WSAWG telcon minutes
2. Agenda review, and AOB (15.35 + 5)
[CF] [reviewed the agenda and added the following topic:]
How to finish balloting? A total of 11 people responded to the last ballot.
[MB] A reminder with the results of the last ballot will be useful. Pester us more
[CF] Have sent out reminders and reminded people on the telcon. Shall I send out remainder of ballots and give people a week to respond and remind people every other day ?
[MB] That would be helpful. Did something similar in XMLP. Finding a way to keep the ballots foremost in our minds would be helpful
[CF] Shall I send out of the rest of the ballots and give people till end of day thursday. I would really like to not deal with this at the f2f.
[FM] Suggestion - For most non-controversial issues use a white ballot [.. noise..] - asks the question "Does anyone have any objection at all?"
[CF] Our ballot is something similar
[FM] If there is no response to a white ballot, it is equivalent to approval
[DH] That is not W3C process (silence is not equivalent to approval).
[FM] You ask if there is any objection in a white ballot. If there are any objections, you go to a normal ballot.
[CF] I am assuming that silence from some members to mean they agree with everything. I am bringing up these issues again on the call to confirm that.
[CF] Shall I send the rest of the ballots out tomorrow and expect results in by next thursday?
[...] many "yes"
3. Review and approval of 16 May telcon minutes  (15.40 +
[??] Some things to be fixed. Will deal with this at next call.
4. Review action items  (15.45 + 5)
[DA] WS Description WG feedback: Mike Mahan has sent his comments. Will have his comments and mine incorporated into reqs by end of the day saturday.
[CF] We can go over our feedback with the WSDWG at the f2f
[Daniel] Updates to reqs still pending. Each of the editors making changes to specific parts.
[AD] Still working on glossary. Added a definition(?) to glossary
[CF] AI to me to clean up AC020 with Hugo. Hugo is on vacation. That one is pending. Sharad and Mike to work on CSF4. Thats done. AI for Daniel to remove bullet item from 6.11 and thats still pending
[DA] All text changes are continuing to be pending.
5. Status (15.50 + 5)
- F2F update
[CF] Registration still low. Only 11 registered. Closes on 31st. If not attending please use reg. form to submit regrets
[GD] Don't know if my registration went through.
[DB] I put up a new list of registrants.
[HK] Having a hard time registering.
[DB] Send whatever problems you found by email.
[DA] Tom carrol will be attending but has not registered. He might not be able to register before deadline
[CF] Will make a note of it.
[DB] Send a mail to Johann at L'Échangeur and copy Hugo and Chris regarding this.
[MJ & DA] Getting internal server error using Netscape.
[DB] I will ask about that.
- Editing team report (no meeting this week)
[DA] Had a call yesterday. Dave Hollander, Sharad, Abbie present. Nothing much on issues list. Discussed CVSW issues and talked about publication of doc before f2f. Have to publish another draft by June 1st so that have time to discuss before w3c mandated deadline June 5th.
Requesting moratorium on changes for the draft after the call on May 30th.
Changes made after that will not make it into the draft available at f2f. Dividing up reqs among editors and making changes.
[JH] Which editor is responsible for which sections?
[DA] Will send email.
- USTF (nothing to report)
- Issues (no new issues)
6. Review of D-AG001 Interoperability balloting results (15.55
The results of the D-AG001 balloting suggest some items
on which the WG seems to be coming to consensus agreement.
A) The following items all received a super majority of Y's
and a few L's and no D's or O's:
D-AR004.2, D-AR016.1.1, D-AR016.2, D-AR016.2.2,
Does the WG agree to accept the results of the balloting and
remove the draft status for the above items?
[CF] Does WG approve removal of draft status.
 No response
B) The following item seems to have a strong minority opinion
that suggests these are out of scope:
Does the WG agree to its removal?
[CF] DAC004.1 Strong vocal minority suggesting out of scope. Does
WG agree to remove this item? Hearing no objection, will be removed.
7. Review of D-AG002 Reliability balloting results (16.05 +
There seemed to be little consensus on the items in this area.
