16:00:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
16:00:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/10/27-soap-jms-irc
16:00:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:00:21 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #soap-jms
16:00:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SJMS
16:00:23 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start now
16:00:24 <trackbot> Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
16:00:24 <trackbot> Date: 27 October 2009
16:01:59 <Derek> Derek has joined #soap-jms
16:02:36 <Zakim> + +1.708.246.aaaa
16:03:03 <Zakim> + +0196287aabb
16:03:28 <mphillip> zakim, aabb is mphillip
16:03:28 <Zakim> +mphillip; got it
16:03:33 <Zakim> +eric
16:04:12 <eric> eric has joined #soap-jms
16:04:20 <mphillip> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Oct/0029.html
16:04:33 <mphillip> chair: Eric
16:04:48 <mphillip> Scribe: mphilip
16:05:33 <mphillip> Topic: 3) Review the agenda
16:05:42 <mphillip> regrets: Phil and Peter
16:05:51 <mphillip> Topic: Approval of prior meeting minutes
16:07:02 <mphillip> Minutes from 13-10 approved
16:07:10 <mphillip> Minutes from 20-10 approved
16:07:22 <mphillip> Topic: Review action items
16:08:17 <mphillip> Derek: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/68 - questions about non-normative MEPs - specifically robust in only
16:09:09 <Zakim> +Yves
16:10:17 <mphillip> Derek: FAQ on non-normative MEPs could be very simple - just state that they are not prohibited,  or 
16:11:04 <mphillip> Derek: FAQ could say that it is an extension / derivation of  request reply
16:12:09 <mphillip> Amy: The WSDL MEP definitions for "optional response" did not originate from Req/Resp 
16:13:15 <mphillip> Amy: Robust in-only is designed for connection oriented protocol - allows an error to be returned 
16:13:40 <mphillip> Derek: Not calling it req/resp - but it shares the replyTo with req/resp
16:14:47 <mphillip> Eric: Suggest we defer until later
16:15:15 <mphillip> Eric: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/108 - no progress
16:15:39 <mphillip> Mark: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/109 - applied resolution for issue 4
16:15:55 <mphillip> close action-109
16:15:55 <trackbot> ACTION-109 Update the specification to reflect the change to Protocol 2021 assertion closed
16:16:13 <mphillip> Eric: 112 still open
16:16:27 <mphillip> Eric: Issue opened for 116 
16:16:32 <mphillip> close action-116
16:16:32 <trackbot> ACTION-116 Correct the "soap" prefix reference in section 3.4.5 closed
16:16:47 <mphillip> Eric: Issues opened for 118, 119
16:16:50 <mphillip> close action-118
16:16:50 <trackbot> ACTION-118 Review the spec for references, and propose resolution closed
16:16:52 <mphillip> close action-119
16:16:52 <trackbot> ACTION-119 Try to determine what is normative and how to generate test cases. closed
16:17:04 <mphillip> Phil: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/117 - no update
16:17:13 <mphillip> TOPIC: 5) URI specification:
16:17:17 <mphillip> Eric: No update
16:17:28 <mphillip> TOPIC: 6) Raised issues:
16:17:44 <mphillip> Eric: Back to discussion on MEPs
16:17:57 <mphillip> Derek: FAQ could just state that MEPs are not prohibited
16:18:45 <mphillip> Derek: or FAQ could go into more detail about how the spec applies - e.g. use the same mechanism as req-resp for returning an optional response
16:19:16 <mphillip> Amy: We would need a binding to specify a MEP
16:19:50 <mphillip> Amy: If we want support for the robust in-only MEP then we must write up the binding
16:20:18 <mphillip> Amy: (or someone must write it up)
16:20:57 <mphillip> Eric: Don't see how robust in-only maps to JMS - would like to see a concrete proposal explaining the mapping
16:22:13 <mphillip> Amy: Quite easy - take the in-only MEP, take the replyTo from the inbound message, and use it to send a fault if one is required... could use the return portion of our request-response MEP as a template for this
16:22:44 <mphillip> Eric: When using asynchronous JMS how long do you wait for the fault before you decide that one isn't coming
16:23:31 <mphillip> Eric: etc.  - so would like to see a proposal
16:23:49 <mphillip> Amy: Could do this with an "error window" property
16:25:42 <mphillip> Amy: Can discuss the issues in an FAQ, but someone needs to write the MEP binding to have an interoperable MEP
16:26:57 <mphillip> Derek: Would we need a new version of the spec if we added a new MEP
16:27:11 <mphillip> Amy: Yes, we would need to go back to Last Call
16:28:04 <mphillip> Amy: Alternatively we could add a new document - the "Robust in-only binding extension for SOAP/JMS" which would go through the specification process without setting the core Binding spec back to last call
16:28:55 <mphillip> Eric: 3 options:- Put a note in FAQ;  Revise the existing binding spec; or Add a separate spec. extension 
16:30:50 <mphillip> Amy: This would be a big FAQ extension, suggest we have a more general FAQ question which points to a normative Binding Extension
16:31:50 <mphillip> Mark: Not sure of the need for a robust in-only MEP when using the inherently reliable async JMS transport
16:33:25 <mphillip> Derek: Were the robust MEPs added to WSDL for JMS?
