IRC log of soap-jms on 2010-05-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:03:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
16:03:58 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:04:00 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:04:00 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #soap-jms
16:04:02 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SJMS
16:04:03 [trackbot]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
16:04:03 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start 4 minutes ago
16:04:03 [trackbot]
Date: 11 May 2010
16:04:22 [eric]
Zakim, this is SJMS
16:04:22 [Zakim]
ok, eric; that matches WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM
16:04:28 [eric]
Zakim, who is here?
16:04:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.512.918.aaaa, +1.708.246.aabb, +1.209.474.aacc, +1.781.280.aadd
16:04:30 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, eric, Derek, peaston, padams, Yves, trackbot
16:04:36 [padams]
Zakim, aaaa is padams
16:04:36 [Zakim]
+padams; got it
16:04:38 [eric]
Zakim, aacc is eric
16:04:38 [Zakim]
+eric; got it
16:04:42 [eric]
Zakim, who is here?
16:04:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see padams, +1.708.246.aabb, eric, +1.781.280.aadd
16:04:44 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, eric, Derek, peaston, padams, Yves, trackbot
16:05:15 [eric]
Zakim, Derek is aabb
16:05:15 [Zakim]
sorry, eric, I do not recognize a party named 'Derek'
16:05:23 [eric]
Zakim, peaston is aadd
16:05:23 [Zakim]
sorry, eric, I do not recognize a party named 'peaston'
16:05:53 [padams]
Zakim, aabb is Derek
16:05:53 [Zakim]
+Derek; got it
16:06:05 [padams]
Zakim, aadd is peaston
16:06:05 [Zakim]
+peaston; got it
16:06:28 [Zakim]
+ +0196287aaee
16:07:20 [mphillip]
mphillip has joined #soap-jms
16:07:57 [mphillip]
scribe: Mark
16:08:01 [mphillip]
chair: Eric
16:08:25 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 2) Approval of prior meeting minutes
16:08:53 [mphillip]
No objections - the minutes are approved
16:09:06 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 3) Review the agenda
16:09:51 [mphillip]
The agenda is approved as-is
16:10:02 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 4) Review action items
16:11:07 [mphillip] - Eric is still waiting for Oracle
16:15:41 [mphillip] - Mark - need to revise the proposal - will not be a spec change but may require clarification of the FAQ
16:16:45 [mphillip] - Mark - no complete
16:16:49 [padams]
16:17:02 [mphillip] - Phil - see mail above
16:18:12 [mphillip]
Phil: This is complete - involved changing test cases to ensure full coverage of assertions
16:18:24 [mphillip]
close action-160
16:18:24 [trackbot]
ACTION-160 Implement the test coverage proposals closed
16:18:37 [mphillip] - Phil
16:19:11 [mphillip]
Phil: This was the change to the spec for WSDL precendence - now complete
16:19:15 [mphillip]
close action-161
16:19:15 [trackbot]
ACTION-161 Re-apply resolution of Issue 31 as per agreed April 13 closed
16:19:26 [mphillip] - Eric
16:20:20 [mphillip]
Eric: Action was to defining new test cases for isFault, but we had a bunch of test cases already that return faults, so this action was completed by modifying the existing tests
16:20:46 [mphillip]
close action-162
16:20:46 [trackbot]
ACTION-162 Define 2 new test cases for isFault closed
16:21:01 [mphillip] - Eric
16:22:13 [mphillip]
Eric: Action was to approach CXF - mail has been sent, leave open until we get a response
16:22:31 [mphillip] - Peter
16:24:51 [mphillip]
Peter: Progress has a sponsored rep. on the CXF project - would be a better contact for action 163
16:25:01 [mphillip]
Peter: actions 164 and 165 are complete
16:25:06 [mphillip]
close action-164
16:25:07 [trackbot]
ACTION-164 Look at CXF samples and text, and report back to group at how to assess the coverage vs. SOAP/JMS test suite. closed
16:25:09 [mphillip]
close action-165
16:25:09 [trackbot]
ACTION-165 Look at test suite coverage of existing CXF. closed
16:25:38 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 5) URI specification:
16:26:18 [mphillip]
Eric: Does it make sense to republish as-is under the existing terms (i.e. not under the new terms which transfer IP to the IETF trust)
16:27:30 [mphillip]
Eric: If we republish we could start the process to get the RFC approved now
16:29:56 [mphillip]
Phil, Mark, Peter, Derek all agree that it makes sense to get the RFC approval process moving again anad to continue to try to get Oracle to approve the new terms in parallel
16:31:36 [mphillip]
Eric: Will make the few outstanding updates, republish as a new version of the draft, and then approach the RFC review mailing list again
16:32:10 [mphillip]
action Eric to update the URI RFC and republish, then resubmit to IETF review mailing list
16:32:11 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-166 - Update the URI RFC and republish, then resubmit to IETF review mailing list [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-05-18].
