XMLP WG Telcon Minutes, 17 December 2003

1. Roll
Present 13/10
BEA Systems, David Orchard
Canon, Herve Ruellan
DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Mario Jeckle
IBM, John Ibbotson
IBM, Noah Mendelsohn
IBM, David Fallside
IONA Technologies, Seumas Soltysik (scribe)
Oracle, Anish Karmarkar
SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel
Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley
Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham
Systinet (IDOOX), Jacek Kopecky
W3C, Carine Bournez

BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham
DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Andreas Riegg
IONA Technologies, Mike Greenberg
Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky
Systinet (IDOOX), Miroslav Simek
W3C, Yves Lafon

Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau
Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin
Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer
Nokia, Michael Mahan
SAP AG, Volker Wiechers

SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing

2. Agenda review

3. Minutes
I-Aproval of F2F minutes
*Approved without objection

II-Approval of 10 December minutes
*Approved without objection

4. Review of action items
-DaveO-Send mediatyping attribute query email to TAG 
*DONE-TAG divided whether to recommend approach or say nothing on the matter.
Continues to be discussed.

-DavidF-Sent the email to SVG on monday (End of day PST time) 
*DONE-No response yet from SVG

5. Status reports and misc
A)Media types registration("application/soap+xml", etc)
*Skipped, MarkN is not on the call.

B)XMLP/WSD Task Force
Anish-Agreed to form a task force and set up email for discussion. Have not heard
further from Jonathan
David-Concerned about coordination with WSD. Can we get a stable spec to them in
time? How can we get WSD to be more responsive?
Jack-It depends upon what approach we take with respect to media type.
Noah-Two points of view: Miffy is essentially a tunnelling mechanism, or Miffy is
this a more generic representation of Multi-Part Mime.
Anish-Thinking of adding media type attribute independent of Media Type header.
Two aspects of MT: how is it indicated in message instance and how can it be indicated
in WSDL.
David-We need to get stable spec to WSD so that they can have accurate description
of attachments in for WSDL2.0.

C)Direction of WG's attachment's work
David-talked to W3 team about collaboration with other groups. W3 team indicated
that it was important to get our attachment work into WSDL2.0. Questions about when
the WSD deadline for submission is.(March?)
Core has not shown interest in XMLP work.
Collaborative work needs to be time limited. Approach is not to design general purpose
attachment mechanism. Only tackle straight forward stuff.

6. Attachments-Discussion of action items from f2f etc:
A)Herve & JohnI-Generate text for section 2.4.1 and 2.4.2
Jack-Concern with wording. What kinds of nodes can be optimized?
Are all nodes to be optimized or is it only Base64 nodes that can be optimized?
David-Why not simply indicate nodes we can optimize.
Noah-Tells the application something useful as to how to optimize message. Kill
feature or provide general mechanism that bindings can use to indicate possible
David-Should this be a MAY as opposed to a MUST?
Noah-Wording should indicate that messages using this binding are "likely" to contained
optimized data.
Jack-Keep it as feature. Change wording to indicate that what may be optimized is
likely to be optimized.
Marc H-Agree with Jack's recommendation.
Noah-Text regarding how info is reconstructed by receiver is to stringent. Reciever
should not have to reconstitute data.

B)Marc-Propose a way to link section 4 in MTOM to existing terminology in SOAP/1.2
David-Herve to incorporate text from Marc.

C)Gudge-Create a schema to describe xbinc:Include dm:type
Noah-Type value section could use more work. Why are we discussing date/time in the
context of discussing URI type. 2nd paragraph should go under type section.

D)Noah-Draft email about responsabilities wrt MIME headers
Noah-What should we say about use of Mime header by senders and receivers. Miffy
processing at receiver cannot depend on header info. If content-length is present
it can be used for optimization but should not be required.
Anish-Noah is going in right direction. 
Noah-Do we really know what we are doing about encoding?
Anish-Are we using content-transfer-encoding properly in accordance with MIME spec?

7. SOAP 1.2 Recommendation-Issues and proposed resolutions.
A)Issue  7, http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-rec-issues.html#x7 (Anish)
*closed with proposal
F)Issue 12, http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-rec-issues.html#x12 (MarcH)
*closed with proposal
G)Issue 13, http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-rec-issues.html#x13  (DavidF)
*closed with proposal
H)Issue 14, http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-rec-issues.html#x14 (JohnI)
*closed with proposal
I)Issue 15, http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-rec-issues.html#x15 (MikeM)
*closed with proposal
J)Issue 16, http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-rec-issues.html#x16 (Jacek)
*closed with proposal