See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 27 October 2009
<scribe> Scribe: mphilip
Minutes from 13-10 approved
Minutes from 20-10 approved
Derek: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/68
- questions about non-normative MEPs - specifically robust in
only
... FAQ on non-normative MEPs could be very simple - just state
that they are not prohibited, or
... FAQ could say that it is an extension / derivation of
request reply
Amy: The WSDL MEP definitions for
"optional response" did not originate from Req/Resp
... Robust in-only is designed for connection oriented protocol
- allows an error to be returned
Derek: Not calling it req/resp - but it shares the replyTo with req/resp
Eric: Suggest we defer until
later
... http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/108
- no progress
Mark: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/109 - applied resolution for issue 4
close action-109
<trackbot> ACTION-109 Update the specification to reflect the change to Protocol 2021 assertion closed
Eric: 112 still open
... Issue opened for 116
close action-116
<trackbot> ACTION-116 Correct the "soap" prefix reference in section 3.4.5 closed
Eric: Issues opened for 118, 119
close action-118
<trackbot> ACTION-118 Review the spec for references, and propose resolution closed
close action-119
<trackbot> ACTION-119 Try to determine what is normative and how to generate test cases. closed
Phil: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/117 - no update
Eric: No update
Eric: Back to discussion on MEPs
Derek: FAQ could just state that
MEPs are not prohibited
... 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
Amy: We would need a binding to
specify a MEP
... If we want support for the robust in-only MEP then we must
write up the binding
... (or someone must write it up)
Eric: Don't see how robust in-only maps to JMS - would like to see a concrete proposal explaining the mapping
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
Eric: When using asynchronous JMS
how long do you wait for the fault before you decide that one
isn't coming
... etc. - so would like to see a proposal
Amy: Could do this with an "error
window" property
... Can discuss the issues in an FAQ, but someone needs to
write the MEP binding to have an interoperable MEP
Derek: Would we need a new version of the spec if we added a new MEP
Amy: Yes, we would need to go
back to Last Call
... 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
Eric: 3 options:- Put a note in FAQ; Revise the existing binding spec; or Add a separate spec. extension
Amy: This would be a big FAQ extension, suggest we have a more general FAQ question which points to a normative Binding Extension
Mark: Not sure of the need for a robust in-only MEP when using the inherently reliable async JMS transport
Derek: Were the robust MEPs added to WSDL for JMS?
Amy: Some of the motivation for more extensibility in WSDL 2.0 was pub/sub and the desire for more sophisticated MEPs
Eric: Derek, could you make a proposal if this is something you feel we should support?
Derek: Don't feel it is necessary - not a lot of JMS users will require this
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.
RESOLUTION: Derek to write the FAQ Entry - Amy offered to review
Eric: On to the raised issues:
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/raised
... http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/16
- Section 3.4.5 makes a reference to a non-existent soap
prefix
All agree to open this issue
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
All agree to open this issue
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
All agree to open this issue
Eric: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/19 - WSDL statements about priority of properties are confusing
All agree to open this issue
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)
... Need to define where the XML elements for these properties
should occur
All agree to open this issue
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/open
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
... Please review before next week
<eric> Email for issue #4: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Oct/0016.html
Mark: Applies to http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/4
Eric: There is duplication in section 2.2.4 - the bullets and third column duplicate Protocol 2021
action Mark to remove the duplication from 2.2.4
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Mark
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. mhapner, mphillip)
action mphillip to remove the duplication from 2.2.4
<trackbot> Created ACTION-120 - Remove the duplication from 2.2.4 [on Mark Phillips - due 2009-11-03].
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: mphillip Found Scribe: mphilip Default Present: alewis, +1.708.246.aaaa, +0196287aabb, mphillip, eric, Yves Present: alewis +1.708.246.aaaa +0196287aabb mphillip eric Yves Regrets: Phil and Peter Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Oct/0029.html Found Date: 27 Oct 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/10/27-soap-jms-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]