Will be looking for champions to try to work through the differences
and to help craft compromises that the WG can agree to.
[CF]What would people like to do on this? Discuss at F2F, on mailing list? Suresh has suggested we form a Task force to handle this.
[SD] Will not be at f2f. Wouldn't be mailing on this issue either. Can we have a telcon in june to hammer out this? telcon in 1st week of june and get some consensus.
[CF] Bring it up in next week's telcon and set a date for meeting.
[SD] Will solicit participation on the mailing list meanwhile.
8. Review of D-AG003 Web Friendly balloting results (16.15 +
A) The following items received a super majority
of Y's, maybe a couple of Ls and no D's or O's:
D-AG003, D-AC010, D-AC011.2
Does the WG agree to accept the results of the balloting and
remove the draft status for the above items?
[CF] Very sparsely attended poll. Is there any objection to removing the draft status
[FM] Are we proposing that WS Arch be aligned to Semantic web?
[CF] In general we want to remain cognizant that we should not be misaligned with the Semantic web activity.
[FM] I have some strong opinions. Semantic Web is based on RDF and RDF is unfriendly to businesses. Strong alignment to SW can cause trouble.
[CF] Alignment is under discussion. Wording of goal says should be WSA should be consistent with current and future evolution of Web architecture. That's on the table now.
[RC] [to Frank] please post something on mailing list substantiating comment
[CF] Any objections to remove draft status for D-AG003, D-AC010? Hearing no objections, approved.
B) Following a review of the feedback on D-AC011 and its subordinate CSFs,
I offered the following proposal. Looking for feedback and possible
agreement on the proposed changes. Reviewing another proposal on D-AC011,
I would also be willing to adapt IBM's proposal that 'is consistent'
be replaced with 'should be consistent', with the remainder the same
as proposed in .
[CF] I am considering 2 approaches.
(1) try to get agreement to my proposal or adapt IBM's proposal.
(2) If we agree to my proposal, get this into draft and discuss again at next telcon. (Gets us to a point where we have something in the document we can discuss).
[CF] [Described his proposal-]. Does anyone object to this proposal.
[DH] Object to dropping D-AC011.2.3
[CF] D-AC011.2.3 is redundant with D-AC010
[DH] I would rather subvert AC010 if we had to.
[CF} Can fold D-AC010 into D-AC011.
[DH] Retracts objection
[DB] We should incorporate wording to suggest WSArch should be consistent with future evolution of web.
[HK] Second David's point.
[CF]Suggest replacing D-AC011.1 with placeholders for authoritative references to web architecture principles.
[DB] with regards to AC011, concerned about wording "existing". Suggested wording - "Must" be consistent with arch principles and design goals of existing web, and "Should" be consistent wrt to future web.
[CF] Where do we find arch principles of future web. We are not trying to fix wording here. We will put in the new proposed wording and discuss it.
[CF] In absence of objections, CF will redraft D-AC011 and send it out to the list.
C) I also offered a proposal for D-AC009  which the champion
thought he could live with. Does the WG agree to accept the proposed
[CF] Proposal is "WS arch will not be unnecessarily misaligned with SW". We will take into consideration what SW WG is thinking.
[Daniel] will we drop 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3? In those parts we are being very specific on what alignment with SW means.
[CF] Not at this time. We might.
[??] How do we decide that we are aligned.
[CF] We try maintaining alignment through liaison activities -like liaison with DAML(Katia)
[DB and DA] Uncomfortable with double-negative.
[CF] Table topic since running out of time.
[SG] Addressed concerns re. platform independence should not be part of D-AC004.
restructured AC004. Redistributed content to other places.
New D-AC004 says WS Arch does not include any programming model
Platform ind already covered in D-AC011.1.14.
Proposed new D-AC0021 - Ensures device independence of WS
D-Ac021.1 Assumes no device or level or connectivity of clients or servers. Takes care of Roger Cutlers and Daniel Austin's concerns.
