Minutes of XML Protocol WG telcon, 18 June 2003

Minutes based on IRC log

1. Roll call
Present 13/11
AT&T, Mark Jones
BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham
Canon, Herve Ruellan
DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Mario Jeckle
IBM, John Ibbotson
IBM, Noah Mendelsohn (Scribe)
IBM, David Fallside (Chair)
Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin
Oracle, Anish Karmarkar
SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel
Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham
Systinet (IDOOX), Jacek Kopecky
W3C, Carine Bournez

AT&T, Michah Lerner
BEA Systems, David Orchard
Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau
DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Andreas Riegg
Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer
Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky
Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley
Systinet (IDOOX), Miroslav Simek
W3C, Yves Lafon

Ericsson, Nilo Mitra
Fujitsu Limited, Kazunori Iwasa
Fujitsu Limited, Masahiko Narita
IONA Technologies, Oisin Hurley
Macromedia, Glen Daniels
Matsushita Electric, Ryuji Inoue
SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing
SAP AG, Volker Wiechers

IONA Technologies, Eric Newcomer
Software AG, Dietmar Gaertner
Software AG, Michael qChampion

************Noah is recording minutes as scribenm**********************
18:12:14 [scribenm]
DF reviews the agenda
18:12:35 [scribenm]
Last week's minutes approved without dissent
18:12:50 [scribenm]
Review of action items:
18:13:12 [scribenm]
Chair et. al.: publish requirements/usage scenarios PENDING...process doc not in place
18:13:24 [scribenm]
Mark Nottingham submit media type to IETF DONE
18:13:49 [scribenm]
Jean-Jacques Moreau write up SOAP 1.2/WSDL Q&A positioning DONE
18:14:14 [scribenm]
Tony Graham: mail on issue 433 DONE and we presume no pushback
18:14:24 [scribenm]
End action item review
18:14:28 [scribenm]
Begin status reports
18:16:48 [scribenm]
Continuing status reports:
18:16:57 [scribenm]
Nilo reports part 0 up to date
18:17:11 [scribenm]
Gudge: JJM has made all changes
18:17:29 [scribenm]
DF: we believe that other than boilerplate, membership lists, etc., we believe they are up to date?
18:17:32 [scribenm]
Gudge: yes
18:17:55 [scribenm]
Anish: test collection up to date. Only change from PR is removal of test T20
18:18:14 [scribenm]
Anish: other than boilerplate, etc., test collection doc is ready to go.
18:18:34 [scribenm]
DF: sounds like all documents are ready to go, modulo boilerplate, membership changes (incl. some in last couple of weeks)
18:19:00 [scribenm]
DF: Editors' copies of all docs are the latest? Gudge & Anish: yes
18:19:45 [scribenm]
DF to Carine: what's the procedure for publication
18:19:58 [scribenm]
Carine: we pick up the ed copies and move them for publication
18:21:08 [scribenm]
DF: are editors around? Gudge: yes. Anish: yes traveling next week but responding to emails (I'm mostly around too, NRM) Nilo to be asked via email.
18:22:08 [scribenm]
DF: Carine...we should talk a bit to get
18:22:16 [scribenm]
...membership updates right.
18:22:37 [scribenm]
DF: editors should also roll in any resolution of issue 434...we'll see what happens with that...then pass on to W3C team
18:23:03 [scribenm]
Gudge: any up-to-date membership list available? DF: yes, sent to Yves recently. Will dig out and send to us. Editors: we'll roll it in when we get it.
18:23:48 [scribenm]
Planning for next F2f...we'll skip that.
18:23:58 [scribenm]
Next issue: Q&A for SOAP 1.2 & WSDL
18:24:14 [scribenm]
DF has merged input from JJM and Noah...URL is in agenda.
18:24:31 [scribenm]
18:24:49 [scribenm]
Accept friendly ammendment to add word "please" :-)
18:25:18 [scribenm]
Will send to Janet Daly, for W3C team to keep in reserve as either background or to publish if there's lots of interest
18:25:22 [scribenm]
Agreed without dissent
18:25:44 [scribenm]
ACTION: David Fallside to send WSDL/SOAP 1.2 text to W3C comm team
18:26:08 [scribenm]
Registration of new media type....
18:26:52 [scribenm]
Mark Nottingham: in process of becoming internet draft version 3. Unsure... may have to wait 2 weeks before requesting pub as RFC. Either way, can request RFC pub in max 2 weeks.
18:27:03 [scribenm]
Once that happens, we can request IANA registration.
18:27:27 [scribenm]
ACTION: Mark Nottingham...continue shepherding media type to RFC ASAP
18:28:10 [scribenm]
Carine: do we need to deal with URI's for media types in our document
18:28:33 [scribenm]
MNot: internet drafts don't get stable URIs until published as RFC. Or could reference in IANA registry.
18:29:03 [scribenm]
MNot: if we want a stable reference, we probably need to publish ourselves as W3C doc. Make sense?
18:29:07 [scribenm]
DF: hmmm....
18:30:58 [davidF]
18:31:25 [scribenm]
mnot: that will disappear when new version pub'd or in 6 months
18:35:12 [scribenm]
Proposal from DF: update the biblio entry for [SOAP MediaType]
18:35:54 [scribenm]
