Minutes of the WSAWG telcon 7/25 Scribe: Nilo Mitra (Ericsson) Hugo thanked Chris for serving as chair. Approval of Minutes of last week's meeting: Discussion on whether we agreed last week to publish the glossary. Different people have differing recollections. Awaiting input from Alan Brown. Minutes amended to reviewing the decision to release the glossary document. With this amendment, minutes approved. Action items: 1st one DONE 2nd one NOT DONE Last call feedback comments to XMLP: Hugo and Lin-Leng reviewed SOAP spec. Chris provided composite list of comments. We are slightly late. Only one comment received to Chris' composite list from Hugo. Hugo feels that the spec is not clear on one aspect byt Chris said this was debated extensively and would open a can of worms. Glen said he does not see SOAP 1.2 features and how they bind to binding may be a higher level architectural issue. This has been raises in the WS desc group. Henrik said that there are many things SOAP does not define, inlcuding tricky architectural issues. Hugo said that some of the comments were not purely architectural. He tried to maintain a separation, but Dave O said that he did not see what the SOAp 1.2 should do with Glen's comments. Glen does not require a change in this version of the spec. He said that the property based feature could be taken out of the SOAp spec and put in another spec - produced by the Arch group. It does not need to be factored out in this version for last call. Dave O said that taking things out of a spec can be done post last call. Hugo said that the matter of MEPs came up in the coordination group. Henrik wants to separate what is in SOAP 1.2 versus architecture issues. He does not see any problem in having some concepts in various specs, and having the arch group tie it all together. Mark Jones feels that this should be brought to the SOAP spec as a LC issue. This may be helpful in getting it on the table when XMLP contemplates rechartering. Dave H(?) said that we should send a quick message saying that we should discuss arch issues when XMLP have finished their LC work. dave O thinks it should be a LC comment. Need to get in a comment about it. Dave H says unless we have an alternative place to put the information, we would interfere with their publication. Dave O says we need to say that something along the lines that we need to work together on a refactoring and rebalancing of architectural issues in the spec. Chris said he's reluctant to recommend that something from the spec. This should be discussed at the CG level. Henrik also would not like to say anything about rebalancing until we have a clear idea of the issues. ACTION ITEM: Dave O to draft a note to the CG about the need for coordination/rebablancing. Will circulate to the WG. Hugo asked for his comments to be reinstated. Chris says he has strong feelings about that, as the XMLP has discussed this at length and we should not reopen the issue. Hugo said that the original wording from Noah/Glen has changed since the telcon where the original wording was approved. He says that the current wording - more sloppy - can cause an interoperability issue. Glen provided some explanation of the "must happen" aspect. Hugo retracts his comments. All agree that comments should be forwarded as drafted by Chris. ACTION ITEM: Chairs to forward comments to XMLP. D-AG003: Hugo to resolve this. Got a +1 from Mark Baker but no other comments. Chris provided some clarifying comments. No objections to putting Hugo's resolution in the requirements document. Hugo continued with D-AC011. Got comments from Heather. Discussion about how to replace the word "roughly". Suggestions included "non-normatively", "for example". Agreed to change "roughly" to "generally" and "existing" dropped. D-AC011.2 accepted. D-AC011.2.1 dropped. D-AC011.2.2 dropped. D-AC010.1 proposal accepted. D-AC??? ???? Proposed a new one AC011.3. Mark B would like the word "architectural component" must be clarified. ??? said the word 'component" is dangerous. Chris said that we know what we mean. We won't get very far debating it. No one objects to it being in as worded by Hugo. D-AC021 on device independence. No objections to adopting. D-AR021.1. This came from Mike Mahan, Zulah, Sharad. No objections to adopting it. D-AR021.1. Hugo does not understand this. He'd like to follow the policy that if it is not clear, drop it. Zulah would not object to dropping it, but she'd like to hear from the proponents. Chris said don't remove it until those who proposed it are here to defend it. Agreed to leave it in. D-AR021.3 accepted. D-AR003.2 described by Dave Hollander. Proposal is to drop it. No discussion on his email. Someone wanted to defer this. Mike said we are tring to resolve these. No one else objects to dropping it. Accept the consensus that we should drop this. Zulah spoke about D-AC018. RTF has been noodling on this for some time. Hugo has had a hard time understanding. Is he the only one? It seems harmless having it there but how will it be achieved. No one else had comments. Agreed to accept as provided. Zulah had another proposal - message #437 in July. Accepted. Zulah had another proposal on AC019.1. Dave H had a suggestion that the WG be given adequate time to comment. Chris said that we really need to clear the draft status from these. Zulah said it was not clear if it should be left in draft status or remove them altogether. Agreed to removing draft status of 19.1.1. Zulah continued with 19.1.3. on reliable messaging. MB had an objection but has withdrawn it. No one objected to removing the draft status of 19.1.3. Mike asked Hugo about procedural constraints. Hugo said these are small. If editors can put these changes in, then it can be published as a second WD. Dave O objects to this. Chris said that he has not seen the edits from last week. He can try to get in touch with Daniel. <> Dave H said he'd like to have the WG have time to review and identify missing items/issues. Friendly amendment to approve release of document now, but allow WG three days to review it. No requirements editors on the call, save Chris. Chris can try to do it, but not till later. Tom agreed to talk to Daniel to get a draft together in the shortest possible time. Hugo asked if Chris or Daniel can do it by Monday; so that it can be reviewed for three days and send it in for publication by Thursday. Chris agreed. Tom will convey message to Daniel. Joe sent out D-AG004. Next meeting is in September. Zakim bridge available for informal meetings during August. Meeting adjourned 5:05 pm.