IRC log of soap-jms on 2010-03-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:58:33 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
16:58:33 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:58:35 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:58:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #soap-jms
16:58:39 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SJMS
16:58:39 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
16:58:41 [trackbot]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
16:58:43 [trackbot]
Date: 02 March 2010
16:59:04 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has now started
16:59:11 [Zakim]
17:01:25 [peaston]
peaston has joined #soap-jms
17:01:42 [mphillip]
mphillip has joined #soap-jms
17:02:10 [Zakim]
17:02:22 [eric]
eric has joined #soap-jms
17:02:23 [Zakim]
17:02:39 [Zakim]
17:02:40 [mphillip]
17:03:28 [mphillip]
Chair: Eric
17:03:32 [mphillip]
Scribe: Mark
17:03:40 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 1) Appointment of the scribe
17:03:41 [mphillip]
17:03:50 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 2) Approval of prior meeting minutes
17:04:07 [mphillip]
Minutes are approved
17:04:16 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 3) Review the agenda
17:05:25 [mphillip]
All approve the agenda
17:05:39 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 4) Review action items
17:06:34 [mphillip]
no progress on 138
17:07:41 [mphillip]
Eric: action 142 and 145 are done, believe 143 was complete by Phil, as was 144
17:08:01 [mphillip]
close action-142
17:08:01 [trackbot]
ACTION-142 Revise test cases 6 & 7 to pick a more sensible property than replyToName to come from thewsdl binding closed
17:08:15 [mphillip]
close action-145
17:08:15 [trackbot]
ACTION-145 Review the other half of the test cases closed
17:08:18 [mphillip]
close action-144
17:08:18 [trackbot]
ACTION-144 Review half the test cases (and send a note to Eric saying which ones ) closed
17:08:40 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 5) URI specification:
17:09:16 [mphillip]
action Eric to follow up URI specification with Oracle
17:09:16 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-146 - Follow up URI specification with Oracle [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-03-09].
17:09:33 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 6) Raised issues:
17:09:40 [mphillip]
17:10:31 [Zakim]
17:10:48 [eric]
My apologies, I just hit the wrong button and hung up. calling back.
17:11:03 [eric]
Any comments on the issue?
17:11:16 [mphillip]
topicReplyToName is missing from a couple of places in the spec.
17:11:17 [Zakim]
17:11:37 [mphillip]
(XML schema and URI binding)
17:13:09 [mphillip]
No objections to opening the issue and to accept the proposed resolution
17:13:30 [mphillip]
action mark to apply the resolution to issue 28
17:13:30 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-147 - Apply the resolution to issue 28 [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-03-09].
17:13:46 [mphillip]
17:15:33 [mphillip]
(behaviour of the responding node is too prescriptive about the destination to which the response must be sent)
17:15:41 [mphillip]
Eric: 2 concerns:
17:16:09 [mphillip]
Seems like the sending node could simply not set the reply to
17:17:32 [mphillip]
If WS-Addressing sends the response elsewhere (not the annonymous reply) then this becomes a one-way MEP
17:20:43 [mphillip]
Peter: If using WSA with anonymous reply then it uses the JMSReplyTo - it makes sense to honour the WSA musat understand destination if it is not anonymous
17:22:25 [mphillip]
Eric: Struggling to see this as anything other than a SOAP one-way - (as opposed to a WSDL req/resp)
17:23:07 [mphillip]
Eric: If the reply address is not filled in or not honoured
17:23:55 [mphillip]
Eric: Perhaps this need to be addressed in the FAQ rather than the spec.
17:25:01 [mphillip]
Eric: We have written our one-way MEP as if it is the initiation of a request rather than (possibly) a response to a request
17:25:48 [mphillip]
Peter: Inclined to keep this in the FAQ
17:26:13 [mphillip]
Peter: May need to describe in context of WSDL exchange patterns
17:28:43 [mphillip]
Mark: Wouldn't an implementation which honours WS-Addressing above the JMSReplyTo in our spec. fail our compliance tests?
