XMLP WG telcon minutes, 11 Aug 2004

Based on IRC log

1. Roll
Present 11/9
BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham
Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau
IBM, David Fallside
IBM, Noah Mendelsohn
Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin
Oracle, Anish Karmarkar
SAP AG, Volker Wiechers
SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel
Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley
Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham
W3C, Yves Lafon

BEA Systems, David Orchard
Canon, Herve Ruellan
IBM, John Ibbotson
Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer
Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky
SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing

IONA Technologies, Suresh Kodichath

Nokia, Michael Mahan

2. Agenda review

3. Minutes
<scribe-jjm> Minutes of 4 Aug telcon are approved, change Volker's status
to "Regrets"

4. Action item review
Agenda listing is correct

5. Status reports
<scribe-jjm> Next f2f September 21-22
<scribe-jjm> MTOM status: all agreed changes incorporated
<scribe-jjm> ZOP status: ibid.
<scribe-jjm> Representation header status: ibid.
<Yves> new CR docs should be in 2000/xp/Group/4/08/CR
<scribe-jjm> DavidF: can you please add boiler plate text, remove history
list, update current and past member
<scribe-jjm> DavidF: plus add changes we approve today
<scribe-jjm> Yves: will indicate on the issue list that the remaining two
issues have actually been closed

6, Attachments
<scribe-jjm> DavidF: Marc's issue about all requirements not adressed
<scribe-jjm> Gudge: why not just drop the sentence?
<scribe-jjm> Marc: ok
<scribe-jjm> JJ: ok
<scribe-jjm> Noah: "This specification, along with this associated (zop,
etc), were developped to address the requirements".
<Gudge> I think it reads like this
<Gudge> This document along with (other two specs go here) has been produced 
n conjunction with the development
<Gudge> of requirements, embodied in the requirements document 
<Yves> [link to req doc]
<scribe-jjm> Marc: ok
<scribe-jjm> JJ: ok
* anish fine with me
<scribe-jjm> DavidF: editors to update the 3 specs as suggested by Gudge,
with link to req document
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT Marc 2)
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT Marc 3)
<scribe-jjm> Approved
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT Marc 4)
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT JJM 1)
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT JJM 1')
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT JJM 2)
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT JJM 3)
<scribe-jjm> Accepted, here and elsewhere
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT JJM 1'')
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT JJM 2)
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT JJM 3)
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT Marc 1') [references]
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT Marc 2)
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT Marc 3)
<scribe-jjm> Done already
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT Marc 4)
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT Marc 5)
<scribe-jjm> Marc: this paragraph just repeats what precedes
<scribe-jjm> Gudge: however, two MUST, which are not in the introduction
<scribe-jjm> Noah: not ideal, but works
<scribe-jjm> Noah: problem is on the receiving side
<scribe-jjm> DavidF: proposal: noop
<scribe-jjm> Noah: not contradictory, simply editorial
<scribe-jjm> No action
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT Marc 6)
<scribe-jjm> Marc: repetition
<scribe-jjm> Noah: or, change "In addition" to "In particular"
<scribe-jjm> JJ: Yes
<scribe-jjm> Gudge: +1
<scribe-jjm> Marc: ok
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT Marc 7)
<scribe-jjm> Gudge: yes, should contraint the type
<scribe-jjm> Noah: yes, was already asked the same question internally
<scribe-jjm> Gudge: suggest adding text to 3.2, after first sentence: "the
type parameter must contain application/xml"
<Gudge> s/application/xml/application/soap+xml
<scribe-jjm> (missed the end)
<marc> application/soap+xml
<scribe-jjm> Noah: could also add: "the root part is specified as ZOP spec,
and must carry a type parameter..."
<scribe-jjm> Gudge: agree, this currently appear in two different places
<Gudge> OK, here's a proposal
<Gudge> 1. the outer package MUST have a type parameter whose value if
application/xop+xml (see XOP section blah)
<Gudge> 2. the startinfo parameter of the outer package MUST specify a
content-type of application/soap+xml
<Gudge> 3. The root part MUST have a content-type of application/xop+xml
(see XOP section blah)
<Gudge> 4. The type parameter of the root part MUST specify a content-type
of application/soap+xml
<Gudge> 0. The content-type of the outer package MUST be multipart/related
<scribe-jjm> Gudge: 0, 1 and 3 are currently in ZOP
<scribe-jjm> Gudge: 2 and 4 are new
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> DavidF: how to implement? editorial mandate up EOB tomorrow?
or nail down wording right now?
<scribe-jjm> Gudge: what if just pasted the text above?
<scribe-jjm> Accepted, the editors will make the change as appropriate
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT Marc 8)
<scribe-jjm> DavidF: so proposal to remove paragraph?
<scribe-jjm> Marc: Yes, second paragraph, 4.3
<scribe-jjm> Gudge: agree
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT Marc 1'') XOP.htm
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> COMMENT Marc 2)
<scribe-jjm> Gudge: proposal is then to add a similar paragraph for signatures?
<scribe-jjm> Marc: yes
<Gudge> Possible proposal: Add the following text to section 6.1 - "In future
a transform algorithm for use with XML Signature could provide a more efficient
processing model where the raw octets are digested directly."
<scribe-jjm> Noah: somewhat more subtle: either new algorithm, with invisible
characters; or simply optimization
<scribe-jjm> Marc: also applies to encryption?
<Gudge> amended: In the future, a transform algorithm for use with XML Signature
could provide a more efficient processing model where the raw octets are digested directly.
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm>, ZOP
<scribe-jjm> Noah: should change reference to overall chapter 3
<scribe-jjm> s/chapter/section/
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> NAMESPACE URIs
<scribe-jjm> DavidF: should we change?
<scribe-jjm> Yves: change the URI for Representation header already, since
changed schema
<scribe-jjm> Yves: proposes to change the others as well
<scribe-jjm> Accepted (will be changed to 200408)

<scribe-jjm> DavidF: Shall the WG submit the 3 specs with all the changes
just agreed and request Candidate Recommendation?
<scribe-jjm> Anish: just noticed some references were not referenced
<scribe-jjm> Anish: in particular, SOAP Attachment feature, MIME part 1,
query data model
<scribe-jjm> DavidF: no problem with removing dangling references
<scribe-jjm> Accepted
<scribe-jjm> DavidF: reiterates CR question
<scribe-jjm> Accepted without objection, the XMLP WG will request CR

* anish yves where did u change the namespace for the rep. header doc? In the
schema only?
* Yves header doc but was not 2004/08
* Yves we should change it to 2004/08 to align them
* anish ah already done (not committed yet)
* anish yves -- do we change the URI for the feature and module name?
* anish it would be nice to have all the URIs in synch
* anish sorry missed the last part, what is the call for?
<marc> to discuss impls
<anish> ah thx

<scribe-jjm> DavidF: next telcon on 8th September
<scribe-jjm> Adjourn

<Zakim> Attendees were Canon, Noah, Gudge, Yves, David_Fallside, Mark_Nottingham,
Marc, anish, TonyGraham

<RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items:
<RRSAgent> ACTION: Editors to send mail regarding change to section 3.2 of
MTOM to dist-app [1]
<RRSAgent> ACTION: Editors to globally change the namespace URIs to ...200408 [2]
<RRSAgent> ACTION: Yves to arrange a concall on Zakim for MTOM implementers
at 11am PST 2004-08-12 [3]