IRC log of soap-jms on 2009-07-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:58:13 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
15:58:13 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:58:15 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:58:15 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #soap-jms
15:58:17 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SJMS
15:58:17 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:58:18 [trackbot]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
15:58:18 [trackbot]
Date: 14 July 2009
15:58:27 [mphillip]
trackbot, start telcon
15:58:29 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:58:31 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SJMS
15:58:31 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:58:32 [trackbot]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
15:58:32 [trackbot]
Date: 14 July 2009
15:58:54 [mphillip]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:59:33 [mphillip]
chair: Eric
15:59:41 [Phil]
Phil has joined #soap-jms
15:59:45 [alewis]
we have a problem.
15:59:53 [alewis]
zakim doesn't have us scheduled on the bridge.
16:00:14 [mphillip]
does that mean we won't get access ?
16:00:17 [alewis]
zakim, what conferences?
16:00:17 [Zakim]
I see XML_ET-TF()11:00AM, Styl_XSLWG(F2F)4:00AM active
16:00:18 [Zakim]
also scheduled at this time is SW_RIF()11:00AM
16:00:21 [eric]
eric has joined #soap-jms
16:00:31 [alewis]
it means we can't dial in.
16:00:44 [Phil]
right... it doesn't recognize the usual passcode
16:01:12 [alewis]
i'm trying to find out if there's a way to schedule on the fly.
16:01:20 [alewis]
16:01:31 [mphillip]
16:01:57 [Derek]
Derek has joined #soap-jms
16:02:12 [peaston]
peaston has joined #soap-jms
16:02:22 [alewis]
unfortunately, yves is on holiday, so he prolly can't help us.
16:02:55 [mphillip]
16:03:17 [mphillip]
looks like a manual process
16:03:33 [eric]
That also indicates two days notice.
16:03:40 [mphillip]
yes :-(
16:03:44 [alewis]
umm. eric, do you have a teleconference number that we could resort to?
16:03:54 [Zakim]
ok, Yves; conference Team_(soap-jms)16:03Z scheduled with code 26632 (CONF2) for 60 minutes until 1703Z
16:03:55 [alewis]
or ... anyone else have a bridge?
16:04:09 [alewis]
ah, yves!
16:04:13 [alewis]
happy bastille day!
16:04:19 [Yves]
thanks ;)
16:04:20 [Phil]
I have a call-in # that we could use if we need to
16:04:33 [Yves]
I'll check what happenned tomorrow wrt phone number
16:04:37 [Yves]
well conf code
16:05:11 [Zakim]
Team_(soap-jms)16:03Z has now started
16:05:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.846.aaaa
16:05:20 [eric]
That number worked for me.
16:05:30 [Zakim]
+ +1.708.246.aabb
16:05:34 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.663.aacc
16:05:35 [eric]
Zakim, aaaa is eric.
16:05:36 [Zakim]
+ +0196287aadd
16:05:36 [Zakim]
+eric; got it
16:05:49 [mphillip]
Zakim, aadd is mark
16:05:49 [Zakim]
+mark; got it
16:06:19 [eric]
zakim, aabb is Derek
16:06:19 [Zakim]
+Derek; got it
16:06:22 [mphillip]
thanks Yves!
16:06:29 [eric]
16:06:38 [Zakim]
+ +1.512.286.aaee
16:06:44 [alewis]
viva la revolution!
16:06:49 [Phil]
Zakim, aaee is Phil
16:06:49 [Zakim]
+Phil; got it
16:07:15 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 1) Appointment of the scribe
16:07:19 [mphillip]
scribe: mark
16:07:40 [Zakim]
16:07:52 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 2) Minutes
16:07:58 [eric]
zakim, Peter_Easton is peaston
16:07:58 [Zakim]
+peaston; got it
16:08:07 [mphillip]
all: No problems
16:08:18 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 3) Review the agenda
16:08:38 [mphillip]
16:09:10 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 4) Review action items
16:09:17 [mphillip]
16:09:32 [mphillip]
Eric: No progress on 32
16:09:46 [mphillip]
Derek: No progress on 68
16:10:50 [mphillip]
Eric: Action 89 is done
16:10:56 [mphillip]
16:11:11 [mphillip]
email to be discussed in agenda item 6
16:11:55 [mphillip]
Peter: Made contact with CXF team re: action 90
16:12:17 [peaston]
16:12:21 [mphillip]
Peter: Some SOAP/JMS changes checked into CXF - no work done on WSDL
16:12:45 [mphillip]
Peter: Will add details into email
16:13:06 [mphillip]
close action-89
16:13:06 [trackbot]
ACTION-89 Review the test assertion IDs to see which ones we _really_ need to test closed
16:13:13 [mphillip]
close action-90
16:13:13 [trackbot]
ACTION-90 Follow up contacts with CXF to find out timeframes etc. closed
16:13:42 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 5) URI specification - updated submission:
16:14:06 [mphillip]
Eric: No feedback / objections to updated submission
16:14:12 [mphillip]
16:14:28 [mphillip]
Eric: Need to assess what we need to do to get this to RFC
16:15:58 [mphillip]
Eric: Have contacted all contributors to check contact details and get signoff for 200902trust IP Language - waiting for IBM, Progress, and Oracle
16:16:20 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 6) Specification items:
16:16:39 [mphillip]
a) Updates to the FAQ...
