XMLP WG telcon minutes, 16 March 2005

Based on non-online notes and the IRC log

1. Roll
Present 6/6
BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham
BEA Systems, David Orchard
Canon, Herve Ruellan
IBM, Noah Mendelsohn
Iona Technologies, Suresh Kodichath (scribe)
Microsoft Corporation, Johnathan Marsh (1 time replacement)
Nokia, Mike Mahan
Oracle, Anish Karmarkar
SAP AG, Volker Wiechers (scribe)
SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel
Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley

Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau
Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer
Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky
Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham

Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin
W3C, Yves Lafon

SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing

Scribe assignment
Scribe: Suresh

2. Agenda review, and AOB (830+5)
See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2005Mar/0022.html

3. Approval of minutes: 

[scribe] 23 February minutes were approved without objection

4. Action Item review:

[scribe] Chair: All AIs done by Yves.

5. Status reports and misc:

[scribe] XMLP/WSD Task Force - joint deliverable (Anish)
[Anish] WSD WG resolved all issues against them. Jonathan's email has 
all resolutions. No major change. Document at end.
[Jonathan] couple of changes. Additional changes to syntax - not major. But Implementations
may have to change.
[chair] reviewd by XMLP ?
[jonathan] joint deliverable of 2 groups. Great if XMLP reviewed it. XMLP should issue
a formal statement. Need not be approved today but for archive ...
[MarcH] reviewed it, was fine.
[chair] will talk to Yves about the joint deliverable.

AI to Yves – prepare for joint publishing of Describing Media Content of Binary Data in XML

Action Items:

6. SOAP 1.2 Recommendation maintenance:
[chair] lots of work by Yves. Little bit of bleeding in FireFox in 2 tables. Without
Yves to help me with approving, delaying the document. Push it back for next telcon.

7. Future Work:
[chair] Email sent to WG members on any additional WI to be done. 2 things - membership in the WG and what kind of work. WS Addressing has 1way binding things to be done in XMLP layer. Mark Nottingam is the chair of WS Addressing.
[MarkN] WSA chartered to support headers and mechanisms. Requires Request/Response in 2 connections and WSA to correlate between them. SOAP has also issues with this. WSA not chartered to changes in SOAP.
[DavidO] Went through 10 different messaging scenarios of interest. Async. at the protocol level & async. at WSDL MEP level to different scenarios. To meet to deliver the scenarios, the existing SOAP 1.2 & SOAP/HTTP doesnot have the capability.
[Glenn] discuss issues and frame it for discussions. questions in layered fashion. also have some issues in the SOAP / Addressing layer. who does the work ?. SOAP layer – WSAddress requires the reply to be sent to some other connection - is it possible to do ?. 
[Glenn] there us no oneway SOAP MEP. SOAP request / reply requires a SOAP envelope to comeback
[Glenn] Questions:1) should we have SOAP 1way MEP ? Response to be null ? 2) Framework of HTTP, redirect response ? Async. at binding level, HTTP 303 redirect to send response. 
[Glenn] where do they generally fall ? . Similar changes required for WSDL ?.
[Glenn] TF working on this, use TF got co-ordination facilitation betw'n WGs and enable fig. out how to do this. Anybody in WG can join TF, get XMLP involved in formal way if there is work that XMLP can do.
[MarcN] Where this work to live ? As a community how this can be done. No place for this decision to be made.
[scribe] discussions on where the work needs to be done ...
[Anish] Favourable of XMLP looking into the SOAP MEP part
[chair] Favours Async TF as the co-ordination place, if and where work can be done
[Glenn] Asynch TF has weekly 1 hr concall Wed 12 PST. XMLP should get more involved in a formal way
[Jonathan] concerned about resources. resource  perspective, XMLP should go to maintenance
[Glenn] atleast the questions of what extensibility is there falls within this group
[Noah] IBM same as Jonathan. Even in maintenance mode, XMLP can review 
[DavidO] Questions resourcing argument. If the work is to be done, it will take resources no matter which group. 
[Glenn] lets carve out a scoping discussion, and then take from there
[MarkN] What would the venue be? The CG? The Asynch TF? 
[from-chair-notes] Who ownes the work? 4 diff committees and liasions. WSA/WSD created the Asych TF. The result is that the TF sees this need and is asking XMLP. XMLP should do it – not another group.
[DavidO] clear hole for not having one-way. oneway is surely a missing block to be done
[Noah] too much of charter o/H for the small work ... bad precedence to have XMLP doing actual work in this case. Witness PubSub – there are all sorts of variants. XMLP shouldn't be in the business of writing these binding, but just providing the framework for binding specs
[Glenn] It is XMLP responsibility to provide the building blocks. There was alot of discussion to doing 1Way early in XMLP. My  proposal is that 1Way is foundational and the MEP extension is at the SOAP layer 
[DavidO] Agrees with Glenn & Noah, XMLP should not be in the business of standardizing everyone's MEP/binding. However, 1way is missed work in XMLP. Solution (?) URI and SOAP/Response MEP should be reexamined.
[Marc] Chartering a new WG is overkill. XMLP or WS-A should do this
[MarkN] WSA has to recharter for this. Reasonable for XMLP to do this, clarifying SOAP binding to do 1way
[Noah] WS-A cuts corners due to tight charter. WSA should create a quick work plan. For XMLP then, the requirements come from the outside. XMLP can then create a work plan and verify that this is in scope of the charter 
[DavidO] This seems to be a small effort
[chair] Yves said that 1way work may not require XMLP to recharter ... have to check with Yves...
[Noah] afraid of spinning out. As far as effort goes, there are CR, PR timelines to consider, can we do this with errata
[chair] Does Microsoft not support W3C creating a 1way MEP/binding, or is this purely a resoucing issue?
[Jonathan] don't know how important is this for Microsoft
[chair] WSA to send a formal request to XMLP. Request will be made to XMLP WG members to decide whether to take this or not, and go from there.