IRC log of xmlprotocol on 2006-09-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:40:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xmlprotocol
18:40:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/09/06-xmlprotocol-irc
18:40:43 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #xmlprotocol
18:40:57 [cferris]
cferris has joined #xmlprotocol
18:44:10 [cferris]
Topic: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2006Sep/0015.html
18:48:17 [cferris]
Chair: Chris Ferris
18:48:55 [cferris]
Scribe: Chris Ferris
18:49:01 [cferris]
ScribeNick: cferris
18:49:26 [cferris]
zakim, this will be xmlp
18:49:26 [Zakim]
ok, cferris; I see WS_XMLP()3:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
18:58:58 [Zakim]
WS_XMLP()3:00PM has now started
18:59:05 [Zakim]
+Chris_Ferris
19:01:28 [dhull]
dhull has joined #xmlprotocol
19:01:51 [Zakim]
+Marc_Hadley
19:01:59 [Zakim]
+Dave_Hull
19:02:34 [noah]
noah has joined #XMLProtocol
19:02:40 [Zakim]
+[IBMCambridge]
19:02:45 [noah]
zakim, [IBMCambridge] is me
19:02:45 [Zakim]
+noah; got it
19:03:31 [marc]
marc has joined #xmlprotocol
19:04:27 [marc]
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/OF5CA92A5F.F4F23B74-ON852571E1.000A41D2-852571E1.000ACD83@lotus.com
19:08:06 [Zakim]
+Yves
19:08:43 [anish]
anish has joined #xmlprotocol
19:09:18 [cferris]
Scribe: David Hull
19:09:24 [cferris]
ScribeNick: dhull
19:09:42 [cferris]
minutes from 8/30 approved
19:09:42 [dhull]
cferris: Minutes are approved
19:10:25 [dhull]
cferris: Admin -- Anish had a couple of questions in his note. Wanted to review my reply
19:10:28 [cferris]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2006Sep/0017.html
19:11:33 [dhull]
cferris: Anish asked if part 0 would be in test collection. I responded that we weren't ready, but it can go in when it is. Thought part 1 was part of what we were doing. Does anyone object to this approach?
19:11:38 [dhull]
omnes: Silence
19:11:54 [dhull]
cferris: Do others agree it's importnat to get part 2 out and not hold up?
19:12:09 [dhull]
yves: To me it's mandatory to release everything up at the same time.
19:12:21 [dhull]
noah: Are there any messy issues, or just different boilerplate.
19:12:35 [dhull]
cf: None on primer (part 0), but we haven't researched that everything has been applied.
19:12:55 [dhull]
yves: Everything has been fixed in the pre PER docs (12/2005). Nothing on primer since then, so should be OK
19:13:09 [dhull]
cf: so just change boilerplate. Are people comfortable.
19:13:13 [dhull]
noah: I think so.
19:13:20 [dhull]
cf: this was before I rejoined
19:14:15 [dhull]
noah: Think there is some wordsmithing to do regarding the MEP being updated. Do 0 and 1 need a similar mod? Are there other changes?
19:14:24 [dhull]
cf: yes
19:14:36 [dhull]
noah: Good. So we can say we're incoporating errata etc.
19:14:42 [dhull]
noah: not a big deal.
19:15:09 [dhull]
yves: Reminds if we rename the MEP (to ROR) we have to re-check part 0.
19:15:19 [Zakim]
+DOrchard
19:15:25 [dhull]
cf: We have homework to do.
19:16:29 [dhull]
do: Would prefer to treat test coll, MOM separately.
19:16:43 [dhull]
cf: So need to do run-through with primer. So we're not ready.
19:17:00 [dhull]
mh: Had a quick look. There are references to req-rep MEP etc.
19:18:00 [dhull]
cf: Need to raise and address those. I need to troll through issues list to figure out what to put in "what's changed" statements.
19:18:45 [dhull]
yves: At director's call we will need to outline changes in spec and see if it's OK to go straight to PER or whether we need WD. Plan is not to go back to WD for part 0 as there is no conformance statement for part 0.
19:19:21 [dhull]
cf: How shall we do this? Everyone take some homework and raise editorial issues?
19:19:35 [dhull]
mh: Do we have to do anything to part 0, or can we just leave it out of date?
19:19:56 [dhull]
yves: New part 0 talks about how to use MTOM etc, so need to stay up to date.
19:19:59 [dhull]
mh: never mind
19:20:35 [dhull]
cf: So we need to review to see if issues have been applied and check for consistency with part 2. Then go with 0,1,2 together.
