IRC log of soap-jms on 2009-03-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:52:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
15:52:58 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:53:00 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:53:00 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #soap-jms
15:53:02 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SJMS
15:53:02 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
15:53:03 [trackbot]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
15:53:03 [trackbot]
Date: 17 March 2009
15:53:38 [Roland]
15:53:45 [Roland]
Chair: Roland
15:56:57 [mphillip]
mphillip has joined #soap-jms
15:57:01 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has now started
15:57:08 [Zakim]
15:57:37 [Zakim]
15:59:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.324.aaaa
15:59:23 [Zakim]
15:59:44 [Phil]
Phil has joined #soap-jms
15:59:47 [Zakim]
+ +0196270aabb
15:59:57 [Phil]
zakim, who's here?
15:59:57 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Roland, alewis, Yves, Phil, +0196270aabb
15:59:58 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Phil, mphillip, Zakim, RRSAgent, alewis, Roland, trackbot, Yves
16:00:16 [mphillip]
zakim, aabb is mphillip
16:00:17 [Zakim]
+mphillip; got it
16:00:22 [Derek]
Derek has joined #soap-jms
16:01:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.708.246.aacc
16:01:38 [Roland]
Zakim, aacc is Derek
16:01:38 [Zakim]
+Derek; got it
16:01:53 [peaston]
peaston has joined #soap-jms
16:02:28 [Zakim]
16:02:53 [mphillip]
16:03:14 [Zakim]
16:03:24 [mphillip]
scribe: mphillip
16:03:27 [mphillip]
Topic: Actions
16:03:31 [Roland]
16:04:13 [mphillip]
No progress on
16:04:37 [mphillip]
16:05:31 [eric]
eric has joined #soap-jms
16:05:32 [mphillip]
Derek: Talked about this a few calls ago, actions was to clean up Derek's recommendation
16:06:20 [mphillip]
Derek: to modify statement in 2.2.2; Specify new assertions for topic replyToName
16:06:42 [mphillip]
Derek: and add a new assertion and new test
16:06:54 [Roland]
16:10:15 [mphillip]
mphillip: Not sure about the wording "if relevant" - maybe say "if not ignored"
16:11:02 [mphillip]
Roland: Perhaps incorporate the rules into the new assertion
16:14:17 [mphillip]
Roland: I will update the spec with this wording - strengthening the assertion
16:14:46 [mphillip]
ACTION: Roland to Incorporate Derek's text into spec.
16:14:46 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-72 - Incorporate Derek's text into spec. [on Roland Merrick - due 2009-03-24].
16:14:55 [mphillip]
close action-64
16:14:55 [trackbot]
ACTION-64 Clarify spec about topic replyToName closed
16:15:11 [mphillip]
close action-67
16:15:11 [trackbot]
ACTION-67 Redraft words re replyTo and topicReplyTO closed
16:15:22 [mphillip]
(Action 67 was a duplicate of 64)
16:15:40 [mphillip]
Derek: No progress on
16:16:08 [mphillip]
close action-66
16:16:08 [trackbot]
ACTION-66 Bring up the additional MEP closed
16:16:17 [mphillip]
(Action 68 is a follow up to 66)
16:16:32 [mphillip]
Derek: No progress on
16:16:53 [mphillip]
Eric: note sent to the list with a proposal
16:17:11 [mphillip]
16:18:28 [mphillip]
Eric: This is a response to Harald's comments from a month ago (the IRI draft expires in May)
16:19:55 [mphillip]
Eric: First comment from Harald was that this URI uses only a local context (e.g. jndi directories inside a firewall),
16:21:14 [mphillip]
Eric: Propose an update to URI spec to clarify how a shared context of appropriate scope must be established
16:21:52 [mphillip]
(No objections to wording from attendees)
16:24:34 [mphillip]
Eric: Harald's second comment questions the "variant" and whether it will clash with parameters. Because of the limited number of likely variants we do not expect this to be a problem
16:25:22 [Roland]
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
16:25:47 [mphillip]
Eric: The third comment was on the inconsistency on "jndi" vs. "jndi-" prefixes for parameters
16:26:51 [mphillip]
Eric: (caused by the difference between well-known and extension parameters)
16:27:49 [mphillip]
Eric: Propose a number of options in the email. Reluctant to introduce consistency for the sake of it. If people would like time to digest this, then Eric will postpone the response
16:28:18 [mphillip]
Roland: Could send a response based on the first two items
16:28:46 [mphillip]
Eric: I will do that
16:29:44 [mphillip]
Roland: The names are inconsistent anyway - in some cases we use camel casing, in other cases we use the dotted notation (com.sun.jndi.*)
16:31:23 [mphillip]
Derek: When we first discussed we considered using the full term as a prefix "jndiContextParameter-" and then condensed because it was so long
16:32:20 [mphillip]
Eric: There is some merit in having shorter URIs
16:32:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Roland
16:33:07 [Roland]
Regrets: Bhakti
16:34:04 [mphillip]
Eric: On Harald's last comment, I believe the specification it is better as-is
16:34:53 [mphillip]
action Eric to Follow up IRI jndi issue after next week with Harald
16:34:53 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-73 - Follow up IRI jndi issue after next week with Harald [on Eric Johnson - due 2009-03-24].
