16:58:47 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
16:58:47 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/01/04-soap-jms-irc
16:58:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:58:49 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #soap-jms
16:58:51 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SJMS
16:58:51 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
16:58:52 <trackbot> Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
16:58:52 <trackbot> Date: 04 January 2011
16:59:17 <Zakim> WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has now started
16:59:24 <Zakim> +alewis
17:00:12 <Zakim> + +1.512.286.aaaa
17:00:32 <Derek> Derek has joined #SOAP-JMS
17:01:39 <Zakim> + +1.708.246.aabb
17:03:36 <Zakim> +eric
17:04:18 <padams2> padams2 has joined #soap-jms
17:06:04 <eric> eric has joined #soap-jms
17:06:46 <Derek> Zakim, aabb is Derek
17:06:46 <Zakim> +Derek; got it
17:06:51 <eric> Scribe: Eric
17:06:56 <padams> Zakim, who is here?
17:06:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see alewis, +1.512.286.aaaa, Derek, eric
17:06:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see eric, padams, Derek, Zakim, RRSAgent, alewis, trackbot, Yves
17:07:06 <padams> Zakim, aaaa is padams
17:07:06 <Zakim> +padams; got it
17:07:28 <eric> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2011Jan/0000.html
17:08:19 <eric> Topic: Approval of previous meetings minutes
17:08:25 <eric> No objections.
17:08:31 <eric> Topic: Review Agenda
17:09:44 <eric> No comments on agenda.
17:11:52 <eric> Topic: Administrative items
17:12:06 <eric> eric: Any possibility of a face to face?
17:12:11 <eric> Derek: Unlikely
17:12:15 <eric> Phil: Unlikely
17:12:20 <eric> Topic: Action items
17:12:46 <eric> Derek: made a little progress on action 222
17:13:38 <eric> Derek: Will try to review by next week....  Will run them hopefully after next product release.
17:13:56 <eric> Derek: Don't know exactly when QA will be free, probably another month or two.
17:14:58 <eric> Phil: Status is exactly the same as Derek's.  Didn't actually build the test.  Do see some challenges to make it work, don't know for sure that I can make it work with a reasonable effort.  Alternative is to duplicate the work for WAS.
17:15:08 <eric> ... need to figure out how to solve some of the challenges.
17:15:56 <eric> eric: For action 236, email from Mark: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Dec/0025.html
17:16:24 <eric> close action-236
17:16:24 <trackbot> ACTION-236 Apply the resolution as written in the chat closed
17:16:55 <eric> eric: For action 238, email from Mark: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Dec/0024.html
17:19:01 <eric> close action-238
17:19:01 <trackbot> ACTION-238 Roll back incorrectly applied changes to CR closed
17:19:32 <eric> Topic: Moving to PR
17:20:16 <eric> No discussion
17:20:23 <eric> Topic: Specification issues.
17:21:35 <eric> eric: Mark's application of issue 69: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Dec/0025.html
17:26:18 <Zakim> -alewis
17:29:16 <eric> Derek: Question - do we need to raise an issue - we don't apparently require that implementations support BytesMessage.
17:29:32 <eric> Phil: Looks like receiving node text implies that both are required.
17:29:51 <eric> Derek: I thought our intent was that BytesMessage required, TextMessage optional.
17:30:40 <eric> Phil: I read it that a receiving node must support both, due to the constraint of responding in the way that it received a message.  A simple sending component only needs to support one.
17:31:09 <eric> Derek: I have no problem with updating section 2.4
17:34:07 <eric> Phil: Text in 2.6.2 - receiving node cannot make assumptions, and must respond in a like fashion.
17:35:03 <eric> Derek: Really want a clear statement.  Section 2.6.2.3 does impose this requirement, but it isn't clear.
17:35:11 <eric> Phil: We could add something to this section.
17:36:08 <eric> Derek: Where does this sentence belong? 2.6 or 2.4?
17:36:24 <eric> Phil: Don't think it belongs in 2.4...
17:36:35 <eric> ... explicit requirement only on the receiving node.
17:40:36 <eric> eric: There may be server scenarios where allowing a TextMessage response could impose a memory burden on the server.
17:42:19 <eric> Derek: I'd prefer to have a clarification right in 2.4.
17:43:02 <eric> eric: Can you formulate a concrete issue and proposal?
17:43:05 <eric> Derek: yes.
17:43:47 <eric> action: Derek to raise new issue to clarify requirements around which message types must be supported.
17:43:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-239 - Raise new issue to clarify requirements around which message types must be supported. [on Derek Rokicki - due 2011-01-11].
17:45:00 <eric> eric: back to issue 69.
17:45:56 <eric> Resolution: application of resolution of 69 approved.
17:46:53 <eric> Topic: URI scheme
17:48:48 <eric> eric: Expecting possible feedback from Oracle around the 12th of Jan.  Otherwise, just the comments from IANA and Tim Bray.
17:48:57 <eric> Topic: AOB
17:49:23 <Zakim> -eric
17:49:24 <Zakim> -padams
17:49:24 <Zakim> -Derek
17:49:25 <Zakim> WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
17:49:27 <Zakim> Attendees were alewis, +1.512.286.aaaa, +1.708.246.aabb, eric, Derek, padams
17:49:32 <eric> rssagent, generate logs
17:49:50 <eric> rrsagent: please generate logs
17:49:50 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'please generate logs', eric.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:51:33 <padams> padams has left #soap-jms
17:52:19 <Yves> rrsagent, draft logs
17:52:19 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft logs', Yves.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:52:31 <Yves> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:52:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/01/04-soap-jms-minutes.html Yves
19:41:06 <Zakim> Zakim has left #soap-jms