SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference -- 29 Jun 2010

<trackbot> Date: 29 June 2010

) Appointment of the scribe

<scribe> Scribe: Mark

2) Approval of prior meeting minutes

Minutes are approved without modification#

3) Review the agenda

Agenda approved

4) Review action items

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/146 - Eric

scribe: will follow up with Oracle

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/177 - Peter - no status

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/179 - Eric - spec now points at latest draft

close action-179

<trackbot> ACTION-179 Update URI editors spec to reflect latest URI scheme URL closed

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/180 - Eric - new issue (40) raised

close action-180

<trackbot> ACTION-180 Raise issue for use of "m:MaxTime" XML in SOAP 1.2 example from section 2.8 closed

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/181 - Eric - pending namespace discussion

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/182 - Mark - proposal submitted

close action-182

<trackbot> ACTION-182 Check how much of the binding spec. needs to change and make a proposal closed

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/183 - Eric - still pending

5) Namespace discussion

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Jun/0028.html

Eric: We do not have a stable namespace URL

Yves: We might want to keep the namespace from the working draft if there have been no significant changes, but if there are changes from the WD then suggest we use the "ns" version of the namespace - see http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri

Eric: Two places where the namespace is used - to define the protocol, and to namespace the WSDL elements
... Should these be kept the same?

Can't see a reason why we shouldn't keep these the same

Eric: The date has the advantage of showing when the spec was finalised

<Yves> can be http://www.w3.org/YYYY/ssss if you want to keep the date aspect

Eric: So we would establish a new namespace of http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms

Yves: Implementations, tests, and test reports would need to reflect this
... Could publish a new CR to signal to implementors that the namespace has changed
... (going back to CR is ok unless changes are significant enough to go back to Last Call)
... CR process lasts for 6 weeks

Amy: So this shouldn't push out the target PR date

Eric: If we do an additional CR then we could fix the broken link to point to the new value?

Yves: Yes

RESOLUTION: No objections to moving through CR again

<scribe> ACTION: mark to change the namespace to http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/29-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-185 - Change the namespace to http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-07-06].

<scribe> ACTION: Eric to review the spec. looking for other items that will need to change - e.g. editorial notes / nits [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/29-soap-jms-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-186 - Review the spec. looking for other items that will need to change - e.g. editorial notes / nits [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-07-06].

<scribe> ACTION: Derek to review the spec. looking for other items that will need to change - e.g. editorial notes / nits [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/29-soap-jms-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-187 - Review the spec. looking for other items that will need to change - e.g. editorial notes / nits [on Derek Rokicki - due 2010-07-06].

6) Raised spec issues:

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/40

Eric: Essentially a bug in the fault example - no namespace declared for the 'm:' prefix

No objections to opening issue 40

RESOLUTION: Open issue 40

7) Accepting proposals to close open issues

<eric> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#jmsuri

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/27 - leaving open until the URI scheme is finalised

Eric: Also need to change the date in the spec. - will re-open this action item

<eric> ISSUE-39: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Jun/0027.html

<trackbot> ISSUE-39 Please don't rely on JMSMessageID for Protocol 2038 notes added

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/39 - Mark

Mark: Spec needs to change in 3 places per email linked above

No objections to accepting proposal

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/40

Eric: Suggest we remove the detail element

<eric> http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html#SOAP12FaultPayload

No objections to accepting proposed resolution to issue 40

<scribe> ACTION: mark to apply the resolution to issue 39 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/29-soap-jms-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-188 - Apply the resolution to issue 39 [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-07-06].

<scribe> ACTION: Eric to apply resolution for issue 40 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/29-soap-jms-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-189 - Apply resolution for issue 40 [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-07-06].

<scribe> ACTION: Eric to review the test cases once the changes for issue 39 have been applied [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/29-soap-jms-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-190 - Review the test cases once the changes for issue 39 have been applied [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-07-06].

8) Accepting applied resolutions:

Nothing to review

9) Moving to PR

We will go through another CR, this should not affect overall schedule

No update on conforming implementations

10) Misc:

Eric: No news from IETF
... But Glen Daniels has offered to be an independent reviewer
... SO his name has been sent to IETF

11) AOB?

None

- DRAFT -

SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference

29 Jun 2010

Attendees

Contents