[noah] The above are proposals from Mark Jones.
[ScrYves] requirements are http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/3/02/24-soap-attachment-feature.html
[ScrYves] jacek: both seems ok
[ScrYves] no objection, revised wording accepted
[ScrYves] R22
[ScrYves] Jacek: used MUST in the proposed wording
[ScrYves] -> proposition accepted
[ScrYves] Noah: we should keep the optionality instead of having only a MUST
[anish] Are we interpreting 'should' and 'must' as 'SHOULD' and 'MUST'?
[ScrYves] MarkJ: it is in R22
[ScrYves] all instances of MIME -> MEDIA
[ScrYves] MarkJ: should/must are not capitalized, do you want it done in the
requirement doc?
[ScrYves] DavidF: for now, only use lowercase must, and at the end decide if we
will do a global change to capitalize them
[ScrYves] Noah: so we should consider lowercase musts to be almost like MUSTs
[ScrYves] R30:
[ScrYves] DavidF: is that equivalent to a MAY?
[ScrYves] MarkJ: more like R22, it MUST and the application may use it
[ScrYves] Anish: what "in advance" mean?
[ScrYves] MarkJ: the receiver wants to know the size before decoding the flood
of that part, ie, it should arrive before the part
[ScrYves] Noah: we are doing requirement for serialization of the model
[ScrYves] Gudge: we could define the semantic of length 
[ScrYves] Gudge: everything should be in the envelope
[ScrYves] Noah: not packaging, mime multipart stuff. we shouldn't design the
physical part now
[ScrYves] ex: high level spec is not specifying streaming, while concrete
implementation have to deal with it
[ScrYves] MarkJ: having size in the envelope would not be enough to satisfy the requirement
[ScrYves] MarkN: about byte length or character length?
[anish] Mark: I thought - 'temporaly before' seemed like a good choice
[ScrYves] MarkJ: it's more about buffering issues
[ScrYves] Noah: there can be multiple length depending on the level you are
(white spaces, base 64, charset)
[ScrYves] MarkJ to provide clarification of R30
[ScrYves] Anish: some explanatory text would be helpful
[ScrYves] MarkN: MarkJ said part size was linked to wire format length, while Noah
said it may not be related to wire format.
[ScrYves] Noah: proposed wording would incluse a use case (to specify intent)
[Mark_J] Mark_J has joined #xmlprotocol
[ScrYves] R30 amended per markJ modified proposal
[DavidF] .... which is ...
[Mark_J] R30:  The specification must provide a facility for specifying length
information that is appropriate to meet likely buffering requirements of receivers.
The use of this facility is optional.
[ScrYves] R6:
[ScrYves] Noah: the genesis was a by reference model, with the "(bip)", there are no URIs. 
[ScrYves] Noah: we may need to drop this requirement per possible new way of doing attachments
[ScrYves] MarkJ: if you don't have URIs, how do you refer to parts?
[ScrYves] Noah: if we have children, we don't have URIs
[ScrYves] in the "(censored)" model, there is no URI, we are just serializing an infoset
[ScrYves] DaveO: confused about ramification of removing R6
[ScrYves] DavidF: let's take that to email
[ScrYves] Noah: R7 seems closely related, might be good to see them as a package

[ScrYves] meeting adjourned

[RRSAgent] I see 2 open action items:
50 [RRSAgent] ACTION: W3C team to make traces public [1]
50 [RRSAgent]   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/16-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-10-49
50 [RRSAgent] ACTION: chair & staff to research allowable discussion in advance of receiving all IP/copyright statements [2]
50 [RRSAgent]   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/16-xmlprotocol-irc#T19-09-27