17:29:18 [mphillip]
Eric: No if it uses one-way... sending a reply elsewhere would not be a SOAP request-response
17:30:07 [mphillip]
Eric: But our one-way might need rewording to cover responses as well as requests
17:34:33 [mphillip]
Mark: Struggling to understand why MEP is not a SOAP request response when sending request to a replyTo which is not effectively the anonymous back-channel
17:34:50 [mphillip]
Amy: HTTP is inherently req-resp
17:35:31 [Yves]
SOAP MEP are soap request/responses patterns, WSDL MEP are decoupled from the SOAP one (that are decoupled from the underlying transport ones)
17:37:51 [mphillip]
action Mark to review proposal, and debate on mailing list or propose a FAQ change
17:37:51 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-148 - Review proposal, and debate on mailing list or propose a FAQ change [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-03-09].
17:38:01 [mphillip]
17:40:18 [mphillip]
Amy: In WSDL the URI can only come from the endpoint, though it's possible that proporties in the Endpoint could conflict with the URI
17:40:52 [mphillip]
Eric: Yes, properties inside the endpoint could be overridden by the URI
17:41:24 [mphillip]
Amy: Conflicting properties in URI and Endpoint may need to be flagged up as an error
17:41:50 [mphillip]
Eric: This would not be consistent with what we did for Port in WSDL 1
17:42:17 [eric]
I'm hearing nothing on the phone....
17:42:24 [eric]
Did I drop off somehow?
17:42:46 [peaston]
i still hearing
17:42:49 [mphillip]
Amy: In WSDL terms Endpoint can't be overridden - it is the most concrete part of the WSDL
17:42:54 [eric]
I'll call back then.
17:42:57 [Zakim]
17:43:21 [Zakim]
17:44:36 [mphillip]
Peter: WSA might conflict with the endpoint information - is there an override mechanism that sets a precedence in WSA?
17:44:51 [mphillip]
Amy: We have ruled WSA out of scope
17:45:23 [mphillip]
Eric: We do seem to have an issue here - whether it is bringing WSDL 2.0 into line with WSDL 1.0 or vice-versa
17:46:30 [mphillip]
Eric: Question is how we resolve
17:46:40 [mphillip]
Amy: Must stay cosistent with WSDL
17:46:50 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: No objections to opening issue 30
17:46:57 [mphillip]
17:49:30 [mphillip]
soapjms:isFault typing is ambiguous and value is weakened because it is an optional property
17:49:50 [mphillip]
Eric: Don't want the overhead of the header for the 99% non-fault cases
17:52:56 [mphillip]
Eric: The 0 or 1 issue is definitely something we need to address - the isFault aspect is more questionable - for instance it may be a security issue - the definitive information that this is a fault is in the body of the message
17:54:19 [mphillip]
Eric: You could imagine a malicious responder not setting the fault and flooding a requester with effectively a denial of service attack
17:56:03 [mphillip]
Eric: This is an issue which we can talk about
17:56:16 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: No objections to opening the issue
17:57:27 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 8) Accepting applied resolutions:
17:57:46 [mphillip]
18:00:55 [mphillip]
18:01:19 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: All accept the application of Issue 18
18:01:25 [Zakim]
18:01:27 [Zakim]
18:01:27 [Zakim]
18:01:29 [Zakim]
18:01:29 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
18:01:30 [Zakim]
Attendees were alewis, Peter_Easton, eric, mphillip
18:02:02 [mphillip]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:02:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mphillip
18:06:59 [eric]
eric has left #soap-jms
18:28:29 [alewis]
alewis has joined #soap-jms
18:35:34 [mphillip]
mphillip has left #soap-jms
19:03:58 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #soap-jms
19:06:26 [mphillip]
mphillip has joined #soap-jms
19:12:20 [mphillip]
mphillip has joined #soap-jms