IRC log of soap-jms on 2010-11-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:00:08 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
17:00:08 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:00:10 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:00:10 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #soap-jms
17:00:12 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SJMS
17:00:12 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start now
17:00:13 [trackbot]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
17:00:13 [trackbot]
Date: 30 November 2010
17:00:32 [padams]
Zakim, who is here?
17:00:32 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has not yet started, padams
17:00:33 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, padams, mphillip, trackbot, Yves
17:01:09 [eric]
eric has joined #soap-jms
17:01:20 [peaston]
peaston has joined #soap-jms
17:01:22 [alewis]
alewis has joined #soap-jms
17:01:50 [Derek]
Derek has joined #SOAP-JMS
17:01:52 [Zakim]
17:02:01 [mphillip]
trackbot, start telcon
17:02:03 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:02:05 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SJMS
17:02:05 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start 2 minutes ago
17:02:06 [trackbot]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
17:02:06 [trackbot]
Date: 30 November 2010
17:03:13 [eric]
Zakim, aabb is me
17:03:13 [Zakim]
+eric; got it
17:03:55 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Appointment of the scribe
17:04:01 [mphillip]
Scribe: Mark
17:04:20 [mphillip]
Chair: Eric
17:04:29 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Approval of prior meeting minutes
17:04:34 [mphillip]
17:05:22 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: Minutes are approved
17:05:30 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Review the agenda
17:06:17 [mphillip]
No changes to agenda
17:06:20 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Administrative items
17:06:44 [mphillip]
Eric: The workgroup charter was scheduled to expire this December
17:07:29 [mphillip]
Eric: That isn't a problem as long as the WG is seen to be making progress, however Yves has extended our charter to the middle of next year
17:07:45 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Review action items
17:08:00 [mphillip]
Eric: No progress on 146, or 202
17:08:20 [mphillip]
Derek: Started looking at 222 - still in progress
17:08:37 [mphillip]
Phil: 223 still pending
17:09:21 [mphillip]
Peter: 225 (testcase mods arising from action 219) - now done
17:09:25 [mphillip]
close action-225
17:09:25 [trackbot]
ACTION-225 Apply Action-219 changes to test spec closed
17:09:54 [mphillip]
Phil: ACTION-227 is done -
17:10:20 [mphillip]
close action-227
17:10:20 [trackbot]
ACTION-227 Raise issue on the SOAP/JMS namespace distinction between SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 and present proposal closed
17:10:30 [mphillip]
Eric: 228 is done
17:10:35 [mphillip]
close action-228
17:10:35 [trackbot]
ACTION-228 Come up with a proposal for Issue-65 closed
17:11:10 [mphillip]
Phil: 229 - is done - see:
17:11:25 [mphillip]
close action-229
17:11:25 [trackbot]
ACTION-229 Come up with a proposal for Issue-65 closed
17:11:48 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Moving to PR (via CR? & LC)
17:14:26 [mphillip]
Mark: Starting to look at whether IBM's WebSphere Message Broker can be tested against CXF (an independent implementation from WebSphere App Server)
17:15:18 [mphillip]
Phil: What about pending chages e.g. Issue 65?
17:15:33 [mphillip]
Eric: For the purposes of moving to PR, implementations must conform to last published draft.
17:15:49 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Specification Issues:
17:15:59 [mphillip]
17:17:45 [mphillip]
Phil: JAX-WS provides a value that can be used by an endpoint developer in the Binding type annotation to specify the SOAP version and the transport. Our Binding spec only defines a single namespace, and so is insufficient to denote both SOAP version(1.1 or 1.2) and transport (JMS)
17:18:14 [mphillip]
Phil: Proposal is to define 2 values - one for SOAP 1.1 and the other for SOAP 1.2
17:19:08 [mphillip]
See propoalin ISSUE-67 following the text "Regarding specific changes to the binding spec to resolve this issue"...
17:19:41 [mphillip]
s/propoalin/proposal in/
17:21:07 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: no objections - ISSUE-67 is opened
17:26:33 [mphillip]
Mark: Do we need to update namespace table etc. in spec.