16:32:45 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 6) Raised issues:
16:33:15 [mphillip]
Issue 27 will be closed when we have republished uRI scheme
16:33:37 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 8) Accepting applied resolutions:
16:33:43 [padams]
16:34:08 [padams]
16:34:11 [mphillip]
Phil: Resolution for issue 31`
16:35:28 [mphillip]
Phil: See 3.4.4 and
16:37:34 [mphillip]
Updated proposal was:
16:38:57 [eric]
16:39:27 [padams]
16:39:28 [eric]
16:40:42 [mphillip]
Eric: The difference is clearest when viewing spec. versions 1.81 and 1.83 side-by-side (links above)
16:41:09 [peaston]
peaston has joined #soap-jms
16:41:36 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: No objections to applying the resolution - Issue 31 can be closed
16:41:58 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 9) Moving to PR
16:43:03 [mphillip]
Eric: Last week we discussed working with CXF to be the vendor neutral reference implementation of the spec. that vendor products could test interoperability against
16:43:59 [eric]
16:44:03 [mphillip]
Peter: Latest snapshot of CXF has the SOAP/JMS support. The implementation follows our test cases, but does not have SOAP 1.2 testing
16:44:35 [mphillip]
Peter: CXF does not support WSDL 2 but otherwise is quite comprehensive
16:45:20 [mphillip]
Peter: Implementation is current up to around Sep 2009
16:51:37 [mphillip]
Eric: CXF don't support WSDL 2, are any of us thinking of WSDL 2 support?
16:51:57 [mphillip] has immediate plans
16:52:58 [mphillip1]
mphillip1 has joined #soap-jms
16:56:00 [mphillip]
mphillip has joined #soap-jms
16:56:08 [mphillip]
consensus is that market adoption of WSDL 2 has been smal
16:57:09 [mphillip]
there is a danger that we will not get 2 conforming implementatins of WSDL 2
16:57:10 [mphillip]
action Eric to talk to Yves about possibility of making WSDL 2.0 section non-normative
16:57:10 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-167 - Talk to Yves about possibility of making WSDL 2.0 section non-normative [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-05-18].
16:58:15 [mphillip]
16:58:41 [mphillip]
16:58:43 [Zakim]
16:58:44 [Zakim]
16:58:44 [mphillip]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:58:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mphillip
16:58:45 [Zakim]
16:58:45 [Zakim]
16:58:51 [Zakim]
- +0196287aaee
16:58:52 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
16:58:53 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.512.918.aaaa, +1.708.246.aabb, +1.209.474.aacc, +1.781.280.aadd, padams, eric, Derek, peaston, +0196287aaee
16:59:15 [eric]
rrsagent, make minutes public
16:59:15 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', eric. Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:00:06 [padams]
padams has left #soap-jms
17:00:21 [eric]
eric has left #soap-jms
17:39:17 [mphillip]
mphillip has joined #soap-jms
18:36:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #soap-jms