See also: IRC log
We'll be meeting for a whole day on the Saturday following the
... They'll help us to be able to get hotel rooms for that day.
<scribe> scribe: Noah Mendelsohn
<scribe> scribenick: noah
MM: There was some pushback from Chris Ferris. Not sure what to do about that.
RESOLUTION: minutes at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2005Nov/0001.html are approved
Respond to his xmlp-comments posting, copying WSA, with early
word of likely disposition of optional response in the HTTP binding
Create formal issue for optional response in the HTTP binding
<scribe> DONE - It's now 39Rec
Start the rechartering process
Yves: note on patent policy sent last week. Call for review of new charter was just sent. Expect feedback in about a month in mid-December.
MM: so patent policy is approved?
Yves: There are parallel votes on patent policy and charter. So far, patent policy returns are 3/0 in favor of new policy.
MM: We'll know patent vote in 3 weeks and charter in 4?
2005/11/02: Chris: Get IBM's position wrt rec33
Add the test collection issues to the rec issue list
MM: Note that we are also closing the issue to start the rechartering process.
<cferris> looks like I won't be able to join the call afterall
Yves: rec37 and rec38 were created to cover test collection issues
MM: Action on test collection is DONE
Verify the status of issues wrt PER specs
<cferris> I will be on the chat though
ok chris...mike noted your presence on chat
MM: Already covered in action items.
Yves: nothing else to add
Activity this morning from Noah and Yves
... Yves, please summarize
Yves: seems that everyone is in
agreement to resolve 303 as previously proposed (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Oct/0005.html
), but with change proposed by Noah at
... I also would like to wait for confirmation from Mark Baker that he's OK with my response at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Oct/0010.html (I reminded Mark today at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Nov/0007.html )
NM: clarifying my proposed amendement...Yves proposal basically says what a requestor should do when a 303 comes back. My proposal suggests that we specify that a responder (server) MUST NOT send a 303 unless the SOAP processing model has been used and the redirect is to a site with a response.
MM: We'll give until next week to give Mark Baker a chance to respond on Yves' resolution.
Yves: Good, but I propose that one week of silence == assent
<cferris> mark is at xml2005
<cferris> not sure how closely he will be monitoring email
He seems to be watching the thread.
... Well we'll give him until next week, and I'll also follow up to make sure he's OK with Yves's modified text
<cferris> if I see marc h online, I'll ask him to let mark b know we are expecting a response from him
<scribe> ACTION: Mike Mahan to verify with Mark Baker that he's had a suitable chance to respond on 33Rec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/16-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action01]
Anish was champion of this. We now have Rec38 and Rec39
... I think we need to just get errata text and close
Yves: I think Anish sent proposed resolutions
... we're just waiting for that to turn into something more formal
NM: what are you saying is the next step?
Anish surfaced bugs and proposed resolutions on xmlp-Comments, but
we were missing formal tracking. We now have tracking.
... Not proposing to do anything new until Anish is here.
... do you think Anish may have more text?
Yves: don't know.
we should wait for Anish
... other opinions on next steps?
MM: move on
no editors are here
... See Anish summary at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Oct/att-0011/00-part
... Noah, have you read this?
NM: a while ago, not recently.
MM: no MEP proposal being championed by Chris Ferris, uber MEP endorsed by Dave Orchard
Yves: I have yet to see no MEP
method work right unless tunnelling
... there not for no MEP
<Yves> noah: not really happy with the no-MEP option. the way a binding know how to send a message is a normative thing in the spec. Saying it's in the rec but we won't use it would be an issue
<Yves> noah: there may be more protocols than HTTP that supports natively request/response
<Yves> and the soap level MEP allow to abstract that
<Yves> concern witht he uber-MEP is that Request-reponse MEP is already there, adding another MEP might introduce an incompatibility
<Yves> also adding too much possibilities may undermine its usefulness
<Yves> for example if a request -response is expected and no response comes, would that trigger a binding level fault?
<scribe> ACTION: Noah to send email describing position on uber MEP/no MEP/new MEP due 30 Nov [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/16-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action02]
MM: I will be traveling next week, and can't make the meeting
Yves: we usually cancel then
Telcon of 23 Nov is cancelled
... Next telcon will be 30 Nov
... Any other business?
MM: we are adjourned
ACTION: Mike Mahan to verify with Mark Baker that
he's had a suitable chance to respond on 33Rec [recorded in
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to send email describing position on uber MEP/no MEP/new MEP due 30 Nov [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/16-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]