16:34:42 <mphillip> Amy: Some of the motivation for more extensibility in WSDL 2.0 was pub/sub and the desire for more sophisticated MEPs
16:37:01 <mphillip> Eric: Derek, could you make a proposal if this is something you feel we should support?
16:38:01 <mphillip> Derek: Don't feel it is necessary - not a lot of JMS users will require this
16:39:30 <mphillip> Amy: If someone wants this then they should submit a draft proposal to the SOAP/JMS Working Group.  In the FAQ we could ask people to submit such a draft if they feel it is justified.
16:41:15 <mphillip> RESOLUTION: Derek to write the FAQ Entry - Amy offered to review 
16:41:47 <mphillip> Eric: On to the raised issues: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/raised
16:44:30 <mphillip> Eric: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/16 - Section 3.4.5 makes a reference to a non-existent soap prefix 
16:44:49 <mphillip> All agree to open this issue
16:45:44 <mphillip> Eric: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/17 - References to RFC 3987 are incorrect - it is the IRI spec. but we now refer to URIs 
16:46:03 <mphillip> All agree to open this issue
16:47:35 <mphillip> Eric: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/18 - Existing specification makes inconsistent use of references, acronyms - e.g. Java Messaging Service is defined as JMS but we do not make consistent use of the acronym throughout
16:47:51 <mphillip> All agree to open this issue
16:50:07 <mphillip> Eric: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/19 - WSDL statements about priority of properties are confusing
16:50:13 <mphillip> All agree to open this issue
16:51:06 <mphillip> Eric: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/20 - normative statement 3004 does not stand on its own (and has no normative keywords)
16:51:41 <mphillip> Eric: Need to define where the XML elements for these properties should occur
16:52:16 <mphillip> All agree to open this issue
16:52:31 <mphillip> TOPIC: 7) Accepting proposals to close open issues
16:52:43 <mphillip> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/open
16:53:45 <mphillip> Eric: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/15 - this is a lot of small edits - everyone needs to read and review before we can close 
16:54:16 <mphillip> Eric: Please review before next week
16:54:25 <mphillip> TOPIC: 8) Accepting applied resolutions:
16:54:39 <eric> Email for issue #4: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Oct/0016.html
16:54:47 <mphillip> Mark: Applies to http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/4
16:56:05 <eric> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?rev=1.66&content-type=text/html&f=h#Protocol-2021
17:00:34 <mphillip> Eric: There is duplication in section 2.2.4 - the bullets and third column duplicate Protocol 2021
17:00:56 <mphillip> action Mark to remove the duplication from 2.2.4
17:00:56 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Mark
17:00:56 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. mhapner, mphillip)
17:01:05 <mphillip> action mphillip to remove the duplication from 2.2.4
17:01:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-120 - Remove the duplication from 2.2.4 [on Mark Phillips - due 2009-11-03].
17:02:48 <Zakim> - +1.708.246.aaaa
17:02:49 <Zakim> -alewis
17:02:49 <Zakim> -eric
17:02:51 <Zakim> -Yves
17:02:51 <Zakim> -mphillip
17:02:52 <Zakim> WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
17:02:54 <Zakim> Attendees were alewis, +1.708.246.aaaa, +0196287aabb, mphillip, eric, Yves
17:03:08 <mphillip> rrsagent, make minutes
17:03:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/10/27-soap-jms-minutes.html mphillip
17:03:14 <mphillip> rrsagent, make log public
17:08:38 <eric> eric has left #soap-jms
18:05:07 <Zakim> Zakim has left #soap-jms