D-AC021.2 Makes no assumption of visibility of services based on user locality
D-AC021.3 Assumes a spectrum of device capability - Taken from XMLP requirements.
[CF] Can we leave these changes in draft status in the next WD. Hearing no objections proposal will be incorporated into next WD.
9. Semantic Web benefits presentation at f2f (16.25 + 5)
David Booth has offered to give a presentation on semantic web
and benefits at the f2f. Should this be added to the agenda?
[CF] Are people interested ?
[KS] Will be great. Will be useful for discussion later.
[CF] How long will the presentation be?
[DB] Need 1.5 hour
[CF] How about 1 Hr presentation and take QA off-line
[KS] Volunteer to help with presentation. Put David's presentation on WG web site.
[DB] Will pursue that afterwards.
[CF] Lets plan on the presentation leading into lunch for QA
10. Discussion of thread on drafting WS Sec WG charter (16.30 +
We will continue this discussion from last week's call with
any time we have left.
There has been much discussion on the list sparked by
an email/proposal from David Orchard. The basic
premise is this: "We all believe that a WS Security WG is
needed, the question is whether we have all our ducks
in a row to begin the process of drafting a proposal
recommending to the WS-CG with follow-on to the W3C
Management and AC reps that they charter a new
WS Security WG?"
Do we know enough to effectively define the proposed
scope of such a WG? Can the WG be chartered such that
its scope can be refined as we refine the architecture?
Some feedback from WS-CG regarding roles and what they
expect from us.
How shall we proceed?
[CF] CG feels that it's their role to draft charter, They look to us for (1) Scoping.
(2) What relationships the group will have with other groups in and outside W3C.
According to charter CG will be guided by the Arch Document. They might say they cannot create charter since we don't have an Arch Document. We should consider quickly creating an Arch document from which CG will derive charter (by end of july).
[DA] Is my understanding correct that We won't be writing the charter, just the section of the charter describing scope and deliverables?
[??] Is that consistent with our charter ?
[DA] Don't see the need for arch doc before writing that section of the Security WG charter.
[CF] Charter can go together with some effort to create Arch doc. Though, CG might not act before we produce a Arch doc.
[JH] I think that is reasonable.
[MJ] If it takes 6 months to get the charter it is unacceptable.
[DA] The Arch doc is the main deliverable of this WG. If we wait till it is complete before we charter WGs, it might take over a year/18 months.
[CF] We need to start writing it down. We should present the CG with atleast a WD.
[DA] Focus on security aspects of reqs. Produce an Arch doc with heavy focus on security.
[CF] Exactly. Usecases will be useful for defining reqs for security. We can try to produce a WD by end of July.
[..] Surely this group is not the only source of chartering new WGs. Can some other group not generate a charter?
[CF] It will be punted to us anyway.
[DA] My worry is that we are being rushed into producing something when we are not ready to do so.
[CF] I am driving pretty hard to get reqs out of the way so we can concentrate on this. Based on the feedback from CG we should atleast come up with a rough draft of Arch doc. We can focus on Security. We have a more or less completely fleshed out set of reqs.
[CF] Target WD of arch doc for end of july, and a proposal on what the security WG should be working on.
[DB] (observation)If a separate proposal for a WG comes up and it is not punted to WSAWG, there will be criticism since that is the purpose of this WG.
[Daniel] We are not going to make a decision right now, are we ?
[CF] I want people to think about how we can get this started (contributions etc). Next telcon, encourage people to step up and volunteer commitment to work on details. Volunteer work done by their organizations.
[DA] At last f2f I suggested an outline for the doc. It should be in the notes.
[JH] You are asking for volunteers for Arch doc, and we are still not done with reqs.
[CF] Need to accelerate balloting. Looking at 2 wks to finish balloting. Would people be opposed to finishing balloting by next wednesday.
[ZE] I would be in favour if we did all balloting by next wednesday, if we partition the week to do that instead of doing one every two days
[CF] I can send all ballots tomorrow, if people are willing to step up.
 No response.
[CF] Will send ballots out tomorrow morning, remind everyone on tuesday, and finish on wednesday.