16:16:53 [mphillip]
16:17:43 [mphillip]
Eric: Seems like we should address some additional questions
16:18:30 [mphillip]
Eric: e.g. How does this compare with SOAP/HPP
16:18:43 [mphillip]
16:19:20 [mphillip]
Eric: Could do with links to definitions
16:19:40 [mphillip]
Mark: Maybe something about reliable messaging
16:20:49 [mphillip]
Eric: Should be reserve some time next call to brainstorm questions
16:20:56 [mphillip]
16:21:19 [mphillip]
b) Specification inconsistency:
16:21:44 [mphillip]
Eric: Bug in spec identified:
16:23:51 [mphillip]
ACTION: Eric to propose a change to Spec. wording to remedy inconsistency in MIME example vs. Protocol-2029 assertion
16:23:51 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-91 - Propose a change to Spec. wording to remedy inconsistency in MIME example vs. Protocol-2029 assertion [on Eric Johnson - due 2009-07-21].
16:24:05 [mphillip]
c) Unnecessary normative statements:
16:24:21 [mphillip]
16:24:38 [mphillip]
16:26:19 [mphillip]
Eric Proposal to merge Protocol-2012 and 2013
16:26:35 [mphillip]
Mark: Makes sense
16:28:19 [mphillip]
Eric: Similarly propose to drop Protocol-2020 and include fault subcode in Protocol-2019
16:30:29 [mphillip]
Eric: and collapse Protocol-2023 and 2024 into a single assertion
16:30:56 [mphillip]
16:32:43 [mphillip]
Eric: Propose reworking the table for 2024
16:34:55 [mphillip]
Eric: Have the table specifiy the behaviour without assertions, and the repeat the assertions about which properties must be included "As-is", "SHOULD exclude", and "MUST exclude" in three bullets following the table
16:35:25 [mphillip]
Eric: Each bullet would describe a set of properties with common behaviour, and would be a separate normative statement
16:37:00 [mphillip]
Mark: Agree, it would be easier to test with 3 separate assertions
16:38:02 [mphillip]
ACTION: Mark to propose the wording for the change to split 2024 into three testable assertions
16:38:02 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Mark
16:38:02 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. mhapner, mphillip)
16:38:19 [mphillip]
ACTION: mphillip to propose the wording for the change to split 2024 into three testable assertions
16:38:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-92 - Propose the wording for the change to split 2024 into three testable assertions [on Mark Phillips - due 2009-07-21].
16:39:41 [mphillip]
Eric: Protocol-2035 is redundant - all assertions in the table are made elsewhere
16:39:51 [mphillip]
Phil: Agreed - we can remove this
16:46:04 [mphillip]
Eric: Propose removing Protocol-2039 - must normative statements are covered elsewhere apart from the statement on the request URI.
16:49:06 [mphillip]
Mark: We had early use cases which were based on the request_URI being used for routing. Having this value in the reply would help correlate requests and replies but I don't have a strong opinion that ths should be kept in
16:50:04 [mphillip]
Eric: When removing Protocol-2035, we should also remove the requirement to copy the SOAPJMS_requestURI from the request
16:50:34 [mphillip]
Eric: i.e. remove the requestURI line from the table
16:52:23 [mphillip]
ACTION Eric to propose the revised table to the list
16:52:23 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-93 - Propose the revised table to the list [on Eric Johnson - due 2009-07-21].
16:53:35 [mphillip]
Eric Protocol-2041 is also a collection of redundant assertions. Could change the table title to 'Examples of values set by Conforming Client'
16:53:46 [mphillip]
Phil: Would be sufficient to just remove the assertion
16:54:20 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 7. Testing
16:54:23 [mphillip]
No progress
16:54:27 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 8) Implementations
16:55:28 [mphillip]
Eric: Some progress on CXF, we know IBM has an implementation in WAS, so we are working towards the two implementations we need
16:55:57 [mphillip]
Eric: Next question is what is the timeline for having these implementations done?
16:56:16 [mphillip]
Derek: Still working with product management
16:57:26 [mphillip]
Phil: May be possible for IBM and CXF to collaborate on test cases
16:57:31 [mphillip]
Pete: Will check into that
16:57:35 [mphillip]
16:58:09 [mphillip]
16:58:11 [Zakim]
16:58:12 [Zakim]
16:58:12 [Zakim]
16:58:13 [Zakim]
16:58:22 [Zakim]
16:58:28 [mphillip]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:58:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mphillip
16:58:33 [Zakim]
16:58:34 [Zakim]
Team_(soap-jms)16:03Z has ended
16:58:35 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.650.846.aaaa, +1.708.246.aabb, +1.919.663.aacc, +0196287aadd, eric, mark, alewis, Derek, +1.512.286.aaee, Phil, peaston
17:02:38 [eric]
eric has left #soap-jms
19:00:06 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #soap-jms