XMLP minutes

17 Aug 2005


See also: IRC log

1. Roll Call


BEA Systems, David Orchard
IBM, Chris Ferris
IBM, Noah Mendelsohn
Iona Technologies, Suresh Kodichath
Nokia, Mike Mahan
Oracle, Anish Karmarkar
SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel
Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley
W3C, Yves Lafon
BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham
Canon, Herve Ruellan

Microsoft Corporation, Mike Vernal
SAP AG, Volker Wiechers
Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau
Microsoft Corporation, Doug Purdy
Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky
Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham
Mike Mahan

2. Agenda Review , Announcements, and call for AOB

mikem: Martin Gudge has retired from XMLP, Mike Vernal has replaced him as primary for Microsoft

3. Approval of Minutes

mikem: Minutes of August 3th approved
mikem: Minutes of August 10th approved

4. Action items

2005/08/02 Yves
Send a proposal to resolve rec33.

2005/08/02 Dave
Respond to Anish's proposed response regarding below ATF Issue.
PENDING (may become moot)

5. XMLP Requests

1. Voice Browser WG
See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2005Aug/0019.htm
mikem: Voice Browser WG wants XMLP to review bindings of their infoset to HTTP
mikem: anyone familiar ? volunteers ?
mikem: Yves, is it mandatory, or optional, to review ?
yves: we can decline if we decide that no useful comment can be made
yves: one comment might be to recommend that they use SOAP
mikem: is there a timeframe?
yves: Voice Browser group is on holidays during august
mikem: action to WG to consider reviewing either appendix K or L or both, we will bring it up in 3 weeks time

2. ATF Issue: Does the SOAP/HTTP binding require a SOAP env in the response?
Proposed response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2005Aug/0015.htm
anish: explains the history on this. MarcH's has a proposal to say what needs to be changed to send an empty reponse
chris: notes that MarcH's proposal would not accomodate the likes of use of HTTP response for ReliableMessaging ack.
marcH: concurs
anish: notes that he had similar concerns were raised before
anish(IRC): here is what HTTP spec says about 202: "The entity returned with this response SHOULD include an indication of the request's current status and either a pointer to a status monitor or some estimate of when the user can expect the request to be fulfilled."
noah: agrees with ChrisF and Anish. MEP purpose is to say exactly what is expected.
chris: discusses whether application level MEP or the underlying mechanics (plumbing) should handle this
anish: one of the problems that exists, as i see it is, there are too many patterns: transport-level MEPs, SOAP MEPs, WSDL MEPs, Application MEPs. They are all layered over each other. With optionality introduced, there are all kinds of interactions between them and causes a problem with mappings.
noah: SOAP processing MEP should say how to process 202
davido: SOAP spec. has 2 different state machines for 2 MEPs, while http binding has one state to deal with it.
noah: the real test for the MEPs is in using it with SOAP intermediates
ACTION: Chris to continue discussion, and send concerns about 202 and different MEP evels in the ML

6. New SOAP MEP/Binding work item

Topic: Charter has no pushback from WSD
mikem: No pushback. Yves believes schedule is aggressive
yves: Like to extend schedule by 6 months, keeping in view of all the above discussions and the work to be done
mikem: Group to decide whether to take all these work. Yves to recommend a change for

Topic: Scoping of work
mikem: Considering 5 possible options, as listed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2005Aug/0018.html.
mikem: would like the editors to move on if possible. asks for inputs from the group
chris: if binding is indeed broken, then fix it
davido: whether we want a new one, or change the description format style, we have good
starting points on both. Decide which style to use, not much editors can do without it
noah: Prefer to establish realistic goals, and give it to editors and iterate.
mikem: what are the realistic goals ? Are they WSD's req., dave's suggestion for a simpler description format
noah: the description style is not meeting them, no problem with that, but the charter doesn't say that this is goal. WSD, WSA requirements are needed as goals. Improving style is not a goal.
mikem: DavidO says it is necessary
noah: that doesn't mean that it is a goal. goal is WSD/WSA requirements, but if editors decide to change style, that is fine but is not to be considered a goal
pete: what are the goals
mikem: no formal requirements from WSA, only from WSD
chris: it should not be open ended
anish: WSA doesn;t have consensus in the requirements
noah: faults are an important thing to consider, and mostly overlooked
davido: agreed. Also should decide upon the style. Not much typing work to
do for the editors till the decision is made
mikem: what holds the decision to choose style for one-way work ?
davido: not yet clear on what work is to be done. not much editorial work to be
done, most of this is done in the draft.
chris: we dont necessarily know the requirements, other than WSD requirements.
anish: suggest to request to WSA to get requirements
anish: style discussions need not wait
noah: editors should decide, WG should help the editors. editors should go ahead, while we get more formal requirements.
davido: no problem with that. still concerned with doing something and throw it out.
scribe: finally, the following actions items have been created to go ahead with this
ACTION: editors to summarize the current requirements for the one way MEP
ACTION: Mike to ask WSA for requirements

mikem: might readjust the timing of call, and no calls on August 24th and 31st!.