...to say: reference is to internet draft for as long as it's current, then to the corresponding IANA registry entry...all of this to be done if the stable reference isn't available by our cutoff date.
18:41:11 [scribenm]
MNot: the MUST reference is to the appendix
18:42:42 [scribenm]
Proposal from Noah: Delete second sentence of appendix a part 2. Move [SOAP Media type] to informative references. Add NOTE in place of deleted 2nd sentence indicating IANA registry process for the type is underway (and maybe also indicating possiblility that future versions of SOAP will reference it normatively)
18:42:47 [scribenm]
Agreed without dissent.
18:42:59 [davidF]
ACTION: MarkN, spec editors, W3C staff & chair to complete part2/appendix A and biblio changes per NM's proposal
18:43:52 [scribenm]
Begin discussion of PR issues
18:44:03 [scribenm]
Issue 434 raised by Jean-Jacques Moreau
18:44:25 [scribenm]
18:45:52 [scribenm]
JJM and Noah seem to agree that spec is OK on multicast in general (see for example http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Jun/0051.html)
18:46:17 [scribenm]
DF: question is whether we should change phrase "the ultimate endpoint" to "an ultimate endpoint" where grammatically sensible
18:49:11 [scribenm]
Noah and Jacek both observed some slight preference for no change. Noah notes, however, an implicit agreement on his part to support change if it makes JJM or others happy.
18:49:22 [scribenm]
DF: I think we need a strong preference expressed to make a change.
18:49:34 [scribenm]
DF: formal proposal...any objection to closing 434 by making no change?
18:49:38 [scribenm]
Agreed without dissent.
18:49:51 [scribenm]
...fell behind...what are we discussing now please?
18:50:03 [caribou]
18:50:08 [scribenm]
Thank you!
18:51:33 [scribenm]
This appears to be a dissent by AOL (Ray Whitmer) relating to our charter and our use of technologies such as Soap+Attachments and MIME vs XML
18:51:56 [scribenm]
DF: question to W3C staff? Was this officially posted? Is it actionable by us...can we or should we do anything about this?
18:52:12 [scribenm]
Carine: well, I at least want the group to be aware that this concern has been posted.
18:52:47 [scribenm]
((note from scribenm: since this is an important topic, I would welcome corrections to my minute taking from anyone else who's following on IRC..))
18:53:22 [scribenm]
DF; is W3C requesting a formal response from WG on this?
18:53:47 [scribenm]
Carine: not really, it refers to substantial issues, but no specific issue is raised...I do not think the WG needs to answer.
18:57:19 [scribenm]
DF: there's nothing technical here
18:57:43 [scribenm]
Noah: well, there are at least broad technical issues raised. We shouldn't be inflamatory in pretending that nothing technial at all is discussed
18:57:56 [scribenm]
Gudge: yes there are technical points made, but nothing we haven't explicitly discussed
18:58:03 [scribenm]
+1 from Mnot, +1 from Jacek
18:58:43 [scribenm]
DF: is W3C preparing a response on non-technical issues?
18:59:10 [scribenm]
Carine: yes I think so. Note also that the note itself anticipates that SOAP will move forward (I'll try and copy paste that portion of Ray's note below...hang on)
18:59:22 [scribenm]
===begin quote from Ray's note ==============
18:59:23 [scribenm]
I do not really expect that W3C will go back and fix these parts
18:59:23 [scribenm]
although we believe them to be significant flaws. But I hope these
18:59:23 [scribenm]
comments are of some value looking forward, and it was not clear
18:59:23 [scribenm]
that the comments would be afforded any relevance at all if I voted
18:59:23 [scribenm]
to accept or abstain. The consequeces will continue to ripple
18:59:25 [scribenm]
until addressed, in my opinion.
18:59:32 [scribenm]
====end quote from Ray's note ===============
19:01:41 [scribenm]
DF; OK, W3C will respond to AOL and Ray on process issues, and we recommend W3C tell them that we perceive no new technical issues raised. We as a workgroup concur that none of the issues raised are new.
19:02:09 [scribenm]
DF: do we need to agree this formally?
19:02:42 [scribenm]
silence...agreed informally
19:03:02 [scribenm]
DF: anyone not OK with this?
19:03:03 [scribenm]
19:04:03 [scribenm]
ACTION: Gudge send email to send email to Jean-Jacques and list closing 434...need end of week latest.
19:04:16 [scribenm]
Done with agenda item 6
19:04:48 [scribenm]
Agenda item 7: Attachments
19:04:58 [scribenm]
Would like to move directly to document from Herve, Noah, Mnot
19:05:16 [scribenm]
19:05:16 [JacekK]
someone please post the changed doc's url
19:11:08 [scribenm]
DF: editors any comments
19:11:11 [scribenm]
Mnot: need to read it
19:11:21 [scribenm]
Noah: +1, but overall title is too broad
19:11:43 [scribenm]
Jacek: binary only?
19:11:55 [scribenm]
Mnot: I don't think so. We want to do XML too
19:14:36 [scribenm]
Noah; we have an open issue on that
19:14:55 [scribenm]
Gudge: I don't like seeing the Include spec burried in the HTTP layer...it's useful elsewhere.
