16:58:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
16:58:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/03/02-soap-jms-irc
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> +alewis
17:01:25 <peaston> peaston has joined #soap-jms
17:01:42 <mphillip> mphillip has joined #soap-jms
17:02:10 <Zakim> +Peter_Easton
17:02:22 <eric> eric has joined #soap-jms
17:02:23 <Zakim> +eric
17:02:39 <Zakim> +mphillip
17:02:40 <mphillip> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Mar/0000.html
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> done
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> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/28
17:10:31 <Zakim> -eric
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> +eric
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> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/29
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> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/30
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> -eric
17:43:21 <Zakim> +eric
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> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/31
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> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/18
18:00:55 <mphillip> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Jan/0025.html
18:01:19 <mphillip> RESOLUTION: All accept the application of Issue 18
18:01:25 <Zakim> -Peter_Easton
18:01:27 <Zakim> -eric
18:01:27 <Zakim> -alewis
18:01:29 <Zakim> -mphillip
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 http://www.w3.org/2010/03/02-soap-jms-minutes.html 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