[AD] - Alan Davies
[CF] - Chris Ferris
[DA] - Daniel Austin
[DB] - David Booth
[DH] - Dave Hollander
[FM] - Frank McCabe
[GD] - Glen Daniels
[HK] - Heather Kreger
[JH] - Joseph Hui
[KS] - Katia Sycara
[MB] - Mark Baker
[MJ] - Mark Jones
[RC] - Roger Cutler
[SD] - Suresh Damodaran
[SG] - Sharad Garg
[ZE] - Zulah Eckert
<h2>Action Items</h2>ACTION: Chris Ferris to get preliminary F2F agenda out by Tuesday PENDING
ACTION: Chris Ferris to clean up D-AC020 to explicitly mention P3P and/or the P3P WG.  PENDING
ACTION: Daniel Austin to remove bullet item from 6.11  PENDING
ACTION: Daniel will get WSD Requirements feedback report ready by Saturday  PENDING
ACTION: Chris to redraft D-AC011 incorporating AC010. 
ACTION: Chris to try to tackle D-AC009 and subordinates together for next call 
<h2>Present</h2> AT&T Mark Jones
Boeing Company Gerald Edgar
Carnegie Mellon Univ Katia Sycara
ChevronTexaco Roger Cutler
Computer Associates Igor Sedukhin
Contivo Dave Hollander
DaimlerChrysler Mario Jeckle
Documentum Don Robertson
Exodus/Digital Island Joseph Hui
Fujitsu Frank McCabe
Hewlett-Packard Company Zulah Eckert
IBM Heather Kreger
Intel Corporation Sharad Garg
Ipedo Srinivas Pandrangi
Ipedo Alex Cheng
Macromedia Glen Daniels
Microsoft Corporation Allen Brown
MITRE Corporation Paul Denning
Nortel Networks Abbie Barbir
Planetfred, Inc. Mark Baker
SAP Sinisa Zimek
Software AG Michael Champion
Sterling Commerce(SBC) Suresh Damodaran
Sun Microsystems, Inc. Chris Ferris
Sun Microsystems, Inc. Mark Hapner
TIBCO Software, Inc. Scott Vorthmann
T-Nova Deutsche Telekom Jens Meinkoehn
W. W. Grainger, Inc. Daniel Austin
W3C David Booth
webMethods, Inc. Prasad Yendluri
<h2>Regrets</h2> Artesia Technologies Dipto Chakravarty
AT&T Ayse Dilber
BEA Systems David Orchard
Cisco Systems Inc Sandeep Kumar
DaimlerChrysler Hans-Peter Steiert
DISA Marcel Jemio
Ericsson Nilo Mitra
France Telecom Shishir Garg
Hewlett-Packard Company Yin-Leng Husband
Intalio Inc Bob Lojek
Intel Corporation Joel Munter
IONA Steve Vinoski
Microsoft Corporation Henrik Nielsen
Rogue Wave Software David Noor
SeeBeyond Technology Alan Davies
Sun Microsystems, Inc. Doug Bunting
Systinet Anne Thomas Manes
W. W. Grainger, Inc. Tom Carroll
W3C Hugo Haas
Waveset Technologies Darran Rolls
<h2>Absent</h2> Apple Mike Brumbelow
Cisco Systems Inc Krishna Sankar
CrossWeave, Inc. Timothy Jones
EDS Mike Ballantyne
EDS Waqar Sadiq
IBM Jim Knutson
IONA Eric Newcomer
Macromedia Tom Jordahl
MartSoft Corp. Jin Yu
MartSoft Corp. Jun Chen
MITRE Corporation James Davenport
Nokia Michael Mahan
Oracle Corporation Jeff Mischkinsky
Rogue Wave Software Patrick Thompson
Software AG Nigel Hutchison
Sybase, Inc. Himagiri Mukkamala
The Thomson Corporation Hao He
VeriSign, Inc. Michael Mealling
XQRL Inc. Tom Bradford
XQRL Inc. Daniela Florescu