XML Protocol WG, telcon minutes, 6 October 2004

1. Roll
Present 12/9
BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham
Canon, Herve Ruellan
IBM, David Fallside
IBM, John Ibbotson
IONA Technologies, Suresh Kodichath (scribe)
Nokia, Michael Mahan
Oracle, Anish Karmarkar
SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing
SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel
Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley
Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham
W3C, Yves Lafon

BEA Systems, David Orchard
Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau
IBM, Noah Mendelsohn
Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky
SAP AG, Volker Wiechers

Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin

Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer

2. Agenda review:
[Chair] other items of business, i18n policies, Yves ?
[yves_lafon] yes
[chair] will be covered in item 5

3. Minutes of 29 September 2004 approved without any objection

4. Review action items
[davidF] 1 modification, MarkN with rec. issue 25 is done
[yves_lafon]rec. item media type recommendation is done
[davidF] Noah draft. Item 6 will take care.  Didn't generate boiler plate
[davidF] 501 & Gudge other one is pending

5. Status reports and misc
[scribe]XOP media type registration.
[yves_lafon] No feedback. I wll ask for approval. Plan to do it this or next week
[davidF] Will that take care of mediatype registration ?
[yves_lafon] yes
ACTION Yves to seek IESG review (via Dan Connolly and Martin Duerst) for XOP media type 
[davidF] change MarkN name on existing action item to Yves

[scribe] XMLP/WSD Task Force and WSDL Media Type document
[AnishK] discussions in TF, not lot of activity, current doc. reflects resolution of
all issues, WSG/Jonathan to ask WSG for Last Call.
[davidF] who volunteers to review this doc. with Anish and MarkN?
[marcH] volunteers to review 
[AnishK] Name of doc. is misleading. It is schema based, content-type wording
is not correct
[MarkN] Add a line or 2 to the document
[Davidf] Marc Hadley, when will you be able to review it?
[MarcH] end of next week (10/15/2004)
ACTION: Marc to review Media Type document by Oct 15
[davidF] new item (SOAP/HTTP with IETF)
[yves_lafon] input is needed from WG members who worked on SOAP/HTTP

[scribe] Future of XMLP WG after MTOM etc are published as Recommendations
[davidF] one possibility is to stay and meet occasionally, meeting every month or two. 
[davidF] Per its charter, the WG exists until May 2005. One proposal is to 
"meet occasionally" until then, are there any other ideas?
[davidF] Yves will look into extension of charter
[yves_lafon] should it be a new or edit the existing one?
[yves_lafon] I will look into next week
ACTION: Yves to figure out how to have a charter extension until June 
[davidF] will put the question through WG and put a request

6. Candidate Recommendation 
[scribe]Test status report, implementation page 
[davidF]there are now sufficient interop traces. Thanks to implementers for making
it happen. The traces needs sanity checking, is there a volunteer?
[JohnI] volunteers
ACTION: JohnI to run a sanity check on the implementation trace by next week
[davidF] 501, where we are with this? Noah drafted a text, inputs from members
[davidf] no objection from members, much agreement to send Noah's draft text to
Andrea with 501 response
ACTION: Suresh to send Noah's draft email to xmlp-comment and originator to
re-close issue 501 (point 1) 
[davidF] please send it to Andrea, i18n and xmlp-comments

[davidF] regarding point 2, the precedence rules in
[yves_lafon]don't deal with it, just give information precedence
[davidF] Gudge had an action to seek clarification on this question, but it is not
yet done, so we cannot be sure about yves' assumption
[davidF] second choice is for the application to decide
Anish comments that the HTTP and Mime information do not conflict
[yves_lafon]asking I18n what they want to see
[davidF]can you formulate a question
ACTION: yves to ask Vine for clarification on precedence comment on 501 reply
(and 502 about IRI)
[davidF] 505 is now done. Nilo had made the edits

[scribe] Issue 506
[davidF] anish suggests we need to correct the namespace. 
[scribe] no objections from WG memebers
[davidF] anish to update the editor copy
ACTION: Anish to send email to xmlp-comments to close the issue 506 with the
proposed resolution (and edit the edcopy) 

[scribe]Review comments
[scribe] 1. Shall we reference XML 3rd edition?
[davidF]3 of them are fairly minor 
[HerveR] what is the difference, doesn't it impact us
[davidF] in principle, changes are mostly editorial, so we can
[MarcH] third edition semantically equivalent.
[davidF]lack of energy in WG, so going to demand less AIs
[davidF] does anyone object to referencing the third edition?
[scribe] no objections from members

[scribe]XOP comments
[marcH] commenats are editorial, only non-editorial is final one
[marcH] should be able to reconstruct, one that is included by us and one done
by the user
[marcH] will make the message not able to reconstruct
[anishK] cause no harm to clarify
ACTION: Marc to write a clarification sentence for
Section 2 by next week 
[scribe] WG agrees that other comments in Marc's email are editorial
ACTION: XOP Editors Incorporate the first 3 comments on
[MarcH] take 3: During infoset reconstruction a processor is unable to
differentiate between xop:Include elements inserted during XOP package
construction and those that were part of the original infoset. 
ACTION: MTOM editors to insert the above "take 3" text 
[AnishK] does the statement to precede
[MarcH] that is the intent
[scribe]MTOM comment
[davidF] WG agrees this is editorial, and with MarcH text
ACTION: MTOM Editors Incorporate
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004Sep/0031.html proposal 
[davidf] 501 and 502 to be closed down (?)