14 September 2005
See also: IRC log
1. Roll Call
- BEA Systems, David
- Canon, Herve
- IBM, Chris
- Nokia, Mike
- Oracle, Anish
- SeeBeyond, Pete
- Sun Microsystems, Marc
- W3C, Yves Lafon
- IBM, Noah
- BEA Systems, Mark
- Iona Technologies, Suresh
- Microsoft Corporation, Mike
- SAP AG, Volker
- Canon, Jean-Jacques
- Microsoft Corporation, Doug
- Oracle, Jeff
- Sun Microsystems, Tony
- Mike Mahan
2. Agenda Review , Announcements, and call for AOB
- Will discuss logistics at
end of meeting.
3. Approval of Minutes
- 17 Aug:
4. Action items
- Action Items: http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/Admin/#pending
- 2005/08/10 Yves
- Send a proposal to resolve issue rec33
- Yves: no time to do it. Maybe next week.
- Marc may have sent something, need to look for it.
- ACTION: Marc to find rec33 related email
thread [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/14-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action01]
- Mike: OK lets take this on the ML and discuss next week.
- Disposition: still PENDING
- 2005/08/17 WG
- Evaluate the possibility of reviewing appendix K and/or L from
- Mike: any volunteers to do this review?
- Mike: OK – I will do it.
- ACTION: Mike to review voice browser
appendices [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/14-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action02]
- Disposition: close original ACTION, new ACTION to
- 2005/08/17 WG
- Send out a revised timeline for the new XMLP charter draft
- Mike: still noodling on it. AI remain pending. We
will address this later in this meeting
- Disposition: still PENDING
- 2005/08/17 Chris
- ATF Issue: Does the SOAP/HTTP binding require a SOAP env in the
- Continue discussion, and send concerns about 202 and different
MEP levels in the ML
- Mike: close this AI with Chris and Pick it up with
- Postlude: Above statement is confusing issue rec33 with this
- Disposition: Keep PENDING, Mike to check progress of this
- 2005/08/17 Editors
- Summarize the current requirements for the one way MEP
- Disposition: Keep PENDING, Editors are tasked to come to an
approach concensus. These are closely related.
5. XMLP Requests
- 1. Voice Browser WG
- 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
- 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
- Proposed response:
- 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
- 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
- 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
- ACTION: Chris to continue discussion, and send concerns
about 202 and different MEP evels in the ML
6. New SOAP MEP/Binding work
- 1) Charter has feedback
from W3C, WSD.
found by Noah
- from WSD:
- from Yves:
- Mike: Some
comments on the charter have been sent.
... from Hugo, OK, but like to see explicit requirements like the
language from WS-D.
- ... from WSD: more
explicit deliverables preferred
- Yves: the deliverables
are clear for one-way
- Mike: What does the
rest of the W3C team think
- Yves: Phillipe thinks
it is good
- Yves: Need to have the new charter fast, as
current one is about to expire.
... Timeline is very aggressive. May need to push it back 3-6
months. Depends on available time from WG.
- Mike: other comments on timeline?
... Timeline correct or need modifications?
- Herve: Pushing back a month makes fo the WD and LC
- No response.
- Yves: question is about first WD in November and
LC in December. Rest will follow.
- Mike: what about reqs from WSA? Will they only be
additional or could they be contraditory to what we already
- Marc?: WSA reqs will not be contradictory with WSD's ones, but
may broaden some scope.
- Anish: If we start now, with what to start?
... can start talking about details, event if we don't know exactly
were we go.
- Concern: dependencies with WSA and WSD.
- Yves: may delay 1 step by 1 month.
... delay CR by 2 months.
... will not be a problem as WSA and WSD will be able to refer to
- Mike: Yves, so you believe a 3 months delay is OK
- Yves: think that this is a reasonable delay.
- Mike: what about dependencies with WSD and reqs
- Yves: should check with Hugo, but think it will be
ACTION: Yves to check with Hugo wrt timeline and
dependencies with WSA and WSD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/14-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action03]
- Mike: anything else about charter and
Scoping of new work item
- Lets take up where we left off on Aug17
- See min:
editors to put a new proposal, in order to be proactive and help
WSA to make their requirements.
- Chris: already have some proposal from Dave. Is
... not clear to me if WG has consensus on the approach.
- Mike: proposal is for the editor to come up with a
sketch and give it to the WG to see what we have.
... also give it to WSA to help them make their reqs.
- Chris: have been discussing several
- Anish: WG hasn't come to consensus about how thing
should work. Problem is when as message is going out, but nothing
... WG should look at this to achieve a consensus.
... we know what we want, we have at least one proposal. We can
look at the details. We can agree on how it will work, the spec may
- Mike: Proposal: describe in the WG all the details
without working on the spec.
- Anish: should not wait too long for WSA.
- Mike: Scoping of what we will do is limited by
reqs from WSD.
- Chris: In line with what I was suggesting.
- Mike: working on that and expanding it if we get
sufficient feedback from WSA.
- Dave: no consensus on how many MEP. However there
are some details that will be present whatever the approach.
- <cferris> personally, I think NO MEPs :-)
Just a binding
- Dave: would like to propose a sketch of what we
will do and ask for feedback.
... need to have an agreement between the editors.
- Chris: Fundamentaly we have SOAP MEP, WSD MEP, WSA
MEP. Ultimately there should be no SOAP MEP.
- <marc> amen brother
- Chris: MEP are at the application level.
Preference would be to do only a binding: here is how SOAP is
transported on HTTP.
... Then can compose with WSD MEP.
- Dave: This is the approach I propose. The only
reason to have a notion of MEP is to have a URI to refer to in the
- Chris: Think there is no consensus on it.
- <marc> dave characterised this as request,
optional response. i think optional request, optional response is
- <marc> this will support the existing GET
- <dorchard> think that we need to have
consensus amongst editors first, then put to wg.
- Dave: If editors have a consensus, then may
propose something to WG.
- Mike: Editors should be chartered with crafting
the approach and presenting it to WG.
- <dorchard> So let's get Chris, myself and
Anish together and bash this out.
- Anish: if consensus happen by next telcon, would
be great. Need to go deeper in the details. Need to have a short
- Mike: Editors to come to consensus for next
- Mike: Editors meet at their discretion for this
- Editors: Arrange da phone conference
7. SOAP 1.2 PER specs [Did not
- 1. 33rec http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-rec-issues.html#x33
- 2. Behavior of Requesting node on a 3xx response in the SOAP
- 3. Does the SOAP/HTTP binding require a SOAP env in the
8. XOP Issues - Pending, not exhaustive [Did not address]
- 1.34rec start-info:
- 2.35rec Use absolute URIs for action:
- 3. NEW Issue: Possible defect:
- Will be moving time back to
old start time – 30 minutes earlier
- - Moved up without comment
from European members
- - We are still using a minimum of 1.5 hrs,
1 hr doesn't seem to be sufficient
ACTION: Marc to find rec33 related email thread
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/14-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Mike to review
voice browser appendices [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/14-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Yves to check with
Hugo wrt timeline and dependencies with WSA and WSD [recorded in