See also: IRC log
Present: Abbie Barbir, Alex Cheng, Colleen_Evans, Dave Hollander, Dave Orchard, David Booth, Doug Bunting, Duane Nickull, Frank McCabe, Hao He, Heather Kreger,Hugo Haas, Igor Sedukhin, Jeff Mishinsky, Martin Chapman, Mark Jones, Mike Ballantyne, Mike Brumbalow, Prasad Yendluri, Roger Cutler, Shishir Garg, SinisaZimek, Srinivas, Tom Caroll, Ugo Corda, Zulah Eckert
Chair: Mike Champion
<igors> david, how do I change my alias?
<dbooth> Type /nick newname
Scribe: Tom will update the doc by F2F
hugo: P3P will exist by the Plenary and send someone in...
... keep AI to contact Lory...
doug: likes to see more sense less abstains on this matter
... agrees on the issue, wants more opinions
Scribe: sorry :)
... roger and others: take a poll
<hugo> DaveO, isn't the TAG pretty close to agreeing with Norm's proposal?
... Most of it yes, but the id issue is still way open.
Scribe: poll results: unanimous: send it out
martin: Choreography WG was formed. Deciding on the next F2F. Please join... :)
frank: is WSCI official input?
martin: yes, additional submisions are welcome. BPEL is not explicitly mentioned.
mike: expect any additional coordination or WSCG takes care of that?
martin: not clear, but most likely initial WSAWG involvment makes sense
mike: how many companies offered to participate?
martin: only one so far...
hugo: there were 18 participants proposed in the formation, now there are 4 additional
martin: may bring in invited experts
hugo: survey results: WSAWG inportance rank is pretty high.
dwane: ebXML messaging is important. could be a quick fix for this issue.
roger: is WS-Reliability is similar and can be used instead of the ebXML
DaveH: is there a reason to cover that at F2F and isn't it part of the extensions discussion?
DaveHO: extensions and RF reliability spec could be decoupled
mike: anyone besides Glen working on exts?
doug: are we talking about generic exts or SOAP features?
daveO: same bucket
ugo: reliability needs to address the WSDL, not just SOAp
Scribe: ?: reliability spec has to address WSDL accordingly
martin: WSDL 1.2 may have a solution, WS-Policy is also intended to espress reqs such as reliability. WS-reliability leaves description open ended
mike: this is a circular recusive problem, where do we start?
daveH: sort it out next week...
martin: pin down arch reqs in this area.
daveH: put on the agrenda joint with WSDWG
<dbooth> ACTION: Chairs to put WS Reliability on the agenda for joint F2F mtg with WS Desc WG
Duane: see if business reqs are met by ebXML or any other std.
Scribe: (the above in respect of reliability)
... sorry :)
daveH: understand the relevance of the ext framework without prediction of what and when is going to be done (e.g. reliability)
<DaveH> also, an statement of the importance and urgency of reliable messaging
daveO: supports evaluating the business reqs. opposes extended reqs gathering.
<DaveH> we could also help work on a standard set of terms
... 1 - extensiblility framework
mike: spending time at F2F: (1) features/exts (2) refine reqs for message-level reliability
daveH: huge help: vocabulary for the reliability
hao: reliability ius confusing: what level... we need to clarify what we mean
martin: need to chare all the things out (whole stack of reliability up to Tx's)
Scribe: ACTION: MikeC to update F2F agenda: time block for reliability to b spent calrifying the vocabulary
mike: issue owned by Glen and Chris... Glen is not at the F2F... but, we were all excited...
Scribe: daveO; we should not deal with it at F2F since nobody did much yet and Glen is missing
daveH: important topic, but put it in the trout pond discussion
breakouts: (1) REST
Scribe: (2) document wordsmithing (hugo to chair)
davidB: diagrams - material to present, when?
davidO: make it a breakout
mike: Wed morning
Scribe: no more proposals for breakouts
<dbooth> ACTION: dbooth to send MikeC a blurb on Discovery to kick off F2F discussion
mike: we need to address the issues list now
Scribe: (thu afternoon on the agenda)
mike: MTF discussion on Fri morning
Scribe: 29 are coming and 6-7 on the phone
mike: status of the loose coupling discussion? a maillist b F2F c text to the editors
hao: continue on maillist, not much attention from the editors
mike: can we harvest it for the doc?
daveO: somework has to be done
... not clear, but a good topic to explore
hao: define "loose coupling" first
... should be poart of the arch doc
mike: potential trout from the mailinglist
... another trout: visibility
<dbooth> igors, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2003Jan/0020.html