19:21:17 [Zakim]
+Pete_Wenzel
19:21:18 [dhull]
cf: I won't be able to chair next week. Suggest we cancel. Can we have review done by following week's call (20 sep)?
19:21:22 [dhull]
omnes: Silence
19:21:34 [dhull]
cf: So yes.
19:22:56 [dhull]
s/MOM/MTOM/
19:23:17 [dhull]
pete: Makes sense to publish as complete set.
19:23:35 [dhull]
noah: Assume that ROR changes are below the radar for primer, other than name.
19:23:39 [dhull]
cf: +1
19:23:41 [dhull]
mh: +1
19:23:43 [dhull]
dmh: +1
19:24:24 [dhull]
cf: Suggest that everyone go through the primer.
19:25:23 [dhull]
omnes: Whinging about airport security
19:26:50 [dhull]
cf: I will draft status text for primer. Part 1 should be OK.
19:27:33 [dhull]
cf: AI review. Anish was to apply changes to XML/schema. Yve, you and Anish have reconciled the schema.
19:27:48 [dhull]
yves: Yes we've both done it.
19:27:57 [dhull]
cf: DO to respond to DH item removing property.
19:28:21 [dhull]
do: done
19:28:23 [dhull]
dh: confirmed
19:28:58 [dhull]
cf: Yves items. Done. Chris item done. Yve CVS item done. Yve to provide link to status text done in minutes.
19:29:36 [dhull]
cf: Review and pub of SOAP 1.2 PR. Let's review proposed changes, including Noah's proposed tweak, changing "changes" to "clarifications".
19:29:55 [dhull]
cf: Is that what you were suggesting, Noah.
19:30:06 [dhull]
noah: Yes.
19:30:07 [cferris]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2006Sep/0013.html
19:31:03 [dhull]
cf: Incorporated, further tweaked wording ("clarifications to acommodate" didn't seem right).
19:31:17 [dhull]
noah: Did we change the name of that pattern?
19:31:29 [dhull]
cf: Yes.
19:31:35 [dhull]
Noah: should signal that
19:31:49 [dhull]
cf: Say we changed, or just use the changed name?
19:32:11 [dhull]
noah: Modulo process issues, we should. But can we call a renaming a clarification? If so, don't highlight.
19:32:19 [dhull]
yves: It was renamed because of the clarification
19:32:54 [dhull]
noah: One could argue for "to better reflect its function RR was renamed ROR" etc. etc.
19:33:16 [dhull]
yves: Would be good to put that in status, but in a non-scary way. "The name was adapted to match the meaning"
19:33:30 [dhull]
noah" To better reflect its function, the MEP formerly known as R-R ..."
19:33:47 [dhull]
do: The spec from Minnesota
19:33:56 [dhull]
cf: Could we come up with a symbol
19:34:04 [dhull]
omnes: More Prince jokes
19:34:29 [dhull]
omnes: Meaningful pause
19:34:52 [cferris]
Additionally, it incorporates clarifications to the
19:34:53 [cferris]
SOAP Request Response Message Exchange Pattern (MEP)which has been renamed to SOAP Request Optional Response MEP to accomodate the clarifications, regarding the
19:34:53 [cferris]
optional presence of a SOAP envelope in the response.
19:35:18 [cferris]
s/accomodate/reflect/
19:35:55 [dhull]
cf: Let's wordsmith it on the list
19:36:10 [dhull]
noah: Spirit's right
19:37:11 [dhull]
cf: Part 3: Are we still OK with going with the current draft, with Noah's comments, including Ed Note calling for feedback, as a first draft.
19:37:32 [dhull]
noah: Link appears to have been updated in place. Are we voting on the right thing?
19:37:43 [dhull]
cf: Yes, AIs are in place.
19:38:07 [dhull]
do: What's in front of us is everything agreed to and nothing more.
19:38:41 [dhull]
several: (discussion of which link we're using)
19:38:43 [noah]
Dated copy: http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20060830.html
19:39:12 [dhull]
noah: Propose we vote on dated version linked above (http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20060830.html)
19:40:18 [DaveO]
DaveO has joined #xmlprotocol
19:40:41 [dhull]
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20060830.html
19:41:25 [dhull]
omnes: Discussion of encoding issues with linked document
19:41:41 [Yves]
FIXED
19:41:47 [Yves]
hopefully :)
19:42:37 [DaveO]
no
19:42:57 [dhull]
cf: Do we agree that we're publishing this as a first WD. Does not signal concensus on multicast issue, just putting out draft and asking for feedbac. This is what I thought we decided last week. Want to confirm.
