16:02:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
16:02:52 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/03/16-soap-jms-irc
16:02:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:02:54 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #soap-jms
16:02:56 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SJMS
16:02:56 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start 2 minutes ago
16:02:57 <trackbot> Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
16:02:57 <trackbot> Date: 16 March 2010
16:04:19 <padams2> padams2 has joined #soap-jms
16:04:27 <mphillip> Chair: Eric
16:04:47 <eric> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:47 <Zakim> WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has not yet started, eric
16:04:49 <Zakim> On IRC I see padams, Zakim, RRSAgent, mphillip, eric, Yves, trackbot
16:05:39 <mphillip> trackbot, start telcon
16:05:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:05:43 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SJMS
16:05:44 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start 5 minutes ago
16:05:44 <trackbot> Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
16:05:45 <trackbot> Date: 16 March 2010
16:05:52 <eric> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:05:52 <Zakim> WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has not yet started, eric
16:05:54 <Zakim> On IRC I see padams, Zakim, RRSAgent, mphillip, eric, Yves, trackbot
16:06:22 <mphillip> Zakim, this is WS_SOAP-JM
16:06:22 <Zakim> ok, mphillip; that matches WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM
16:06:32 <Zakim> +Yves
16:06:44 <eric> zakim, this is SJMS
16:06:44 <Zakim> eric, this was already WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM
16:06:45 <Zakim> ok, eric; that matches WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM
16:07:25 <padams> Zakim, aacc is padams
16:07:25 <Zakim> +padams; got it
16:07:29 <eric> zakim, aaaa is eric
16:07:29 <Zakim> +eric; got it
16:07:51 <padams> zakim, aabb is mphillip
16:07:51 <Zakim> +mphillip; got it
16:07:51 <mphillip> Zakim, aabb is mphillip
16:07:52 <Zakim> sorry, mphillip, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
16:07:53 <Zakim> + +1.919.663.aadd
16:08:33 <mphillip> TOPIC: 1) Appointment of the scribe
16:08:38 <mphillip> scribe: Mphillip
16:09:03 <mphillip> TOPIC: Review the agenda
16:10:18 <mphillip> TOPIC: Review action items
16:10:52 <mphillip> Mark: No progress on 138,147,148
16:11:14 <mphillip> Eric: 143 is completed (see: 
16:11:15 <mphillip>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Mar/0016.html)
16:11:34 <mphillip> Eric: as are 149 and 151 (see links in agenda()
16:11:49 <mphillip> Eric: 146 and 152 still pending 
16:12:08 <mphillip> close action-143
16:12:09 <trackbot> ACTION-143 Ensure that we have tests for all the WSDL assertions closed
16:12:14 <mphillip> close action-149
16:12:14 <trackbot> ACTION-149 Update testcase 6,7 to fix text in "message flow" section to reflect changes made to WSDL fragment closed
16:12:18 <mphillip> close action-151
16:12:18 <trackbot> ACTION-151 Develop a proposal for how to address protocol-2015 closed
16:12:27 <mphillip> Phil: No progress on 150
16:12:58 <mphillip> TOPIC: URI specification
16:13:10 <mphillip> Nothing to add - Eric has action item to follow up with Oracle
16:13:21 <mphillip> TOPIC: Moving to PR
16:13:29 <mphillip> See: 
16:13:29 <mphillip>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Mar/0018.html
16:15:13 <mphillip> Eric: We are close to moving towards public review
16:15:16 <mphillip> Phil: Agreed
16:15:21 <mphillip> Mark: Agreed
16:16:51 <Yves> note form the CR status of the document: SOTD
16:16:59 <Yves> The Working Group intend to submit this document for consideration as a W3C Proposed Recommendation after 31 August 2009 having met the following criteria:
16:16:59 <Yves>    1.
16:16:59 <Yves>       At least two implementations have demonstrated interoperability of each feature.
16:16:59 <Yves>    2.
16:17:00 <Yves>       All issues raised during the CR period against this document have received formal responses.