16:35:34 [mphillip]
close action-69
16:35:34 [trackbot]
ACTION-69 Come up with revised URI scheme pass for review next week closed
16:36:50 [Roland]
16:37:03 [mphillip]
Peter: No progress on
16:37:30 [mphillip]
Roland: Pending Review
16:37:33 [Roland]
16:38:56 [mphillip]
Roland: Don't think we need to define destination in any more detail
16:39:22 [mphillip]
Eric: I believe the term destination is sufficient, especially in JMS where Destination is a well established concept
16:39:37 [alewis]
16:39:37 [mphillip]
mphillip: Agreed
16:40:18 [mphillip]
resolution: action-48 No change is necessary to definition of destination
16:40:28 [mphillip]
close action-48
16:40:28 [trackbot]
ACTION-48 Look at Destination and terms in general in spec perhaps post LC closed
16:41:04 [mphillip]
Phil: revised wording submitted to list
16:41:32 [mphillip]
Phil: Latest email
16:43:00 [mphillip]
Eric: Phil's updates clarify the spec. Suggest a little precision, to identify the specifications which are mentioned with formal references
16:43:38 [mphillip]
Eric: ...and identify specific sections of the RFCs or specifications where possible
16:45:14 [mphillip]
Roland: So we need a new normative reference to RFC2376
16:46:42 [mphillip]
Eric: Right, and reference the specific portions of the SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 specifications (like we did for the MEPs)
16:47:44 [mphillip]
Phil: The suggested wording did reference particular parts of the SOAP spec.s - will go back and identify the precise references
16:48:36 [mphillip]
Eric: Technically the message is not just a byte stream any more - could be a text message
16:50:17 [mphillip]
Eric: May need to keep in the sentence which identifies that If the message is formatted as "text/xml" or "application/soap+xml" then the first thing MUST be a conforming XML document
16:50:46 [mphillip]
Roland: Do we have this assertion elsewhere? If so we should just reference it
16:50:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Roland
16:52:32 [mphillip]
Eric: I will revise Phil's proposal
16:53:21 [mphillip]
Roland: No need for a new action - Eric to propose rewording Phil's action 70
16:53:25 [Zakim]
16:53:52 [Zakim]
16:53:54 [Zakim]
16:53:55 [mphillip]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:53:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mphillip
16:53:55 [Zakim]
16:53:57 [Zakim]
16:53:58 [Zakim]
16:53:59 [Zakim]
16:54:12 [Zakim]
16:54:13 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
16:54:14 [Zakim]
Attendees were Roland, alewis, +1.617.324.aaaa, Phil, Yves, +0196270aabb, mphillip, +1.708.246.aacc, Derek, Peter_Easton, eric
16:57:19 [mphillip]
mphillip has left #soap-jms
17:05:52 [Roland]
Roland has left #soap-jms
18:12:58 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #soap-jms