19:43:00 [DaveO]
The soap12-part3 uri works
19:43:21 [noah]
Noah note with typo: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Sep/0006.html
19:43:27 [dhull]
s/concensus/consensus/
19:43:34 [dhull]
s/feedbac/feedback/
19:43:51 [dhull]
noah: Needs typo fixes.
19:44:02 [dhull]
cf: Also needs new status section. With that, are we agreed.
19:44:17 [dhull]
omnes: Silence
19:44:44 [dhull]
do: Can you give me a minute to incorporate the small changes? Want to be sure we're talking about the exact right thing.
19:45:21 [dhull]
noah: (Something about a new dated version?)
19:46:31 [dhull]
dmh: Not taking this as any concession about multicast.
19:46:52 [noah]
Noah suggests that we will leave the most stable record in the minutes if we specifically vote on: http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20060830.html as edited to reflect new status and typo receive->receiver
19:47:30 [cferris]
Topic: new issues addendum - What of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Aug/0047.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Aug/0046.html (corrected by http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Aug/0048.html)?
19:47:44 [noah]
We can also note informally that DaveO believes he has updated the undated copy to reflect these changes, but I would prefer the minutes referred to some dated copy as a base
19:47:56 [noah]
(or maybe my comments here have achieved that)
19:50:34 [dhull]
cf: new issues
19:50:39 [cferris]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Sep/0005.html
19:51:35 [dhull]
dmh: This one could generate discussion.
19:51:46 [dhull]
noah: We're taking these as issues against the FWD.
19:52:20 [Zakim]
+Anish_Karmarkar
19:52:22 [dhull]
noah: Should split into two piles: Big important changes that will reflect on whether to do multicast. Seem to be some of those in this list.
19:52:35 [dhull]
noah: (other pile is editorial)
19:52:56 [dhull]
noah: Would rather not put time into wordsmithing until we know we want to do multicast at all.
19:54:20 [dhull]
q+
19:55:33 [dhull]
Agree with splitting issues into editorial and substantive. Most substantive issue I see is the re-writing issue, which is nothing to do with multicast.
19:56:20 [dhull]
Don't think we want to take on the extra complexity of restricting to unicast.
19:56:57 [dhull]
cf: Guess we're not going to vote today.
19:57:02 [dhull]
do: I've got it!
19:57:08 [dhull]
noah: Need it in date space
19:57:14 [dhull]
do: It's almost there
19:57:19 [dhull]
noah: You're good at this!
20:00:06 [dhull]
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20060906.html
20:01:15 [anish]
dave: the previous versions should be empty, since this is the 1st wg draft
20:01:20 [dhull]
noah: Good enough to vote on.
20:01:26 [dhull]
cf: ANy objection? None.
20:01:49 [anish]
the latest version should change to some non-dated uri
20:02:03 [dhull]
RESOLUTION: Draft http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20060906.html approved as WD with no objections
20:02:21 [anish]
actually, the 'this version' and 'latest version' should be fliped
20:02:27 [dhull]
cf: Hold off publishing til we get 0,1,2?
20:02:36 [dhull]
noah: Should handle this separately
20:03:25 [dhull]
RESOLUTION: Publish Part 3 WD ASAP. No objection.
20:04:34 [Zakim]
-DOrchard
20:04:46 [dhull]
Adjourned
20:04:59 [Zakim]
-noah
20:05:00 [Zakim]
-Marc_Hadley
20:05:03 [Zakim]
-Yves
20:05:07 [Zakim]
-Pete_Wenzel
20:05:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/09/06-xmlprotocol-minutes.html Yves
20:05:18 [dhull]
omnes: Thanks, Dave (Orchard) for getting the doc together in real time
20:05:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/09/06-xmlprotocol-minutes.html Yves
20:06:33 [Zakim]
-Dave_Hull
20:12:10 [Zakim]
-Anish_Karmarkar
20:12:11 [Zakim]
-Chris_Ferris
20:12:13 [Zakim]
WS_XMLP()3:00PM has ended
20:12:14 [Zakim]
Attendees were Chris_Ferris, Marc_Hadley, Dave_Hull, noah, Yves, DOrchard, Pete_Wenzel, Anish_Karmarkar
20:14:37 [cferris]
rrsagent, make logs public