16:19:44 <mphillip> Eric: The process does not require two interoperable implementations as long as there are two implementations that pass each of the test cases (and that have documented this)
16:20:51 <mphillip> Phil: The implementations are not necessarily the same class of middleware so it may be difficult to implement test cases that are applicable to all implementations
16:23:17 <mphillip> Eric: As we've discussed, we could have a bare bones JMS test harness which dummys up the request and identifies the expected response
16:24:43 <mphillip> Eric: Practically we may not have the resources to set up a full interop test 
16:26:10 <mphillip> Eric: Can we take these back to our product teams and see what they can do 
16:28:26 <mphillip> Yves: When we did interrop tests for WSI the test was an echo from the toolkit serialising and deserialisng which was enough to show if there were problems 
16:28:45 <Yves> s/WSI/WS-Databiding/
16:29:12 <Yves> s/WS-Databinding/XML Schema Patterns for Databinding/
16:30:22 <mphillip> mphillip: We should be able to do some interop testing within different implementations in IBM, and possibly could share the trace from the test
16:30:52 <mphillip> Eric: ...and the tests and trace do not need to be made public... this may be something that we only share amongst ourselves
16:32:05 <mphillip> Eric: or we buy some resources on (for example) the Amazon cloud, and set up images which we use to demostrate interoperability 
16:32:27 <mphillip> action Eric to investigate feasibility of operating JMS in the cloud
16:32:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-153 - Investigate feasibility of operating JMS in the cloud [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-03-23].
16:38:15 <mphillip> Phil: "At least two implementations have demonstrated interoperability of each feature." - does this just mean each required feature - i.e. not WSDL
16:39:23 <mphillip> Yves: Correct - this does not have to include optional features - though ideally it would
16:40:32 <mphillip> action mark to Investigate IBM's legal position in sharing or using IBM product test suites in interops tests
16:40:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-154 - Investigate IBM's legal position in sharing or using IBM product test suites in interops tests [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-03-23].
16:42:26 <mphillip> Eric: How many tests can an implementation run without WSDL?  ...and if we take out all the WSDL tests, would we eliminate protocol statements for non-WSDL requirements
16:43:04 <mphillip> Eric: i.e. Can we still test all the normative assertions without the WSDL tests 
16:43:46 <mphillip> action Phil to check that we have coverage of all non-WSDL assertions if we do not run the WSDL tests
16:43:46 <trackbot> Created ACTION-155 - Check that we have coverage of all non-WSDL assertions if we do not run the WSDL tests [on Phil Adams - due 2010-03-23].
16:44:19 <mphillip> TOPIC: Next Week's Meeting
16:45:19 <mphillip> Eric: Not available next week (at EclipseCon) - would anyone else like to chair?
16:45:41 <mphillip> Phil: We probably have enough actions to be getting on with
16:46:08 <mphillip> Agreed, could use the time to progress actions
16:49:03 <mphillip> AOB: 
16:49:25 <mphillip> action Eric to come uo with counter proposal for issue 31 (isFault)
16:49:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-156 - Come uo with counter proposal for issue 31 (isFault) [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-03-23].
16:49:36 <eric> s/uo/up/
16:51:04 <Zakim> -padams
16:51:06 <Zakim> - +1.919.663.aadd
16:51:07 <Zakim> -Yves
16:51:09 <mphillip> NOTE: Next meeting on 30th - normal time
16:51:09 <Zakim> -mphillip
16:51:09 <Zakim> WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
16:51:10 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.209.474.aaaa, +0196270aabb, +1.512.286.aacc, Yves, padams, eric, mphillip, +1.919.663.aadd
16:51:29 <mphillip> rrsagent, make minutes
16:51:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/03/16-soap-jms-minutes.html mphillip
16:51:32 <padams> padams has left #soap-jms
18:21:38 <mphillip> mphillip has joined #soap-jms
18:28:11 <Zakim> Zakim has left #soap-jms
18:48:22 <mphillip> mphillip has left #soap-jms
19:29:27 <eric> eric has joined #soap-jms
19:29:46 <eric> eric has left #soap-jms