Web Services CG

28 Jun 2005


See also: IRC log


SteveRT, Michael, Hugo, Carine, Plh, +1.858.831.aaaa, Mike, Jonathan_Marsh, MarkN


<SRT> Agenda addition above

Approve minutes

<MSM> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/07-ws-cg-minutes.html

Minutes are approved

Schedule updates

Steve: what about the August break?

Mark: it looks like that for Addressing, but it isn't official yet

Steve: we'll do one for Choreography

<SRT> 18/19 Addressing in Bedford Mass

<SRT> 20/21 Description in Bedford Mass

Hugo: we'll have 18-19 July for Addressing and 20-21 for Description, in Bedford, MA, USA, at Sonic

Review action items

<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to (possibly) work on an updated glossary and bring it for review [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-ws-cg-irc]

Hugo: I really want to get to it, but can't seem to...

WS-Addressing Issue to resolve

Mark: with regards to MEP, we haven't made any progress

SOAP one-way MEP/binding

Jonathan: the Addressing WG has been working on looking at using WS-Addressing for doing async interactions
... lots of different approaches proposed
... one item has emerged as consensus in the Async TF: the lack of one-way MEP/binding in SOAP
... this can help for async scenarios, using 2 one-way MEPs in the WSDL description
... in addition, if we had such a one-way binding, we could default to it in the SOAP 1.2 binding in WSDL 2.0
... the WSDWG would like the CG to help make this happen, as this is out of scope for us

Hugo: note that the timing issue for WSDL 2.0; I thing that we should have something before we go to CR to do this change

Mark: from the POV of Addressing, everybody agreed that this is good work and that it should happen, but that it is likely to be orthogonal to requirements that we may have
... the general feeling is that we should encourage this work, but we're likely to come with more requirements

Jonathan: the contradiction is that an open scope goes against WSDL's need for something fast

Mike: XMLP wants a very clear scope, based on previous discussions

Jonathan: DaveO has a binding which may do one-way, async, and more
... so it's not clear how it relates to the simple one-way work

Philippe: I wonder what would be the cost of adapting the one-way binding from the WS-I BP for SOAP 1.2

Mark: which one-way MEP?

Hugo: the 202 Accepted HTTP binding clarification

Jonathan: SOAP 1.2 would need more work, as it would need an MEP

Mark: we could indeed declare victory with the simple case

Hugo: the interesting question is: will this help us do our ReplyTo testing at the CR stage in Addressing? I think the answer is yes

Mark: I think that the async TF is indeed after optimization

Jonathan: we may not need a standard solution to do the CR testing

Mark: a number of people want a standard solution

Philippe: we need a Rec somewhere

Jonathan: I think that we reference it in the test suite

Philippe: we could do a Note at the time of the test suite, and maybe do a Rec later on

Jonathan: everybody hopes that the XMLP WG is the right home; I'm not sure if it's feasible

Mike: it seems that the existing wording in the charter could cover that

Jonathan: are you under the PP?

Philippe: no, they're not; they can't do a Rec track doc without a charter change
... they the XMLP WG can produce a WG Note

Mark: how do we go to Rec then?

Philippe: we could recharter

Steve: and the Note could serve as the scope

Mike: there was pushback against just a MEP scope
... everybody is expecting XMLP to shut down

Jonathan: so the suggestion is to have XMLP work immediately on a Note, and on parallel explore getting the Note on the Rec track

Mike: I'm not absolutely confident that the WG will be happy about this plan
... I need more information about how to get to Rec track

Jonathan: the CG can work on a draft charter

Mike: you think that it can go in parrallel with XMLP's work?

Jonathan: do we want to be pro-active about going to Rec?

Mike: if it's going to be a Note, why doesn't the Async TF do it?

Mark: they can't publish anything on their own

Philippe: but they can publish via the Addressing WG

Steve: it boils down to who needs it and who wants to do it
... and it isn't necessarily XMLP's job

Hugo: I think DaveO had a draft; if this can help us go through CR in Addressing and be used in WSDL 2.0, then it may be a high priority item for the TF

Mark: I am concerned about the ability to deliver of the TF at this point

Jonathan: we could refocus the TF

Philippe: would DaveO be happy to push the one-way stuff as a WG Note?

Jonathan: I'd be happy to do that from the WSDWG POV
... however, I have doubts about defaulting to something defined in a Note in the WSDL 2.0 Rec

Philippe: but the Note could be a good starting point for a Rec

Mike: why would we do a Rec?

Philippe: interest

Jonathan: IP, review, etc.

<MDChapman> by the time we finishe discussing this we could have charted a new fast track WG:-)

Jonathan: the highest decision we need to make is whether this needs to be a Rec or not
... if we want a Rec, starting work on a note seems not the best thing to do

<MDChapman> +1

Jonathan: or if we do, we should have XMLP start the work and recharter them

Mike: I think XMLP would be more motivated for a Rec

Steve: I'd rather it'd be a Rec track

Philippe: so let's ask the XMLP WG, and if they don't want to, we can look at doing a Note

<MDChapman> what about the other option of a new WG?

Hugo: for a new WG: we could ask the async TF if they want to morph into a new WG for this purpose
... in case XMLP says no

<MDChapman> thats what i was thinking

Philippe: in the first step, we should look for something simple

Mike: and mimic the WS-I stuff?

Hugo: it's already saying that in the Desc WG request

Mike: it's just a hint, though

Jonathan: the WS-I stuff is pretty simple

<MDChapman> i dont think it wud take that much effort to write a very focussed charted drawing togther the threads from wsd/xmpl and ws-a

Mike: how does DaveO's work relate to that?

Jonathan: I think he took that into account

Mike: I'm happy to take this back to XMLP, with Desc's reqs and DaveO's draft
... we would need to move to the PP

Philippe: it would basically be a rechartering

Mike: I may need a week to get all this straight to the WG

Mark: a head-up: DaveO and I will be away next week

<scribe> ACTION: Mike to present one-way MEP/binding plan to XMLP WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-ws-cg-irc]

Next meeting

5 July 2005 (next week)

and then returning to our normal schedule

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Mike to present one-way MEP/binding plan to XMLP WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-ws-cg-irc]
[PENDING] ACTION: Hugo to (possibly) work on an updated glossary and bring it for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-ws-cg-irc]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.126 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/06/28 18:03:57 $