19:15:33 [scribenm]
Some discussion...some agreement that if we call out Include separate from HTTP, then that's a middle 3rd layer.
19:15:47 [scribenm]
Jacek: I think the bottom layer should be MIME multipart, not HTTP.
19:16:01 [scribenm]
Jacek: don't need to split inclusion from that bottom layer
19:16:47 [scribenm]
MNot: think I agree with gist of what Jacek just said...not sure I understand the details. Do you (Jacek) see need for new HTTP binding.
19:17:04 [scribenm]
Jacek: yes, or enhancement to existing one. The binding is definitely affected or replaced.
19:21:23 [scribenm]
Noah: let's do this carefully. We may be setting a precedent for how WSDL names and uses bindings that do or don't implement features. For example, is it sensible to point to our old binding but say "also implementing this new feature", or do we need a new binding whenever a new feature is used? If so, what compatibility or substitutability can be expressed in WSDL, etc?
19:21:43 [scribenm]
JacekK notes that the optimization feature gives copyright to INRIA, but the new European host is ERCIM, see http://www.w3.org/Consortium/#background
19:22:55 [scribenm]
Some discussion of whether and how to reconcile with our old abstract feature document?
19:23:05 [scribenm]
Gudge: can the new one supercede the old?
19:23:17 [scribenm]
DF: I'd want to do some work before making that decision. Otherwise, no problem.
19:23:24 [scribenm]
Gudge: right, not immediately
19:23:56 [scribenm]
DF: could say in WD "this may (or may not) supercede attachment feature doc"
19:24:46 [scribenm]
DF: think we need a bit of cleanup before publishing as WD. Name change is critical. Two or three layer issue. Maybe some more text relating us to attachment feature doc and http binding.
19:25:18 [scribenm]
Also relationship to attachment requirements.
19:25:53 [scribenm]
DF: anything else you'd want to see before publishing as WD?
19:27:57 [scribenm]
Jacek: PASWA covers more than inclusion compared to inclusion. Should we put in placeholder for those.
19:28:25 [scribenm]
Noah: friendly ammendment...a note saying other capabilities of PASWA will be considered by the WG later, and may show up in this feature or elsewhere (if at all)
19:28:32 [scribenm]
Jacek: that's fine
19:29:20 [scribenm]
DF: Editors should come up with better name, say relationship to attachement feature, requirements, and HTTP binding is TBD, also a note pointing to other PASWA mechanisms as discussed above.
19:29:45 [scribenm]
DF: Also remove W3C WD status from subtitle and text
19:30:21 [scribenm]
DF: send to distApp for final decision on WD publication next week
19:30:43 [scribenm]
DF: any dissent or comments (a few +1s)?
19:31:13 [scribenm]
ACTION: Editors of abstract feature to publish updates to distApp (title, refs to 3 docs, PASWA features)
19:33:02 [scribenm]
DF: we need to decide on response on XInclude questions (sent to us by core?)
19:33:17 [scribenm]
DF: we should tell them our WD schedule for the feature
19:33:25 [Gudge]
yes, sent by JMarsh on behalf of Core
19:33:31 [scribenm]
19:34:01 [scribenm]
Jacek: core or WSDL WG asking this?
19:34:05 [scribenm]
DF: oops, i should have been saying "Core WG"
19:34:19 [scribenm]
DF: OK agreed, I'll respond in that manner.
19:34:55 [scribenm]
DF: we expect Recommendation to come out on the 24th
19:34:59 [scribenm]
End of call
====================End of Scribed Meeting Minutes===================
19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
I see 6 open action items:
19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: David Fallside to send WSDL/SOAP 1.2 text to W3C comm team [1]
19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/06/18-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-25-44
19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Mark Nottingham...continue shepherding media type to RFC ASAP [2]
19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/06/18-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-27-27
19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: MarkN, spec editors, W3C staff & chair to complete part2/appendix A and biblio changes per NM's proposal [3]
19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/06/18-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-42-59
19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Gudge send email to send email to Jean-Jacques and list closing 434...need end of week latest. [4]
19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/06/18-xmlprotocol-irc#T19-04-03
19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Editors of abstract feature to publish updates to distApp (title, refs to 3 docs, PASWA features) [5]
19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/06/18-xmlprotocol-irc#T19-31-13
19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: chair to respond to Core re. anticipated schedule for "optimisation mech" doc [6]
19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/06/18-xmlprotocol-irc#T19-37-52