17:27:07 [mphillip]
Phil: No, should keep everything else the same - these are new namespace values
17:28:03 [mphillip]
Eric: *Could* add these in as additional normative values in spec. but can't see any concrete use cases for that
17:28:42 [mphillip]
Eric: Suggest dropping the last paragraph in the proposal (which begins "Ideally, these values would be defined by the JAX-WS specification")
17:29:54 [mphillip]
Eric: ...and perhaps amend the previous paragraph to be more generalised - so that it doesn't just apply to JAX-WS
17:31:14 [mphillip]
Phil: Perhaps we could replace the final paragraph with some text that acknowledges that there may be some other technologies that would find these values useful
17:32:45 [mphillip]
Eric: That might be overkill unless we can think of concrete examples
17:33:18 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: The proposal is approved with the final paragraph removed
17:34:09 [mphillip]
action mark to apply the changes for ISSUE-67
17:34:09 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-230 - Apply the changes for ISSUE-67 [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-12-07].
17:34:27 [mphillip]
17:37:42 [mphillip]
Eric: Public comments from the mailing list regarding the use of the API for Setting JMS Header properties
17:37:54 [mphillip]
Mark: Good spot - been in the spec for a long time
17:37:57 [mphillip]
Phil: +1
17:38:13 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: The ISSUE-68 is opened
17:39:00 [mphillip]
action : mark to come up with a concrete proposal to resolve issue 68
17:39:00 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-231 - Come up with a concrete proposal to resolve issue 68 [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-12-07].
17:39:24 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Open Issues
17:39:52 [mphillip]
Eric: Changed spec. to point at revision 10 of URI scheme ( )
17:40:03 [mphillip]
17:40:25 [mphillip]
Eric's proposal:
17:40:28 [eric]
17:40:59 [eric]
Issues to discuss:
17:47:32 [mphillip]
Discussion: No way to find out what encodings a service provider supports.
17:48:28 [mphillip]
Eric: HTTP can determine what encodings a web server Accepts but this proposal does not include an equivalent
17:50:17 [mphillip]
Amy: We could simplfiy by saying that content-encoding can only be applied to single part messages
17:51:11 [mphillip]
Eric: Yes - that's a slightly different issue - do we wnat to allow this property for multi-part messages?
17:51:18 [mphillip]
17:55:23 [mphillip]
Amy: In 2.2.3 we would add a bullet point that says soapjms:contentEncoding must not be used for multi-part messages
17:58:05 [mphillip]
Phil: If we adopt this as a normative change it will require changes to existing implementations - at a minimum, to check for this new property, and throw the appropriate SOAP fault if encoding is not supported
17:59:20 [alewis]
* Restriction: the property is not defined for composite messages (messages with a Content-Type of "multipart" or "message"), only for discrete messages (Content-Type "application" or "text", for this specification).
17:59:26 [mphillip]
Eric: we *could* soften the requirement in the final bullet in 2.2.3 to "SHOULD" so that existing implementations don't change
17:59:55 [mphillip]
Eric: If we keep the hard requirement we would need a new test to send a bogus encoding and ensure we get a fault back
18:00:38 [mphillip]
Phil: We shoud make it a MUST if we'e going to put it in at all
18:01:14 [mphillip]
Peter: Agree with the discussion - still pondering SHOULD vs. MUST for the fault
18:01:41 [mphillip]
Mark: If we add a new fault we will also need to add it to the schema
18:02:15 [mphillip]
Eric: If anyone cares strongly about the MUST then please make a counter proposal
18:03:12 [Zakim]
18:03:13 [Zakim]
18:03:15 [Zakim]
- +1.781.280.aacc
18:03:17 [Zakim]
18:03:19 [Zakim]
18:03:19 [mphillip]
Eric: to revise the proposal with Amy's addition and the fault in the proposal
18:03:25 [Zakim]
18:03:27 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
18:03:28 [Zakim]
Attendees were padams, +1.919.663.aaaa, Derek, Mark, +1.209.474.aabb, +1.781.280.aacc, alewis, eric
18:03:38 [mphillip]
action: Eric to revise the proposal with Amy's addition and the fault in the proposal
18:03:38 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-232 - Revise the proposal with Amy's addition and the fault in the proposal [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-12-07].
18:04:08 [mphillip]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:04:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mphillip
18:04:14 [padams]
padams has left #soap-jms
18:04:17 [mphillip]
rrsagent, make log public
18:04:33 [eric]
eric has left #soap-jms
18:07:22 [mphillip]
mphillip has left #soap-jms
19:03:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #soap-jms